![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.
Good to know we can just “teach” any imaginary thing we want. It sounds like it’d be neat? Fuck it, let’s teach it.
and the weighing is the entire problem.
It’s also the fundamental value prop.
I’ve noticed this too, and I imagine it must be a side effect of Lemmy’s largest value prop having an outsized appeal to autistic people.
…???
Which key? This one?
This thread is fucking chilling in its ironic self righteousness.
What’s more concerning is when a society is populated by people who have take the most facile understanding of a position, and then go about confidently as if they understand it. Like, say, if a news article has a rage porn headline and then people don’t read it to understand what actually was going on but make comments on websites as if there was no nuance to the subject whatsoever. … Very concerning.
If only there were an article we could read that makes this clear…
Ha I was writing another comment on this thread when this got posted, but I just feel like it’s important, relevant to that, to say that the hairs didn’t evolve FOR any specific purpose.
This is funny, and really speaks to a fundamental issue we have during education as to assigning agency for what amount to"random" events.
OP is presumably educated and intelligent, and the takeaway they had was that bees “are pollinators” which is true with regard to our interest in them, but definitely implies agency that they are intentionally pollinating, which (I am pretty sure) isn’t true.
It feels like the same question that gets asked in a million different ways of “why did XYZ evolve that way when ABCD?” (Because evolution is random and tends toward selecting for energy conservation. Not to “achieve” some specific goal.)
What the fuck are all these comments?
It’s an article about an unresolved and recurring problem with a popular drive that the ostensibly reputable manufacturer is trying to hide.
But 90% of the comments are people jerking themselves off about how smart they are for using RAID, which is irrelevant to the point of the article… But never miss an opportunity to pleasure yourself in public I guess?
One time, I met a tribal warrior from an indigenous Amazon rainforest tribe. He was the son of the tribe’s chief, actually.
To illustrate the form of tribal wrestling that his and the other tribes compete in, and at which he was some sort of master, he unexpectedly put me into a headlock and threw me to the floor of my office.
I don’t know, but I keep trying to comment on posts federated from other instances and half the time I get some obscure error and it fails, and it’s fucking irritating.
God willing, Google can have six new apps out this year that each do a piece of what they had accomplished circa 2014.
I know a girl who thinks of ghosts. She’ll make you breakfast; she’ll make you toast. But she don’t use butter. And she don’t use cheese. She don’t use jelly, or any of these.
She uses Vaseline.
Vaseline.
Vaseline.
… you are correct that if I’m unfamiliar with your terminology, I will not know what you mean.
You are incorrect that if I understand the definition of a “partial Kundalini awakening” I will not have a shared understanding. I can’t imagine why that would be true.
If by spiritual you mean “hurt my teeth” then sometimes eating ice cream is spiritual for me.
Otherwise, I’m not sure what spiritual means, as I said.
I also agree, because we all pretty much understand what “happy” means.
No one seems to understand what “spiritual” means with any definition, and hence we shouldn’t just be using it like we do, in my opinion.
Apparently for you it means “gives you perspective into your own insignificance”, when I think for many people it, instead, means, “offers evidence for God or at least for the supernatural, in a non-spooky way”.
So… it’s a good way to get a group of people all talking about different things and feeling like they’re agreeing about things they don’t necessary agree by means of an equivocation fallacy.
Thanks. Respectfully, though, it sounds like you are saying it’s OK to take an event that happened to you and arbitrarily decide that it’s going to be called “spiritual” without knowing what that means?
And then other people can take their own definitions that might be different, and read your story and be like, “Oh, I understand what this person means,” without actually knowing… potentially adding or removing their own meanings to it (the implication of the existence of a dirty, say) when that wasn’t part of the original person’s construct?
Because if that’s right, I don’t think I can go for that.
Odd, Superbad is the only movie I’ve ever seen twice (or more) in the theaters.
I saw it and thought it was the funniest movie I’d ever seen, then a couple weeks later my buddy wanted to see a movie so I saw it a second time with him. No regrets.