ive always imagined that test audiences believed it to be a prosthetic and therefore a deliberate creative choice by lars von trier. which is fucking hilarious, because it so thoroughly cheapens the serious arthouse themes he was playing with of like sex and nature and depression if you believe another theme he wanted to showcase was “and the guy has an absolutely monstrous hog”

ok, can I see the data?

the people we should be concerned about getting their hands on this data are not like, goateed hackers. they’re banks, insurance companies, recruiters. those are some pretty powerful lobbies

the good news is it’s very easy to get some practice

look, I read the Economist every time I’m at my dentist’s office, so I’m obviously a little bit ahead of the curve in terms of political literacy, but I’m not sure I understand what this comic is trying to say, given that the events it depicts did not literally happen. could someone explain what this comic means? it would be a great help.

unrelatedly, but just as urgently, is there anyone who is an expert in going to the bathroom? I got to the part where my pants are fully pulled down around my ankles, but I’m not sure how to sit if I have to make both doodie and weewee. I’m guessing I face the tank? thanks in advance.

they’re not really doing this, are they? i assumed it was a clickbait outrage farm concept that would never see the light of day

running a picture of myself through the app fifty times instead of getting an MRI

yeah personally i was hoping they’d give the role to margo martindale