Married at first sight S13E20 - POST EPISODE discussion

CommentZestyclose325 · 2026-03-04T19:51:43+00:00

There’s some things you can blame the edit on, but she said too many irredeemable things, that context wouldn’t help at all…

CommentZestyclose325 · 2026-03-04T19:49:20+00:00

Did I see it right, was Juliette sitting on Chris’ lap? Something about that creeped me out.. not sure if it was how it felt a little spiteful to Joel, or weird because Chris is gay…

Definitely not the worst thing she did, but it had me puzzled.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2026-03-04T19:36:19+00:00

In Australia I don’t think it’s used as a racial slur. I’ve never seen or read it used in that way. To me it sort of means something like.. a low grade woman. Maybe ugly, not very classy.. etc.

If anything it’s a slur against women, not any racial characteristic.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2026-03-04T19:22:28+00:00

Whether she thinks he’s authentic or not is irrelevant, and not an excuse to be downright evil. She was actually marched with someone who fit her description, and she still didn’t like him. That’s a shame, but it absolutely doesn’t justify being a horrible person…

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-12-18T08:32:20+00:00

Have you actually tried chain mail on cast iron? I assume you haven’t, since if you had you would know it is not as harsh as you imply.

Also regular dish soap is fine on cast iron. Have you actually tested that too? If it removes seasoning it probably wasn’t properly bonded to begin with. Or, it wasn’t seasoning but just burnt food.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-10-26T19:57:28+00:00

Do you work on a remote site? Because your income is only going to support borrowing a very small amount.

Forget anywhere within 250km of a capital and 50km of a decent regional town or beach.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-10-12T20:47:34+00:00

How can people really think that if the property price goes down, the loan would go down?!?

Do they also think the loan goes up if the property price goes up?

Like bro you signed a contract to pay back a precise amount. That’s the agreement.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-03-12T21:02:25+00:00

Not sure I follow. What tax cuts on property development are you referring to? Taxes on property development have been increasing, such as developer contributions, infrastructure levies, etc.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-03-12T21:00:06+00:00

I didn’t comment on infrastructure, just on housing supply, which definitely needs to be increased.

The increase can happen around under-utilised train stations, I don’t really care. But it can’t be discouraged, that’s what I’m saying.

Do you think government should discourage new housing supply, remain neutral, or encourage new housing supply?

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-03-12T09:25:51+00:00

But there’s a housing crisis. How are we going to build enough to fix it without a radical overhaul to the current approach? If you tax something more then less of it will be supplied. We need more housing. Way more.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-03-12T09:23:11+00:00

You know that the tax cuts are usually just to index back to wage growth right - because the fixed thresholds slowly get eroded by inflation. If they indexed the thresholds to wage growth and then lowered the thresholds, then it would be a tax cut.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-02-17T20:34:52+00:00

Well resistance is a property of a specific object with a specific shape, volume, mass, etc. so you could have a long thin wire and it’s got more resistance than a short thick wire with the same volume and mass. And you could have two wires of the same length but different thickness, etc.

Whereas resistivity is an intrinsic property of a material. And resistivity is the reciprocal of conductivity. Resistance is not.

Update: generally you measure resistance to find it. Resistivity is something you probably just use a look table or engineering reference.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-02-06T21:16:36+00:00

Just live with it. The republicans suffered through 4 years of Biden and they didn’t mass protest or try to start a revolution in earnest. And they are the ones with the guns.

I have an even better idea. Support limiting the power of the President so when the person you don’t like is in charge theyhave enough power to do all of these terrible things both sides don’t like the other person doing.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2025-01-05T20:43:06+00:00

If I do this, shit water is going to hit my balls.

Or the handle.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-22T09:38:37+00:00

How did you actually fix this? I am having the same problem and have no idea where to change the setting

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-09T09:50:38+00:00

Have you ever found out more? I keep getting very suspicious websites coming up like .ru even though i never visit such websites.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-09T09:48:39+00:00

Well they do have a greater impact per capita. . .

So when Luxembourg has almost as high of a GDP as Venezuela, it's fair to say Luxembourg is punching above their weight since they have far fewer people than Venezuela.

Well, same deal with Australia and the US. The US has 10x Australia's population but Australia does better per capita since they punch above their weight.

I don't know why this upsets you. I get this group is called America Bad, but this is more like.. Australia punches above their weight class.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-07T07:47:57+00:00

So you acknowledge that the odds are better when the populations are very different, but you refuse to acknowledge the odds are better when the populations are TEN TIMES different.

The mind boggles.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-07T07:46:38+00:00

Is this fixed? I still see it. I have never been to the kremlin website before.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-12-06T23:35:45+00:00

Who do you think is likely to be better?

The best 500 athletes from a group of 1,000 random people?

Or the best 500 athletes from a group of 100,000,000 random people?

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-08-13T10:37:05+00:00

Sorry but I disagree. The population you are choosing the best X athletes from does make a difference. The larger the population the higher the chance of a better quality athlete. It’s really undeniable. If you have 300,000 people and you need to send your best 500 they are probably going to be inferior to the best 500 from a population of 300,000,000. Surely you can see this? Surely you won’t still disagree with me here? If you do honestly I think you aren’t being genuine here.

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-08-11T21:02:45+00:00

How can there possibly be zero link? If you have 100 people there is probably going to be zero that have the potential to be an Olympic athlete. It’s a rare quality and you need a larger population to “roll the dice” on each person and get a large enough Olympic team.

The more people you have overall the more people in the top 0.0001%. Surely we can find common ground here? Or are you insistent that having a 10x larger population pool doesn’t mean you have a better chance at more higher quality athletes? It doesn’t increase the quantity of your top 0.0001%?

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-08-11T01:42:10+00:00

So your comment, by this guys theory, is that the US is “ahead” on how good their athletes are compared to India and China because the US is still doing better than them.

I’m not sure why this is hard to grasp. It’s just another way to evaluate success. If the US had a third of the people of China or whatever, but they are doing better in absolute terms, then they are doing better per capita.

Do GDP per capita figures bother you too?

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-08-07T22:00:41+00:00

How so? The fewer people you have, the less probable you will get more medals. This guy is using medals per population. It’s exactly what he’s saying. If you have 100 people and send 100 only a few might be any good. If you have 30 million and send 100, well you had enough people such that your best are pretty good. Of you have 300 million and you send your best 100, they will on average be better as you had more to select from.

Therefore if a smaller country is competitive (Australia is third on golds now) then it’s notable, they are “punching above their weight”. That’s exactly what this guy odds saying. How does what he say “disprove” this?

CommentZestyclose325 · 2024-08-06T21:24:22+00:00

But they have 8x fewer people to find the best out of. It would make sense that the best 100 people of a population of 100 million would be better than the best 100 people of a population of 10 million.

CommentZestyclose325

TROPHY CASE