The problem is that being present in a group isn't the same thing as being part of it socially.

I do believe high standards are behind a lot of the dating issues. Dating pools are so large that people hold out for the right combination of the things they find desirable--except they're never going to find that because they don't have exactly the right combination to attract that "perfect" match.

I can't help but think that in 1910, both the concept of "fear of rejection" and "high standards" would have made no sense to people at the time. Yet I would agree that they are valid concepts today. We have to explore why these two concepts exist and why they did not exist in 1910. It seems valid to call them side effects of something bigger, what the bigger is I don't know. I don't see how society can address these two issues without addressing the other issues that lead to the existence of these.

I'm not sure why you believe that "high standards" and "fear of rejection" didn't exist a hundred years ago. Think Gatsby, from the Great Gatsby (published 1925): dude longed for human connection (hence throwing massive parties), but was terrified of being outed as not belonging to the social strata he found himself in. That's fear of rejection. People being to good for others is basis of the class system, and that predates written history.

The world has become a much bigger place. You used to know who to avoid, the default was someone was acceptable. Now the ones to avoid move around and it's all too likely that a newcomer is such a person.

> Now the ones to avoid move around and it's all too likely that a newcomer is such a person.

This seems a wild generalization to make, though I guess "be suspicious of newcomers" is a little biologically hardwired. What's your epistemology for believing "newcomers" are "the ones to avoid"?

I think it's still likely that most new people you'll encounter aren't malicious. I have to wonder what your mental image of a 'newcomer' looks like.

The basic problem with this is that the ones that are trying too hard are doing so because the standard approach failed.

Maybe you get lucky, but it's not a general solution.

What is the standard approach?

I find that being genuine and vulnerable and having no hidden agenda works wonders.

The problem with this answer, as with so much about various activities is that it selects for those who can.

Fundamentally, people don't like situations with no good answer. I see it again and again, present a problem with no good answer and most people will resort to the answer that aligns with their political leanings even when faced with clear evidence they are wrong.

Look how quickly big business rolled over for The Felon--because they saw what mot people have been denying since the election.

big business will always act in the interest of big business. Only a stupid business man will confront the full-might of the executive branch of the federal government heads on, particularly when the President is showing that he is willing to use that power against anybody

Big business will always side with the oppressors, it's like we learned nothing from history about colonialism, imperialism, or the history of european fascism. I mean FFS it was corporations that financed Mussolini. As you said they don't care, they just want to make money.

Natural fission reactors are pretty slow things, I wouldn't think they would be very good at forming transuranics.

But there's another source out there that we can't see: imagine what's happening in the electron-degenerate portion of a neutron star. The same process that creates the heavy stuff that gets tossed about from mergers is also going to create higher stuff that will decay before we ever see it.

Finally someone addresses the king's attire!

State a problem. Propose a "solution" without doing anything to establish that it is actually a solution. Make it about "real", ignore the real issue of what one gets from the calories consumed. It's not the processing that makes food bad, it's that ultraprocessed foods are optimized for enjoyable eating, messing up our body's regulatory system. We eat too many calories too fast and get little from them other than calories.

Especially objectionable to me is whole milk. It's so easy to drink so many calories.

What they need to do is handle disability better. When you try to make it one size fits all you're either too generous with the cheap problems or too stingy with the expensive ones.

Junk food very often is more calories per $. Doesn't matter if they want to eat better, they can't afford to.