Because there are a lot more people, breaking news, and content on there compared to anywhere else.

Is this theory even falsifiable?

A few years ago I would have bought some stocks to support them … Now, I’d counsel anybody to stay away from that stock because the company could further alienate and lose most of their active users at any time.

Waste of money brains and time 😸

Worst: TLA

Best: WOMBAT

I remember how happy I was when I got rid of cable, where I had to pay for fox news and sportsball and ahost of other channels I never watched … which is now a very similar situation with every stupid streaming service.

… Again.

Business insider has been on my block list for quite a while … Their articles are just low effort and quality.

Do you believe Trump would have handled this conflict any better?

Where is the fucking Talaxian tenderloin sauce?!?

I have plenty of folks in my circles who never read or reply to emails :p

I just started strange new worlds and it really took me back to when I watched stng for the first time.

Yes, thanks to Duo, this is exactly my level of Spanish :p

¡Felicidades a nosotros!

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ

Sie glauben wohl auch, daß wir hier oben etwas altmodisch sind…

The click of death will come for them eventually :p

It used to be a piggy bank and peeps from many countries had no idea what that was supposed to be…

I mostly question the “sincere” part …

Warum nicht teurer UND kleiner?!?

Und in dem SWR Report steht nicht ein Wort, dass das größtenteils Hirngespinste sind?!?