Yeah, it’s more like “mildly interesting, a study suggests French could potentially become the most widely used language by 2050”

I read it as them both failing to stay mad at each other when they think the other is willing to show some cheeky affection, despite the bad mood. It doesn’t mean they won’t work out whatever problem started this, but by the dog “breaking the ice”, they can do so with better moods, working together rather than as opponents.

So, I think it’s really cute. I think reminding yourself of your feelings for your partner, even when you have a disagreement or miscommunication, is often hard but important.

The Federation would never publish fake data, so it must be true!

If it were convincing lies made to deceive, then sure. But in this case the papers were deliberately made to be immediately obviously fake, to anyone actually reading them.

So I guess the question would be “would humans do the same thing if someone literally writes obvious jokes on the internet?”

Larry the Legend

They swallow it for safe keeping during the jump

I don’t mean focused on you as a specific individual, I mean it only benefits the one picking unlimited time, it does nothing for the rest of the world (which I argue contains lots of value) right now.

Let me give a specific example. Let’s say someone’s loved one is sick with cancer. By choosing “unlimited money” or maybe “unlimited medical knowledge” or “unlimited influence”, they could probably cure the cancer, or at least greatly extend their loved ones lifetime. If they choose unlimited time, then they could not. So are you saying the value of that love one’s life is inconsequential?

Or another, maybe you value human lives, and therefore it would be valuable for all wars to end. By picking “unlimited negotiation skill” or something else, you would be able to almost immediately end any war, and perhaps solve war in general. With infinite time, maybe in the far far future you could achieve this, but what about all the lives lost until then? Are they all inconsequential?

Yes I get that, but again, this is very focused on YOU. What about your friends and family who will suffer from the reduced value of the world. What about the general population?

With unlimited time you could theoretically make a perfect world for yourself, one day. But it does nothing for things that are valuable now.

Don’t get me wrong, unlimited time would be an incredible power, I’m just against the idea that there is nothing of value besides things you could also achieve with unlimited time.

I also disagree that everything valuable can be bought. And also, not everything of value has unlimited time to be reached

For example, maybe you value the natural world in ways that climate change and other human factors are threatening to destroy. Sure with enough time you could get infinite money or influence or whatever to solve the problem, but by then it will be far too late.

We were taught creationism since an early age. At some point they had to teach evolution to meet government curriculum requirements, but the entire time they kept emphasising “it is just a theory!!, and there is no real evidence for it”

Oh and during the week or two when evolution was taught, suddenly all we were doing in religion class was watching videos that “debunk” evolution, and “prove” creationism

This is a very self centred view on value. Do you not think that there are things that have value, regardless of how much time you have?

Carpentry to interior designer. Not so crazy when you think about it

I didn’t mind it, but I also don’t remember this part at all. Maybe I didn’t even read the right book 🤔

The worst part is even if you survive they paint you all green

I honestly prefer the original quick sketches he does. Somehow it adds to it

While it is definitely car centric in some ways, it also has quite good public transport, and usually also has good bike/pedestrian paths, depending on the area. I’ve lived here for almost a decade now, and for 8+ years of that I didn’t have a car.

No, but if you also find all religions audacious and absurd, then wouldn’t atheist be a more accurate term anyway?

I agree, though you’d need to make sure it isn’t something that a human could notice and mistake as a PR convention for your repo, and then mimic

My problem with this, is it sort of divides people into “normal” brains, and “not normal” brains. But there is no such thing as “normal” brains. Everyone’s brains work differently. I think labels / diagnosis are important in cases where a person’s brain is different enough in a particular way that it becomes a problem (for them, or for interacting in society, or whatever), but in these cases I think the value of the label is to communicate in which way the person suffers a problem, so that people can be aware of it. It seems strange to me, to have a label which essentially means “I suffer from some kind of problem related to how my brain works, but I’m not going to tell you which problem”.

Edit: after reading other comments, I’ve realised that one place that neurodivergent makes sense as a label, is for building a community of people who share the experience of facing problems in life due to how their brain works. That’s of course, very valid.

I don’t think any language is sacred. But I also don’t want to negatively impact anyone with my choice of language, so it very much depends on context. And some slurs have such a strong cultural stigma that there exists almost no context where they would be ok.