It will degrade the latex and make the porous/vulnerable to breaking. So unless you’re just using them for looks, I’d say no.

Latisse! (Or even the drugstore stuff.) It’s not just for lashes.

I’m in a weird place right now with a relationship that fell apart earlier this year. We’re now talking again and while I don’t believe that people change, I can also say that things all feel very, very different now and I have been really impressed with how he seems to have matured and is handling things so…

Other reports state that the pregnancy was at 32 weeks.

I have very sensitive skin all over and nearly every lip balm I’ve ever used leaves me with chapped and peeling lips except this one. It’s made of manuka honey and I’ve got little pots stashed all over my house!

Mmmm, no. You start at the top - face first - and work your way down.

This is correct.

Hiring a housekeeper is one of the best choices I’ve ever made. This is a skill set and it is worth paying quite a lot of money for.

Wait, if you just overheard someone say this name, how do you know its spelling?

Ugh, no. I dated a guy like that for a bit and it was like he was trying resuscitate me. It’s NOT sexy.

I’m gonna go ahead and argue that killing an animal - no matter how you do it - is harmful.

HEART EYES!!!!!!

I love that someone can conceive of a way to create leather goods that doesn’t seriously harm the animal. It goes to show that we can create all kinds of fantasies to accommodate our desires. (I say this as someone who is very sad that animals are harmed to make leather goods and steaks but not so sad as to not…

I had a falling out with my best friend of 17 years about 5 years ago. We were inseparable and she’s in almost every memory I have; it’s like someone burned down my archives. It was harder than any breakup I’ve ever had.

I gotta say that it bums me out that so many of these stories have “poor people!” as the punchline.

How is that not charging more? It’s not like they need to just meet an aggregate cost - the law requires that each user pays only what it costs to provide them with the service.

Not the way it’s written right now. A public utility has prices fixed at the cost of the service. So it can’t make changes up or down.

The idea for a new system is that every household would have a per-person allocation of water at the base rate and that use over that base rate costs more. So it’s effectively a tax on use that exceeds what’s typical or expected. And places that have done this say that some users will knowingly continue to overuse,…

Unfortunately, current state law prohibits public utilities from charging any more than it costs to provide their service. Which, out of context, is a good law. But I know that people are working to change it for exactly this reason.

I spice my coffee with an equal parts mix of cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves, and pepper. It’s so good!