Yep, my comment was written pre-coffee. Why dyou ask?

Also I saw a post recently which said that French was the most efficient language in terms of information exchange, so I shouldn’t really be making jokes about its efficiency.

It would be more like <<image pris par appareil-photo qui possède de la fonque>>

All songs should be taken literally, which is why I eat love and prayers, and have a restraining order against me for trying to drag Hozier into a church at knifepoint.

I’m not sure becoming desensitised to trauma is an effective strategy either. That suggests that we stop caring about what’s going on.
I’m in the same situation, 2016-2020 was a stressful time. Constantly trying to keep up with each horrible new development, about which I could do nothing but despair, became an unhealthy obsession. I don’t want to do that again. I’m not a political scientist, and I neglected my own personal growth and development becoming an armchair expert in politics because I could see what was happening. This time I’m going to focus on myself and the people around me because that’s all I can do. The world will keep turning. If I have the opportunity to do something positive, I’ll take it.

Fair enough.

Good point. The stupids aligned with the evils on this one.

Haha! To prove that it wasn’t me, I just downvoted you. You are now on -1.

Sorry dude, you assumed too much there. I’m in Europe, and don’t go around down voting people in the middle of the night.

Anyway, your point. It’s irrelevant, since we were talking about NASA vs. the space rangers or whatever they’re called. Not This Guy vs. me.

No, it’s space administration. And they are the ones who actually know a thing about how spaceflight works, unlike this guy, evidently.

Does he?

Does he what?

He clearly supported Brexit no matter what the semantics of it are

What do you mean by the word “semantics” in this sentence? I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Here are some examples of John Oliver opposing Brexit:

guardian, 2019

Last Week Tonight, Jun 2016

Last Week Tonight, Brexit ii

Last Week Tonight, Brexit iii

John Oliver publicly, repeatedly opposed Brexit, using his considerable platform to do so. With respect, you are talking out of your anus.

You seem to want to paint John Oliver as a stereotype, and then claim that this is all he is. I find that reductive, ignorant and distasteful. Here is someone who addresses issues varying from presidential accountability to gambling laws, national, international and global issues, with compassion, logic, humanity and humour. And you try to boil him down to a stereotype. You’re not even able to define the stereotype you’re trying to invoke. It would be funny if it weren’t shameful.

NASA.

Repetition.

You’re absolutely right there. We’re hard wired to think this way and it’s a constant battle.

Knowing these helps with self-talk. You trip over a curb and start scolding yourself. Then you can say to yourself “this is just spotlight bias”, and move on with your day, avoiding the impact of negative emotions. Or, you might be more open to a change in restaurant plans because you know of the false consensus effect. There’s subtle but real power in just naming things!

The misgendering, and the fact that it was accidental, is the point of the post. If anything OP is sharing her correct gender with “even more people”, and creating a discussion where we can think about how to stop this happening in future both to this individual, and on Lemmy in general. Why would you want to shut that down?

I think you meant they are labelling the protest as pro - Palestine, rather than anti - genocide. But it looks like you are annoyed that anyone would say things that are pro - Palestine.

Who knows if this is an improvement.

The Max Planck Institute for Physics knows and spoiler, yes. Yes it is.

Your comment doesn’t stand up. It seems you’ve got something against fusion energy for some reason.
On cost: it’s a best guess, since we don’t yet have a working fusion reactor. The error bars on the cost estimates are huge, so while it is possible fusion will be more expensive, with current data you absolutely cannot guarantee it. Add to that the decreasing costs as the technology matures, like we’ve seen in wind and especially solar over recent decades.
On nuclear physics PhDs: that’s no different to any energy generation, you need dozens of experts to build and run any installation.
On waste: where are you getting this info on the blanket? The old beryllium blanket design has been replaced with tungsten and no longer needs to be replaced. The next step is to test a lithium blanket which will actually generate nuclear fuel as the reaction processes.
This is the important fact that you have omitted, for some reason.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce no high activity, long-lived nuclear waste. The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years

And that is why it’s so important this technology is developed. It’s incredibly clean and, yes, limitless.

As for your advice, there was a time not long ago when we didn’t understand how to build fission plants either, and it cost a lot of time and money to learn how. I wonder if people back then were saying we should just stick to burning coal because we know how that works.

most pussy games can be recreated as home versions without buying the experience.

Tell that to my local sex worker, amirite.

(I’m guessing typo?)

I googled your comment and found the game Monikers which I’d never heard of. I honestly think the DIY version must be better, since there’s always someone who’s responsible for the name. That makes it so much better as a bonding experience! It’s also good across cultures because the people from culture a will know the answers from culture a and the same for culture b, c etc. and it then becomes a natural exchange

Times up!

Needs at least 4 people, a pen and paper and a bowl/hat. And a stopwatch.
Tear the paper so you have about 25-35 pieces of similar size, then give these out to the players. Everyone writes down a famou name on each of their pieces of paper. Shuffle them up in the bowl. Divide into teams. Set stopwatch for 1 minute.
Round 1: one member of the first team describes the name on the paper without using any of the words written on the paper. The team gets to keep the paper if it’s correctly guessed. After a minute, play passes to the next team with a reduced number of papers in the bowl. This continues until all names have been guessed. Count the number of pieces of paper kept by each team and make a note. Return the papers to the bowl.
Round 2: same as round one, but the describer can now only use one word. No miming, no eye signals, one. Word.
Round 3: same as the previous rounds but the describer must stay absolutely silent and can only mime. The team that scored the most over 3 rounds wins.

I’ve played this with strangers and with friends and family alike and it’s always fun.