Camping, hiking, a crackling fire, being outdoors. Sunshine, snow, rain, winter. Beaches, mountains, forests. Skipping stones on a lake. Pottery, programming, puzzles. Good coffee, good tea, and hot drinks in general (esp. Feuerzangenbowle!). And probably more?
So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be "named" after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).
I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?
Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg
I don't think It's that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg
I mean, I find the tech fascinating and probably would like it, except that I hate the way it was created, the way it is peddled, the things it is used for, the companies who use it, the way it "talks", the impact it has had on society, the impact it has on the environment, the way it is monetised, and the companies who own it.
And all that makes it difficult to "just appreciate the tech"
A "badly behaved"/annoying kid is how I know of it being used