With telepathy, I do sometimes wonder if the telepaths see no point in making external facial expressions for the benefit of their fellow telepaths.
People born blind still make facial expressions. It's hard wired into us to make the expressions, even for a tiny moment, and suppressing those facial expressions is learned.
That's probably why I still laugh, cry, wince, widen my eyes in surprise, etc., when watching TV by myself.
So I don't think telepathy would change that behavior.
Serious answer: depends on what you're into and what you're looking for.
I've been married a while and I still send my wife memes. Sharing random jokes we found on the internet makes up a big part of our messaging thread, in addition to normal topics of communication (whether we want to go to a thing, what time we'll likely get home from work, what do we want for dinner, can you check to see if we have enough cheese to make this thing I want to make, you won't believe what this asshole said to me at work, etc.).
But the memes are still a big part of our communication, after pretty much starting that way. Our early texts were both coordination of in-person dates, and funny things that made each other laugh.
The handful of relationships I had that started in the smartphone era basically followed that pattern. There were some duds that fizzled out between getting a number and not ever making it to a date, but I don't think I'd want to be with someone who didn't enjoy my communication style. Which, again, is heavily meme based.
I just really love comedy. I mainly watch television to laugh.
My favorite comedies are the single camera sitcoms of the 2000's and 2010's, in this order:
I also love the weirder stuff:
I enjoy sketch comedy: SNL, Key and Peele, Chappelle's Show, and MadTV all have plenty of sketches that have stayed in my brain forever.
Even with more serious shows, I like comedic elements:
There are a bunch of shows I once loved but never went back to rewatch, either:
I imagine they still hold up, though.
I'm working my way through Hacks and Righteous Gemstones while I have an HBO subscription, and suspect they'll be in my "liked it but probably won't rewatch" category.
And overall there are probably dozens or hundreds of others I liked well enough. I just like to laugh.
No I need cations to be positive because the t in the word looks like a little plus sign so that's an easy way to remember which is cathode/anode or cation/anion.
I've left a floating load that leaked to the ground before.
18 and 24 are worlds apart.
38 and 24 is an eyebrow raiser, 39 and 18 is a bad person who deserves scorn.
Especially when you consider the fact that Claudia Schiffer was a celebrity in her own right and had her own thing going on, whereas Seinfeld's girlfriend was literally still in high school. The power dynamics of each couple were wildly different.
I wasn't aware that there were household scales with that level of precision, to 5 significant figures.
This was seen as a faux pas.
That's because cell phone audio quality in the analog era was shit. Knowing that you'd be giving condolences with a hissy, staticky, distorted voice is kinda rude when a landline payphone isn't that far away.
As far as I can tell, your entire enterprise is no more than a solitary man with a messy apartment which may or may not contain a chicken.
I think a lot of people don't realize how much more work owning and maintaining a car used to be, or how they've gone up in price much slower than inflation.
Part of it is model creep where a budget/economy model of 1990 retains its name in future generations until it's a larger luxury flagship: the Camry, Corolla, Accord, Civic, F-150, Altima, etc., are all much larger, more powerful, and just loaded with features, and no longer occupy the same spot in their companies' lineups.
And the simple comparison of objective performance and efficiency metrics also shows that cars have much higher 0-60 times, tighter cornering characteristics, better fuel efficiency, plus significantly improved crash/safety performance. And the cars routinely last beyond 100,000 miles, when older cars weren't (to the point where the 6-digit odometer didn't become standard until the early 90's).
Meanwhile, the actual sticker prices of cars today are generally below what would be expected from just applying the inflation rate to car prices from the 90's.
Cars today are just so much better than they were when I first started driving.
Seems like there could be a crowdsourced version of Consumer Reports.
By the time it gets critical mass to be good crowdsourcing it'll suffer from astroturfing and spam and other SEO techniques, which will have to be met with stricter and more proactive moderation, which may go a bit too hard and alienate casual users from participation, which will hurt its own reliability.
It's not an easy problem to solve.
On July 1, 2024, the census estimates of the number of each generation of drinking age, if I'm reading this Excel spreadsheet correctly:
Gen Z (born between 1997 and 2012, but as of 2024 the only legal drinking age was those born between 1997 and 2003): 31.3 million
Millennial (born between 1981 and 1996): 74.1 million
Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980): 65.6 million
Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964): 66.9 million
So assuming that 20-somethings have less money to spend on expensive alcohol, and recognizing that Gen Z has less than half the drinking age population as the other generations, it's not surprising for that generation to spend less on alcohol, even if their habits weren't different than the older generations.
Now, their habits actually are different, so that might stretch things further. But a better way to present the data would be adjusted per capita. And maybe looking at historical data about when prior generations were the same age.
Yup, it starts off as an observed effect, then gets documented enough to where it shows up in studies, and then doctors are willing to prescribe it for "off label" use, then trials are run to rigorously test for that effect, until the medical health authorities agree that there's a strong enough scientific basis to use as a treatment for that condition to where it is approved for that use.
It's just charcoal filtering (which is a process used in many, many food and drink processes), but one source of industrial quantities of charcoal comes from charred bones (after the proteins are extracted making soup or whatever).
City planners in the 60s favored male trees for this reason. Then air pollution and a warming climate, mixed with all that extra pollen, gave rise to a huge increase in seasonal allergies in urban areas.
Yes but that's because the nursery has already grafted the branches of a known-to-be-tasty cultivar onto that tree before putting it up for sale.
The side effects they're finding are that it unexpectedly prevents Alzheimer's symptoms and other neurodegenerative issues, influences the brain to want to drink less alcohol and smoke/vape/chew less nicotine, and helps with chronic pain.
The point, though, is that it makes metabolic changes by having people eat less. Pointing out problems with drugs that increase resting metabolic rate (so that they burn more calories without exercising) or decrease absorption of macronutrients in digestion (so that they take in fewer calories from the same food) doesn't really inform how we look at these behavior-altering and desire-altering drugs. They're losing weight by eating less, not by interrupting the relationship between eating and net caloric intake.
The uranium is gonna continue to undergo fission, whether we mine it or not, whether we enrich/refine it or not. At that point it's like collecting energy from our surroundings, really functionally no different than harvesting geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, etc.