y0kai

joined 1 month ago
[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the elastic is stretchy enough i just stick it in my waistband if I'm home in my undies and for some reason can't just use my hand to hold it or put it on a surface of some kind.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I dated a girl once who was amazed by the "pocket" in my boxer-briefs until she found it it was actually just the weird hole thing they put in the front that acts as a fly.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

honestly, among other things, they say things like "cope and seethe" lmao

I get that you were being satirical but it didn't translate well to me either haha

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

didn't mean to say it's an issue that affects one gender.

I didn't think you were lol, I just meant within the context of legwear/purses, that selling an extra thing to one gender at the expense of a feature in another product seems like it would make more sense if you did it for 100% of the pocketed-clothing market, rather than focusing on 50% of the potential customers.

But then, such is marketing and human behavior.

(I'll carry anything for them), and I always try to get them clothes with pockets.

Good on you! You sound like a good parent.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 136 points 2 weeks ago (49 children)

My next phone will run Linux, even if it is inconvenient.

As soon as this phone is paid off, I'll be changing from Google Fi as well. Which sucks because it's hella cheap.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes, but this is also true for women. I feel like pant/skirt companies would make more money just selling pants/skirts with pockets if their competitors weren't, unless all bottom-clothes companies also started selling purses at the same time in some sort of anti-female-pocket cartel.

I'm sure there's some history behind this that I don't fully understand. The logic just seems flawed to me.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Books weren't designed to be addictive and make you lose track of time.

Maybe not all books, but a good book is, to me, quite addictive and causes me to lose track of time.

After reading the article though, I'm realizing I'm not a typical bathroom user. I've always had digestive issues unrelated to books and cell phones, so my loo time is much longer than average, it seems. I must be one of those 7%.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 3 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

But if this logic works, why aren't they tricking men into buying something else too?

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 6 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

not to defend smart phones, but I used to read books on the toilet before phones became popular and never had a problem. What's different about a phone?

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The rules contradict themselves.

You can't seriously tell me not to take things seriously and then expect me to take not taking things seriously seriously.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 13 points 2 weeks ago

🍿

lol that guy sucks.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure for most of them you just type update and it will update.

view more: ‹ prev next ›