Trader Joe's does not do franchising. They are privately held and do everything from corporate... Buy stock or maybe become a manager? I dunno what their profit sharing is like, if any exists at all.
How does one search GWJ using the in-site search tool? It doesn't seem to work. Is there another way to search the site?
How does one search GWJ using the in-site search tool? It doesn't seem to work. Is there another way to search the site?
Click this, and replace "your text here" with whatever you want to search for.
Strangeblades wrote:How does one search GWJ using the in-site search tool? It doesn't seem to work. Is there another way to search the site?
Click this, and replace "your text here" with whatever you want to search for.
Thanks!
Trader Joe's does not do franchising. They are privately held and do everything from corporate... Buy stock or maybe become a manager? I dunno what their profit sharing is like, if any exists at all.
As well, they're owned by Amazon.
I think
Robear wrote:Trader Joe's does not do franchising. They are privately held and do everything from corporate... Buy stock or maybe become a manager? I dunno what their profit sharing is like, if any exists at all.
As well, they're owned by Amazon.
Spoiler:I think
That's Whole Foods.
WizKid wrote:Robear wrote:Trader Joe's does not do franchising. They are privately held and do everything from corporate... Buy stock or maybe become a manager? I dunno what their profit sharing is like, if any exists at all.
As well, they're owned by Amazon.
Spoiler:I think
That's Whole Foods.
Close enough 
If I eat a whole package of cookies (example would be girl scout thin mints or tagalongs) do I say that I ate the whole clip or the whole magazine?
If I eat a whole package of cookies (example would be girl scout thin mints or tagalongs) do I say that I ate the whole clip or the whole magazine?
Unless you're first loading them into a magazine prior to eating them, you ate the clip.
Tagalongs (straight out of the freezer) 
“The whole lot?”
“The whole kit and kaboodle?”
“I can’t believe I ate the whole thing?!”
I only get two boxes per year because I can’t help to finish a whole package in one shot.
Tagalongs (straight out of the freezer)
“The whole lot?”
“The whole kit and kaboodle?”
“I can’t believe I ate the whole thing?!”I only get two boxes per year because I can’t help to finish a whole package in one shot.
Doesn't help that they reduced the number of cookies that are in a whole package from what they used to be.
I've heard people called a "stitch," and I can't find it anywhere, my old ass Google Fu has become weak. What is a "stitch?" Like, "stitch incoming."
I'm old. Bury me.
Assuming it was a negative context, I have seen it to mean "stupid Female Doggo".
EDIT: It seems the GWJ swear filter auto-replaces the second word, but I am sure you can figure it out based on the portmanteau.
We can be too old to know the slang of the 'oofs, but we cannot be too old to look that slang up on Urban Dictionary.
That said, in this instance, there's several definitions (not including the alien from the 90s Disney movie). First one was Leaping Gnome's definition.
I've heard people called a "stitch," and I can't find it anywhere, my old ass Google Fu has become weak. What is a "stitch?" Like, "stitch incoming."
I'm old. Bury me.
That's a TikTok thing - including a clip of another (usually someone else's) video in yours. I think it's often used when engaging with engagement bait, to provide context.
Extra context, it seems to further be the name of the feature by which one user inserts a clip of another user's video.
I've heard people called a "stitch," and I can't find it anywhere, my old ass Google Fu has become weak. What is a "stitch?" Like, "stitch incoming."
I'm old. Bury me.
The current use of stitch is from TikTok. You can take part of one clip and "stitch" it together with your response to it.
Its when you want to let people know the person is friend to Lilo.
Its when you want to let people know the person is friend to Lilo.
I was hoping this was true. Apparently the TikTok thing of one person making a video in public, and somebody else wanders through it or into it, is a stitch. I see it in lots of gym workout videos, and the people addressing the "stitch" are usually being a-holes.
I hate it when people film at the gym, it is just rude.
I hate it when people film at the gym, it is just rude.
Filming YOURSELF at the gym while lifting is smart for checking your form.
Filming yourself TALKING INTO THE CAMARA FOR CONTENT at the gym is a douchecanoe maneuver. It's not quite the sin that playing music through your shitty phone speaker is, but it's up there.
LeapingGnome wrote:I hate it when people film at the gym, it is just rude.
Filming YOURSELF at the gym while lifting is smart for checking your form.
No not really. Get other people to check your form. All of the people in the background of your filming don't know what you are doing with videos of them, and as you can see from the tens of thousands of gym videos people have posted online, there is no benefit of trust that the filmer won't publicize the video with other people in the background. It is rude.
Yeah, but random gym bro doesn't necessarily know his ass from his elbow when he looks at my form. And it's not like I could film myself squatting my own bodyweight at home with the bar and plates I didn't have.
There's a world of difference between quietly filming a set of 5 for a form check and yelling "LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE" across the gym after a three minute piece of content.
I know causality violations are bullshit, but..
If you travel back in time, and you use the same trajectory to return to your native time but your math is off a little for the ETA, couldn't you going forward in time crash into yourself that is travelling backwards through time?
No, because crashing involves a collision between 3-dimensional bodies in space, and you're not traveling in space.
Although I suppose that's just a matter of reference frame, as the planet is moving through space with respect to time (because orbital mechanics, both around the sun but also the entire solar system around the galaxy).
So time traveling from Seattle in 2024 to Seattle in 1968 would ALSO involve movement through space so you don't emerge from your time portal into 1968 outer space to find that your flares and tie-dye don't do a lot to prevent your blood from boiling.
No, because crashing involves a collision between 3-dimensional bodies in space, and you're not traveling in space.
Although I suppose that's just a matter of reference frame, as the planet is moving through space with respect to time (because orbital mechanics, both around the sun but also the entire solar system around the galaxy).
So time traveling from Seattle in 2024 to Seattle in 1968 would ALSO involve movement through space so you don't emerge from your time portal into 1968 outer space to find that your flares and tie-dye don't do a lot to prevent your blood from boiling.
Bummer.
But also, since we're basically speculating about made-up magic at this point, sure you can crash into yourself when traveling back in time. The explosion will be purple, fuzzy and visible from three decades away.
I know causality violations are bullshit, but..
If you travel back in time, and you use the same trajectory to return to your native time but your math is off a little for the ETA, couldn't you going forward in time crash into yourself that is travelling backwards through time?
So, wouldn't you have to actually arrive immediately after you first went back in time so the space was empty? How much of a delay would that be? A second? BUT, wouldn't that space have actually moved since the whole universe is moving? MATH THAT!
That would just make a new timeline.
After just finishing Constellation on Apple TV+, this conversation is giving me a headache.
Pages