Oh so you came in to argue an incorrect point on fabrics being attainable at any price point, specifically to privilege shame? And your definition of privileged is anyone that can buy clothes, regardless of frugality, and asserting that buying lo get lasting clothes is a good thing (which I did) just re-emphasizes how overtly privileged I am?
Cool, so you're just an asshole. Got it.
Omg not semantics, anything but semantics
There are no points on a circle my friend.
we’re both sharing anecdotal information.
We are not, yours in anecdotal, mine can be verified and duplicated.
disadvantaged portions of the population often don’t have the luxury of choice others do and that they are stuck in a system designed to keep it that way.
And I pointed out that every price point has these options, and offered to demonstrate it. Again not anecdotal. Unless you cannot buy clothes at all, this is not an honest assessment. You "don't believe it", but it is true. If you cannot afford to buy clothing at all, this entire thread doesn't apply to you.
Yeah, I saw your other examples of places like Patagonia which, again, is ironic
That is not what irony means. Saying that a brand where the average price of a new item is $20, and a brand where the average price is over $100 both have single fabric options is not ironic. It's data validation.
You're complaining to complain and/or arguing to argue.
You not believing it doesn't make it untrue. Where do you shop? What do you buy? Find me a reputable store that doesn't carry non-blend fabrics, and I'll find you one around the same price point that does. Nobody suggested you had to go to Old Navy, in fact I used it to demonstrate that even cheap places (Old Navy is all about cheap) have non synthetic options. They're a baseline that holds true as you advance to just about every price point.
I vaguely remember some people experimenting with replacing the head unit with aftermarket ones, but no idea how well that would actually go in practice
This varies wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer and even year to year. For example, GM cars used to route damn near everything through the entertainment unit, so that was your central computer. Cell antenna, on star control panel, every that phoned home. That was as recently as mid 2010s. It also led to hilarious problems where a relatively simple issue like an OnStar button not working well required a complete replacement of the stereo unit (which was $8k or so in parts and labor). Now that instrument clusters are doing more while also getting more diagnostic and digital, things are transitioning to a more centralized computing system somewhere else. This can make it easier OR more difficult to get around, depends on design.
For other brands it's borderline impossible to even use an aftermarket system. Mazdas for example the entire infotainment system relies on itself. There's nowhere to even put a traditional aftermarket. I'm sure it's possible, but the design of the interior is completely based around the infotainment unit.
That's not necessarily true though when it comes to single material fabrics these days believe it or not! You can buy 100% cotton at a lower price point than lots of synthetics. Pick a store really. For example Old Navy is pretty cheap - they sell 100% cotton shirts, denim, shorts, etc. they also sell synthetic blends, and the pricing is more a function of style than anything. Jump to a higher tier like JCrew - same is true. Nordstrom. Bloomingdale's. Designer boutique. Hell look at jeans. You can get full denim 501s and wrangler on the same shelf as synthetic, same brand and price point. You can get incredibly well made Flanels that are cotton/tencel blends from brands like Patagonia, kuhl, or Fjallraven, or you can get a 60/40 poly/cotton blend from faherty for more money. And in all these cases, what holds true is they'll last you longer, no matter what price point you picked.
It also swings the other way where you can buy much more expensive 100% cotton items at a huge markup over synthetics. Look at reigning champ as a good example - same cotton everyone else uses, huge markup for reasons that their customer base feels are fair enough to keep paying for their stuff. You can also buy synthetics at a huge mark up way over those already marked up cottons. Many designer brands want you to wrap yourself in a 35% polyester, 30% spandex sweatshirt for $400.
One caveat is that in general, finding single material fabrics is all around more difficult for women than men, mainly as a function of style trends. But even that's swinging the other way currently.
I get the sentiment, and you're not wrong! Just wanted to point out that you don't need a clothes line, a collapsible drying rack will work great! You can also avoid synthetics when possible, and more people should. Not saying you have to, but synthetics tend not to last as long because they shed so much, among other reasons. Most synthetics are some derivative of plastic, and others are awful environmentally at production. Plenty of alternatives feel nicer and last longer than polyester for example. Avoid a synthetic blend flannel or sweater, buy 100% cotton or another natural fabric. Or try a tencel/cotton blend for softness if you want! Your clothes will last longer, look better, and fit nicer. There's a reason that jeans from the 70s are still wearable while the $300 designer stretch jeans from Nordstrom start to pill after a few wears/washes and lose their shape and form. Real Denim is just tightly woven cotton yarns.
I was super confused until I read it again 🤦🏻♂️I've adjusted it now lol
~600 feet or about *meters!
600 feet, ~182 feet! It's pretty small geologically speaking, but huge from a visual/human perspective.
You applied a mathematical definition to a common lingual term, which was used in the exact same fashion in the response as your original use. That's using semantics, as you're arguing about the lingual definition as it applies to a phrase.
The pedantic part is you using a semantic argument just to be a cunty little shit head on the internet.