I’ve often thought that maybe time is like color or weight. Electromagnetic radiation exists, but color only exists as an idea in our heads, how we’re perceiving and interpreting what does actually exist. Our weight is variable based on our mass and gravitational effects in our environment, rather than being an actual property that describes us. Is what you’re saying about time potentially being an emergent property of entropy the same deal? Are color and weight emergent? (I’m asking both about the actual wording and also how analogous the ideas are.)

Karl Marx stated that technological development can change the modes of production over time. This change in the mode of production inevitably encourages changes to a society’s economic system.

I dunno, man, that doesn’t sound too crazy. I’m in a really bad condition for learning new things right now, and I can’t even figure out what claims this idea would be making. It sounds like it’s just describing a process of advancement and the types of conflicts that arise?

I’m finding this especially hard to grasp because my brain’s on a tangent about how you’d really go about falsifying most stuff in history or sociology. You gonna put a bunch of people in a series of jars with carefully controlled conditions for hundreds of years and observe the results? Like we have this piece of paper from 1700 that says Jimothy won the big game, but our understanding of this guy and his alleged win of this supposed game are totally vibes-based because we don’t have a time machine. I think like the best you can do is try to base your beliefs and claims off things that have been observed repeatedly, but does that make these kinds of topics unscientific? We test what we can and go with our best guess for what we can’t, right? This is going to bother me.

Many people claim the Loch Ness monster is an animal thought to be extinct though. The thylacine is generally held to be a cryptid in my experience.

The wording for the fad diet section bothered me. If benefits of calorie restriction and fasting aren’t scientifically supported, why are their Wikipedia pages full of scientific research regarding their benefits?

Things like the actual uses of aromatherapy make me wonder what to call them. Maybe the word placebo applies, but I feel that there’s a certain level of arbitrariness needed for that specific word.

There’s something about aromas and the soft gestures of reiki that are pleasurable to us in a more objective sense. We don’t like them simply because we’ve been told they’re good for us; we like them because we like them. A waterfall will make most people feel good even you don’t tell them it’s good for them, so I don’t feel it can be called a placebo effect. What is the term for a thing which isn’t directly a medicine, but is medically beneficial by promoting a sense of wellbeing?

I don’t think that laughter should be considered medicine in a literal sense because it would make the term too broad, but also because these things are at least somewhat subject to taste rather than the truly objective effects of drugs. A given drug might effect two people differently, but the difference is a matter of chemistry rather than the subject’s opinion.

(Maybe it will all be the same someday when we’ve dialed in how everybody’s brains work in exact detail and tailor treatments more specifically. Maybe we’ll actually prescribe touching grass instead of suggesting it.)

But “their” is singular all the time.

He’s Biblically accuracymaxxing.

I’m not aware of any other species sexually selecting for mammary size. Some birds do a puffy chest thing.

It might be a learned association rather than anything instinctive about tiddies. There’s this one study where they gave rats a backpack fetish, but it has a sad ending because then they murdered all the rats. They did phrase the murder like they were doing a Satanic ritual though, and that kind of took some of the murdery edge off it for me.

I’ve been looking forward to like 20 years from now when all the incels will be into girls with too many fingers.

“devs too focused on making a game pretty instead of fun” is talking about making the art photorealistic with fancy hair engines and such, when doing so doesn’t add meaningfully to the experience and only serves to needlessly complicate development and inflate the cost.

We can tell that making all these 3D models and animations is a problem for the devs because they’ve said so repeatedly. They’ve even said they can’t have every Pokemon in the same game as a result. Instead of the lovely pixel art of FRLG we have a mish-mash of dead-eyed, poorly-animated cartoons with PSP-quality “realistic” terrain that grate against each other. And for what? Why do 3D when you can only do 3D so poorly?

deleted by creator

I know there are more, but I just watched a bunch of clown fish grab what appeared to be a coconut shell from rather far away and bring it to their anemone to lay eggs all over it, because I guess they need a hard surface. I was pretty impressed with how they were tossing it, and so cooperative, too.

I feel like I hear about Chicago a lot in terms of LGBT rights, like it’s one of those oases of human decency you can find in the US. A brief Google seems to indicate they have a quality school meal system as well.

Do you have any fun mnemonics for remembering your SSN? :D

I cannot recommend that film enough to anyone who’s a fan of horror movies which are more than just a fun spoop.

I’m told humans taste like pork.

I don’t understand your stance. Being vegan is more ethical, but eating meat is necessary? Surely if meat is necessary then an omnivorous diet is most ethical?

Shit, there are landlords in the snails?

Powders can be good, but they can also be garbage. It depends on the brand. But with whole foods like legumes or animal meats, you can be sure you’re getting quality protein.

Good. The chickens are surely experiencing richer and longer lives that way. Locally-sourced food is good for everyone, and the proximity to the live animals has the potential to foster empathy. I hope that many people make their own mini farms and share with their neighbors, and that a sense of community grows.

How often do Tigers even run into another tiger?

All the time. While tigers lead solitary lifestyles, they’re not devoid of socialization. Territories overlap and lead to peaceful interactions and conflicts over borders. Sometimes they even cooperate in hunting or live together, though that’s less frequent. The nature of their interactions is mostly dictated by sexual relations and the ratio of tigers to prey.

This is not meant to contribute to the tiger vs lion issue.

I also think it’s interesting to note that while the mane serves a practical purpose, it’s also wildly oversized as a result of sexual selection.

The documentary style quickly takes a back seat, but the interviews are always there and heavily used. Try Modern Family first and see of the Office doesn’t hit better once you’re used to the interviews there. They’re brief fourth-wall breaks and not diagetic.

e: I would say if you’re not having an absolute blast by the Dundees episode (I think that S2E1?), don’t waste any more of your time.