7 billion was the projected amount it would take to end world hunger.

Lie—that was nonsense that went viral, and immediately collapsed under scrutiny. That claim was tweeted at Musk, and when he replied saying 'explain how that would work and I'll give you the money right now', he got a sheepish response to the tune of 'well actually, it would only help, not end it, and only temporarily'.

A more recent, actual estimate, puts it closer to $93 billion. And not once, but annually.

Stop being so gullible and falling for this sensationalized nonsense just because it confirms your biases.

mode != median

Apostrophe placement has no influence on how a word is pronounced; they're always silent.

An apostrophe is a substitute for omitted letters. It's "y'all" because the apostrophe is taking the place of the the "ou" in "you all". "Ya'll" makes no sense in relation to "you all".

You're pathetic when you project your rage onto others. I've never written anything like this, but you not only did, you shared it with others. Who knows what degree of darkness you keep to yourself, if that's what you put out into the world?

Disgusting.

Ok man. I gish galloped a bunch of irrelevant links about history and instead of immediately conceding you identified it, so I'm going to declare victory while ironically ignoring everything you said, which actually had to do with the matter at hand in the present day

Ok

I go with the 6 month (longest interval offered) subscription, then when I get the email reminding me that XYZ is about to be re-ordered, I see whether I actually need/want more of it. If not, I 'skip' that order (which it seems you can do as often as you want) while the subscription/discount is maintained, and if I do, I let it get ordered, also maintaining the discount.

End result's worst-case scenario is that I get bugged twice a year about some items, pretty minor cost for 15% off.

212 warm / 100 warm
warm

Meme was made by a space shuttle tile.

It’s not that

It is that. You literally just used "you can't get laid" as a personal insult toward a stranger.

It’s that it's deeply unpleasant to be called out on my flawed logic, and so I must personally insult you to both feel better about myself, and give myself an excuse to not address what you say

Fixed that for you.

You’re going to die alone and lonely, and you deserve to

More pathetic fantasy used as a substitute for learning.

Let the record show that only one of the two of us has been engaged in this childish insult-slinging.

EDIT: You spend a lot of time with these kinds of fantasies, huh? lol

TL;DR: You've focused primarily on the history, and barely touched on my actual question of 'why isn't anyone taking advantage of this supposed demand today in 2026'? Full reply follows:

Sexism

I can acknowledge this as a motivator 50+ years ago, but today, I can't see an apparel company refusing to create something that would be profitable for this reason. Businesses, especially large modern ones, have no bias toward anything but the bottom line. That said, Gemini threw me a list of modern companies that are in fact aimed at this demand, so supporting them is the best way to get more companies to do so:

Objectively more effective than simply complaining that more companies aren't.

Money: Fashion companies make tens of billions selling women purses. If women had real pockets, we may not need purses.

The highest end luxury purses have barely any capacity to actually hold things, and are used more as status indicators than for utility. More 'regular' purses that are primarily purchased for their utility/capacity have capacity far beyond what any pair of regular-sized (equivalent to men's) pockets could hold, and could never be completely obsoleted by pockets. If anything, the prevalence of pockets might over time reduce those purses' size to compensate.

I don't think this argument really holds water.

I disagree. Women’s pants with pockets will sell just as well as, if not better than, women’s pants with fake pockets because at the end of the day, there is no difference in pants with vs without except in very limited cases like specific styles of business attire. The pants will sell because women want to wear pants and we buy pants available to us.

If the demand is there, then it'd be a golden opportunity for a clothing manufacturer to corner that market then, wouldn't it? With how massive the fashion industry is, there must be a reason it's apparently not been attempted in earnest yet, by any of the over 400,000 apparel companies out there.

What do you think that reason is? Not a rhetorical question.

uhhhhh uhhhhh you don't have sex haha I win now right?

I pity you.

And the being-wrong streak stays strong!

EDIT: Downvoters are large angry that my SO is crazy about me, and vice versa, lol. You all are just so desperate to paint me with the incel stereotype in your minds, all for pointing out a wee bit of hypocrisy.