Please_Do_Not @ Please_Do_Not @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

445

Joined

1 yr. ago

I mean Venom is injured all the time in ways that would clearly impact a body within it. So either the host body goes full caterpillar-coccoon and is basically jelly while Venom is fully formed, or the host's body becomes immune to injury/near fully regenerable, in which case Venom could wreck the host's face without worry.

All of venom's mass is already clearly pulled from the meat dimension, so what's a little more for a glam rock tongue?

I'm sure it was better than Darwin

What about my understanding of evolution is incorrect, and how do you see natural selection working in present humans? Very possible that Dunning-Kruger is at play, but we may have to agree to disagree as to where...

My point is not that previous people haven't done significant things, it's that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.

If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn't have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren't working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.

That's why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.

And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don't understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it's an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.

Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.

I think that's pure conjecture about how having kids affects the world. And the nature, worthiness, or value of those 12 people has nothing to do with whether or not you happen to personally be their ancestor. There's nothing different or more special about one person's progeny than another, so who cares if it's your kids or 8 billion other people. The idea that that is important in the future is all about making yourself important in the present.

Why does it matter if they're your descendants or others'? My 16 great great grandparents are as much strangers to me as any other 16 people walking around 100 years ago. And everyone here now is in the same place, whoever they came from. Not like I'll be alive to (or would do so in any case) take pride in saying 'ooh those 12 people have something to do with me if you go back far enough"

Why is it essential for our genes to live on?

What a radical take

This is how we enter the simulacrum.

This is absolutely not every city. I've lived in several and not a single one compared to LA in these regards. I don't know what you're basing this claim on but it's simply inaccurate.

Neighborhoods have their own identities, but in most places, what makes something a neighborhood rather than its own town is the fact that it is surrounded by other neighborhoods that are immediately accessible. That's why Lincoln Park in Chicago and Soho NY are neighborhoods, but they use a whole different term to identify Manhattan from Long Island and so on. Those are properly boroughs rather than neighborhoods, as they are big, physically separated, and it's not that easy to get between them, which leads to each almost being considered its own city. And it's still harder to get between LA neighborhoods than it is to literally cross the (admittedly very thin) stretch of ocean between Manhattan and Brooklyn.

And I don't think there's any similarity between your second example, looking at how someone interacts with the whole of a country, and this question of how someone interacts with their local community. Countries are of course big enough that folks might see less than 50% of their own and still love it. But it's much harder to consider someone an expert or proud local of a "city" they don't visit 90% of. You can be a countryman and see only 30% of your country, but you can't really be a local and see only 10% of your city.

I mean more that it's crazy to call them "neighborhoods" when any two have nothing in common and are completely inaccessible to each other unless you have your own car and get on the highway for an hour.

And when that's the case, how does one even say they like "LA" (as in the whole city) when you're more likely to travel out of state from Long Beach than to Westwood.

Ok but LA sucks for reasons that have nothing to do with what I want from a city and everything to do with what everyone wants from a city: walkability, affordability, good roads/traffic and infrastructure, good vibes, authenticity, public transit, and people who don't suck.

Even people who are from LA and say "we have all that and I love LA" only mean "I love my neighborhood in LA, which is a 90 minute drive from the 7 other malignancies of highway sprawl that also call themselves LA."

For those concerned and yet to click the link: he's expected to be back on stage by Wednesday and has received scans, so it appears to be no major concern, though of course not quite minor either.

Checkmate, atheists

Imma be totally honest here and say that nothing with built in Bluetooth and ANC is going to qualify as even budget audiophile. Sony does probably make the best bang for your buck TWS/combo earbuds though.

If you're looking for something cheap, transparent/neutral, detailed, and optionally wired, your best bet is definitely a pair of IEMs and a Bluetooth receiver. You can get a lowish-end pair of Moondrop wired IEMs that'll reproduce more detail than fancy earbuds, and then hook them up to a tiny Bluetooth receiver that supports LDAC/AAC/apex HD codecs (like the fiio btr3k) when you want wireless convenience.

Swapping the silicone tips out for something like comply foam will also block out as much or more sound than low-end ANC, and it'll do so without distortion and without putting any of the cost of the headphones toward something that doesn't improve audio quality.

Just my two cents as someone who has tried a TON of high end earbuds and gladly settled on IEMs + a BTR5K receiver. And for anything under like $800, Moondrop tends to offer the highest tech for the money with IEMs.

Xavier a dog