I mean, on the one hand, no. It’s not even slang, it’s just a pathetic phenomenon where the users feel forced into using words they don’t want to, even though they aren’t being forced but they cowardishly still do it for fear of actual censorship. But then, on the other hand, my generation’s youth slang includes things like douchecanoe and heckin and live, laugh, love, so I don’t feel in a superior enough position to judge gen z on theirs.
Oh shit! Mexico is indeed pretty blameless, except for the apparent heinous crime of existing next to the USA.
Tell me though, is it true that everything is in sepia there? I only have US-made movies and TV to go off, so of course I’m assuming that’s 100% accurate. Is it still sepia at night? If you fly into Mexico does it flick to sepia instantly or is it more like a slow transition that you hardly notice? Who pays for all the yellow pigment?
Indeed. And the real strokes we were the of had waylong toast a in findings perplopolis intact!
dozen countries like my own
I’m gonna guess… Portugal! I can’t think of anything they’ve done -recently- that’s overtly imperialistic? Ireland?
You’d best not be British, German, French, Italian, Romanian, Czech, Hungarian, Austrian, Polish or Israeli, though.
That’s a good point actually. An extra level of ridiculousness and hypocrisy to this trend of self censorship.
You know what worries me though? It was about 2008ish when I first heard someone say “lol” verbally as a response to a witty comment, and it was a really weird moment for me. She didn’t laugh, she smiled and said “lol”, because she was so used to speaking online. Now it’s pretty normal to hear that. I even do it without realising it.
What worries me is that these awful censorship words will creep into spoken English and people will start saying then out loud. I think I will unalive a little inside when that happens.
It’þ bigoted if you aþk me. Not my fault I have a þpeech impediment.
Hey, nobody said “asshole”.
I see the difference between you and I. It’s that people talk to me at parties.
Look the figures and facts are available to you, you have an internet connection. Home ownership and financial stability have crashed among our generation. It’s just true. You have been lucky, and boring enough in your choices to make that luck count. Most of us haven’t.
I know someone who was made homeless despite working 60 hour weeks for a job at the local council. So “all the people you know”, who you are judging so harshly might not actually be a good indicator of what’s what. I think there is quite possibly a decent level of bias in your thinking, which confirms your firmly held belief that you deserve what you have because you worked for it. Maybe you do. But I know ten people who work harder than you who have less than you have, so…
That’s how we know he’s cleverer than us.
Not any more matey. Not for millennials like me. I have two kids, I’m in a steady long term relationship, and I still rent, like about 50% of people my age. For boomers, the figure was 23% at this age.
Nice of you to assume I’m a lot younger than I am, I suppose?
So the subjective part is the question of is he one of the best of all time. Sure, we can have that conversation. But the part where you’re outright wrong is where you exclude him from being remotely close to that conversation.
As a guitarist, Prince has:
I think the above definitely puts him in the running. You might not like it, but he’s up there. I’d rather collaborate with Prince than Eric Clapton, say, and he’s supposed to be one of the greats. I think Knopfler beats Prince quite handily, but I’m not so sure George Harrison was better. (I’m sure George would say Prince was better)
Instead of that, we now have unaffordable housing, which forces you into serial tenancies. The rent prices are so high you need to live with one or more people. All of you must work to make the rent. Also there’s a deposit, so you must somehow keep on top of the housekeeping, or you will owe money to the landlord. If that sounds unfair and ridiculous, that’ll be because it is. But if you complain, you’ll be the one that’s crazy, because that’s just the way the world works
Ok so firstly, no theory can be proven. You’re thinking of theorems. One of the tests of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. A simple example would be that if a single apple floats upwards from the tree instead of falling to earth, that would falsify the theory of gravity. In string theory, the falsifiability lies in the predictions of quantum mechanics. A falsification of QM would collapse string theory immediately. Of course, you’ve chosen this particular theory because it is at the fringes of current understanding and there is debate over whether it’s a legitimate theory. However, it is actually founded on rigorous study, and its predictions are exactly as consequential as its falsifiability is agreed upon.
