A store where you can go get something glued so you don't have to buy glue. The Gluing Store. Or The Glue Guy maybe. Or could go cute, like Gluester McStickie's.

Actually my first answer didn't address the core question. This fear of sucking that most of us have, it's actually arrogance. It's not a fear of sucking, it's a fear of not being so great that you shit gold every time you sit down to write. So the answer to that one is always: Get over yourself.

I have 3 tricks: 1, have your characters start talking to each other about why their scene sucks. Usually they solve it. 2, start an email to yourself explaining why your thing sucks. Be mad at them, as if they're making you make it suck. 3, write at McDonalds. You can't leave until you do a scene.

i don't think the speed is the lede here

The company that makes the banners is really hoping these talks go on forever.

lot of people asking why I didn't take the stage with Sabrina Carpenter and Madonna last night. Woulda been fun, but at the last minute I was told that my outfit (body paint and penis beads) was too risqué and also that I was "not anyone."

Elon Musk Touts Universal Income As Remedy To AI-Driven Unemployment Musk’s comments follow rival company OpenAI’s industrial policy proposal released earlier this week that calls for an AI-backed public wealth fund.

I mean, I'm intrigued by UBI, nervous about what it might to to inflation, but mainly I think it's real telling that only now, when automation starts disrupting white collar jobs, do rich people seriously consider it. Where were they when it was manufacturing? www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...

I'm sorry I just don't think it's *that* outrageous to start demanding restaurants carry Sprite Zero. Sometimes I don't need the caffeine but still crave that Zero kick.

For many years people have avoided fucking corpses. Jeffrey Dahmer is taking a different approach.

The character in a 90s movie who hates Los Angeles wrote this headline.

It's just so odd that everyone who criticizes him happens to be doing a terrible job at something unrelated to the criticism.

How to Guess If Your Job Will Exist in Five Years Ask yourself: Are you coal, or are you a horse?

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...

You will be delighted by the depth of another character, which I won't spoil for you.

My uncle Harold would like to know what roads they took to get to the moon because there was probably a smarter route.

Malcolm in the Middle: Life’s Still Unfair review – the TV magic they’ve created here is absolutely miraculous This revival does the impossible: it’s effortlessly funny and refreshing, and Bryan Cranston’s performance is unmissable. They have to make more

Linwood kindly let all the old writers come back for punch-ups, and I got one joke into this beautiful show. I'll tell you later.

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio...

In all the press for Malcolm in the Middle, it somehow lists me as a co-creator. Nothing could be further from the truth. I started there in season 4 as a staff writer. I thought I got IMDB to fix that, but I think I'm just on file in some places. I feel bad about this stolen valor.

Bright side: No matter what happens tonight, one of those two teams will lose.

More Americans Are Breaking Into the Upper Middle Class — The Wall Street Journal Research shows that ranks of higher earners have grown markedly over last 50 years, while lower rungs of middle class have shrunk

apple.news/AO9_uc2R0QW6...

You guys it’s just locker room talk.

Yeah sorry, it looked like I was questioning you when really I was just thinking out loud and having fun trying to parse this bombastic statistic I keep hearing versions of. Like I don’t even think reporters understand it.

No hang on. It says their wealth grew faster, not that it grew by a higher percentage. What does that mean? It added more dollars over the same time span? Of course it would. I might be back to thinking it’s a card trick.

Oh wait I see the flaw. I’m confusing raw dollars with percentage of growth. Okay I’ll hit it hard in the morning.

It almost feels like a card trick to me, that sentence.

So like, of course the amount of dollars in the top .1% grows faster than other percentiles. Every year, it adds the richest people who weren’t in it the year before. And the bottom 50% is adding the poorest people who weren’t in it the year before.

Like, in a population of 10k people, the richest .1% is 100 people. Next year it’ll be 112, the year after that, 119 or whatever. People don’t join the top .1% by getting richer. The .1% just absorbs the people who last year were just below it.

And like, the raw number of people in the top .1% can only go up because of population growth, right? In a fixed population, as soon as someone enters the .1%, it’s no longer the .1%.

Currently I can only visualize two different phenomena. There are more rich people because of one thing, and the wealth of the top .1 is growing fast because of another thing. But item 2 certainly can’t be causing item 1.

articles on this subject always make my head spin. “There are more very rich people in large part because their wealth has grown much faster than everyone else’s.” Am I crazy or is that sentence implying that when someone gets richer, he also becomes more people?