The two types of mentalities on display:

1. I’ll eat too much so I shouldn’t buy any
2. I’ll eat too much so I should buy more

So you react to both red light and blue light, but you react to blue light way better than to red. So blue light filters still checks out, but they’re more of a mitigation than a fix

The biggest difficulty with answering this question I think is that I don’t know how broad the categories should be. Do you have an estimate of how many categories you’re looking for?

My partner recently shared a video/clip about the differences between the way girls do makeup to attract guys vs the way girls do makeup to attract girls. What your comment reads like to me is that she put on the light makeup because she figured you would like that, but now, she’s figured that there’s no need to attract you with her makeup anymore

No makeup at all for me. I know that some women have a “no makeup” makeup, the kind where you say you don’t have any but you actually do. I don’t like that either. (she thought that I couldn’t tell)

Describing my job? Yeah, sure. I do science.

Explaining my job? Hell no. Nobody is willing to read a 20 page lit review to start to understand the background of what I do

If there was something I give up on, it’s gun control. For several reasons:

1. There’s basically no gun control anyways so it’s not like we’re giving up something.
2. Compared to abortion rights (ie bodily autonomy) and climate change (ie existential crisis), not having gun control is the least bad. It’s still pretty crucial, to be fair, but comparing to actual existential crises like the other 2, not having gun control doesn’t seem that bad in comparison

A meme or post that has no deeper meaning. If you have to analyze it or think about it, you’re already past a shitpost. The point of a shitpost is the stupidity of its superficial, useless, low-quality humor

It’s possible to have a high-quality, high-effort shitpost, but it’s rare, since by nature, high effort posts tend to also be meaningful. In my eyes, this is peak high effort shitpost

Yup, thanks! I was trying to figure out which word I was thinking of. I must have malaphored myself

Same for me, but with Tetris. I’m not the best, but I’m confident I can handedly beat the vast majority of the population. I spent most of my lockdown days just doing Tetris.

Honestly, steam deck lol

It’s an odd form factor that people don’t really have much experience with, hence they don’t really know how useful it’ll be to them. To be fair to myself, I had been holding back on purchasing one until maybe a year after the initial launch, so I think I would personally describe my experience as a leap of faith.

In any case, it turns out to be a great little thing. There’s a lot of games in my backlog that don’t feel “desktop-y,” and therefore I’ve never played them, if that makes sense. But with a handheld form factor, now I have more motivation to go through those games. Emulation on the steam deck has also been great, for a similar reason. And sometimes I just want to be in bed than on my desktop. Or sometimes I’m just on the bus or waiting for something.

I think SteamOS also taught me how usable Linux was, and that’s been pretty instrumental in getting me to minimize my Windows dependence

Windows 11. It sucks but I have apps that don’t run on Linux, and there simply aren’t any alternatives. I dual boot Kubuntu on my laptop and Kubuntu is great. I just wish software compatibility is better

Microraptor. I have a soft spot for the small dinos

My thought is the evolution of intelligent life itself. If you think about it, intelligence is contrary to most of the principles of evolution. You spend a shit ton of energy to think, and you don’t really get much back for that investment until you start building a civilization.

As far as we can tell, sufficient intelligence to build technological civilizations has only evolved once in the entire history of the Earth, and even then humans almost went extinct

Did you go to college/what was your experience with college?

Dr. Stone. It’s not for everyone, but if you’re into STEM, it’s probably the closest you’ll get to media accurately portraying science and technology.

It also puts into perspective just how much knowledge, expertise, and experience went into basically everything that we take for granted today. Makes you at least a bit hopeful for the future of humanity

And as a consequence, quantum bogo sort

Not an expert, but my understanding is that the multiverse (at least, what we today associate as the multiverse) came about due to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Basically, quantum physicists had an observation - particles were moving as though they were being pushed by an invisible wave, and they would pick a random position based on that wave when observed.

The most prevalent explanation for this behavior is the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the particle is the invisible wave, and the wave collapses into a particle when it is measured. But another common interpretation is the many worlds interpretation, which states that the invisible wave is just a statistical probability of where the particle is. And the reason why the particle seems to pick a random point on the wave when observed is actually because the particle creates branching timelines, and we can only observe what happens in our own timelines. Hence, it seems random to us.

I speculate that the idea of multiple parallel timelines, each slightly different, was probably pretty popular with scifi writers, especially since it’s an easy way to portray “what if” scenarios in their stories, and so the concept became popular because of that

Any game that isn’t trying to go for realistic graphics. Some off the top of my head:

• Braid
• Okami
• Outer Wilds
• Ori and the Blind Forest

Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I’m not an evolutionary biologist but I am a biologist (more specifically, a microbiogist).

The crux of the misunderstanding, I think, is that the definition of what counts as advantageous or “good” has changed over time. Very rapidly, in fact. The reason many diseases are still around today is because many genetic diseases offered a very real advantage in the past. The example that is often given is malaria and sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia gives resistance to malaria, which is why it’s so prevalent in populations that historically have high incidence of malaria.

Natural selection doesn’t improve anything, it just makes animals more fit for their exact, immediate situation. That also means that it is very possible (and in fact, very likely) that the traits that we today associate with health will become disadvantageous in the future.

If we remember that natural selection isn’t trying to push humanity towards any goal, enlightenment, or good health, it becomes easier to acknowledge and accept that we can and should interfere with natural selection