While it cannot be proven using current methodologies, that problem puts it in such distinguished company as general relativity and even Galilean relativity were in terms of the experimental technology available to natural philosophers at the times of conception. String theory can be proved, or disproved, just not yet. So we don’t write it off as academic, but we file it under “pending”, until such a time as we are able to test it. This is absolutely the astute thing to do.
If you have a test for God, please propose it. It seems that this particular question is beyond both practical and philosophical technology at this point in human history. There is no theory about God that can be tested, falsified, repeated and scrutinised as far as I know, so why would science waste time on this question? Maybe in the future we will have a knife of some kind that can carve meaning into this question, but we don’t at the moment.
There’s a separate discipline for pondering abstract questions which we can’t test, it’s called philosophy. And it pushes science, when the time is right, to find evidence. But until philosophers find a way to test their suppositions, their suppositions are not worth thinking about,for a scientist.
No, you’re going to have to help me. Obviously I’m only in 4th grade. Wtaf are you taking about. .
No it isn’t, because you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. However, everything which has been shown to exist (is detectable by scientific experimentation) is part of the physical world.
If you are talking about things which aren’t detectable, then science wouldn’t be concerned with those things because they aren’t worth thinking about
Be sure your child isn’t autistic before using this method. Autistic dysregulation (meltdowns) can look a lot like tantrums, but autistic kids don’t have the ability to control or adjust this behaviour.
Oh do fuck off. That’s the gist of what you said. I purposefully didn’t put it in quotes because I was paraphrasing.
Science grad with 10 years engineering experience. I had to turn down a lot of jobs before I found one that didn’t involve killing people. It took two years. I’m paid about half of what I could get if I sold my morals. Totally worth it.
Did you intend this to be paradoxical?
A bit, yes. There’s an inherent paradox in the argument about necessity. Put it another way: if the next technology turns all of your enemies into steam, but as a side effect, also does the same to their families, are you forced to develop it, because the people on the other side of the world will just get there first if you don’t? What if the one after that is super low resource yet it also kills anyone who has ever shaken hands with your enemy? etc etc. I would argue that creating a new weapon, or developing existing ones further is not made more or less moral on the basis that your enemy might be doing it, because if you know your enemy’s mind that well, you could easily defeat them using a slingshot.
This is likely wrong…Some of us would brutally murder each other with sticks and stones if they had nothing better.
Not sure I follow, this seems to be what I was saying. Read it back. The difference is that now we have technology capable of remotely erasing huge populations, and no means whatsoever of keeping it out of the hands of the freaks that invariably take power. It’s therefore immoral to develop weapons because if you are clever enough to know how to do that, you should be clever enough to know how the resulting products will end up being used.
most defense work is not creating the atomic bomb. Most of it is incremental improvements
So the difference between them then is just one of scale. Oppenheimer probably never got a good night’s sleep again in his life, but it’s easy to persuade a thousand people to each do a thousandth of what he did. Then each person is only a thousandth as responsible as Oppenheimer. But each increment is still an evil deed, just a smaller one.
“Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors…in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.” People working on weapons are ignoring, forgetting or equivocating over this simple fact. Good people don’t make bombs and sleep well at night. Find another job, where you can look back at your life’s work and honestly believe you made the world a better place.
Anyway, we agree that psychopathic megalomaniacs are a feature of the human creature. And whether or not they are flying drones, driving tanks, or a leading a hoard of mounted Visigoths at your village, I think most of us would rather remove them as a threat from a safe distance… Like with a missile.
Most of us would prefer our enemies killed at range, without having to look then in the eye, sure. But look at what you’re mixing up here: the psychopathic megalomaniacs who are sitting barking orders a world away from the lethality radii, and the grunts and (invariably) innocent collateral who are atomised inside them.
I knew it!
Thanks amigo/a