Th4tGuyII

I was a bit of a picky eater when I was younger, but I’ve become much, much less so over the years - one of the few things I’ve never come around on is olives. The taste and texture combination just don’t work for me

Damn, you definitely didn’t catch their pretty side

I would definitely like to have duck more often. I only rarely get it for myself as a treat but god damn is it the best bird going.

Was about to say - either that dog is AI generated, or OP has done an awful job taking the picture

Selotape? It’d have to be something that sticks on it’s own

I’m a bit late to the party, but I would be inclined to agree with the majority here. Your choice to have their cookies deleted on browser close is adding more friction to an already quite high friction process - you managed to get them to switch over, you don’t want to undo all that over cookies of all things.

You have to remember, it is their machine at the end of the day, and while you might be able to put up with having to redo 2FA loads due to cookie deletion, they’re clearly not… And if that’s going to be the dealbreaker, you’re far better off forgetting cookie deletion for now and focusing on more passive privacy options like blocking 3rd party cookies, trackers, and ADs.

Yeah - I do find it odd when people say Facebook is dying, because it really isn’t. Unless Zuckerberg pulls a Musk anytime soon, it isn’t going anywhere - unlike Xitter, Facebook is an advertising juggernaught that makes more than enough money to keep itself afloat.

And that’s not even mentioning Facebook groups, news pages, business pages, the market place, etc… they’ve got fingers in many different pies, and it shows.

And even more, while it may not be popular amongst tech savvy folks, it is still insanely popular amongst regular folks. I for one can vouch that a significant proportion of my non-techy friends use either it or Instagram as their primary social media.

Hell, that’s why messenger is up there too - everyone has Facebook, so everyone has messenger, making it extremely convenient to message people you know. It’s certainly why I use it a lot, it’s where my friends are.

Meta dominates social media even now - just look at your list. Of the top seven, over half of them are Meta.

…

Dude - you’re either stupid enough to not realise the irony of what you’ve just said, or you’re trolling. For your sake, I kinda hope it’s the latter

I wish.

Should clarify that I don’t mean the front of the shoe itself, I mean the front part of the sole of the shoe - the way I walk causes that area of the sole and insole to wear down quicker than the rest of the shoe.

Shoes. I have a habit of “digging” through the front of the sole of my shoes, which means I go through them quite quickly.

I used to spend £10 every 4-ish months on a new pair of really cheap trainers, but then I decided to buy a pair of proper walking trainers a few years ago for like £60, and they’ve already paid themselves back in longevity and comfort.

Also handy that you can replace the insole, which helps an awful lot.

I reckon I could get longer out of more expensive boots, but I couldn’t really afford them at the time I bought these.

Edit: Not a werewolf - the bottom part of my shoe, not the literal front

I said Jimmy Neutron for my answer, but I think Rick faces a similar problem.

He’s a genius when it comes to engineering/academics, but otherwise he’s a fool with an overinflated ego that won’t let him acknowledge that - I mean hell the Ricks literally made the central finite curve so they didn’t have to acknowledge the possibility of someone smarter than themselves out there.

Similar to Neutron, most of his problems come from him trying to engineer his way out of personal issues, or making overcomplicated solutions to simple problems that end up backfiring.

Jimmy Neutron. Almost all of his problems came from him trying to cheat his way out of something and/or making overcomplicated solutions to simple problems that inevitably backfire because of some simple flaw he never thought about.

Academically, he’s a genius, but his overinflated ego prevents him from seeing that he ain’t all that smart when it comes to the real world.

Exactly. An exclamation point or bolding your letters sure does add emphasis, but if you actually wanted to make it a clear counterclaim, though or tho does the job a whole lot better.

The term superorganic was coined by Herbert Spencer while discussing the idea of the social organism, that society itself acts like an organism - guess what concept that is?

Oh right, the superorganism.

Just because it doesn’t say that exact word in your source doesn’t mean it’s wrong…

And again, that wasn’t even my main point, that was an aside that you started.

What is wrong is acting like gravity is some supernatural mumbo-jumbo because we can’t exactly pinpoint it’s exact cause, despite the fact that we can observe, predict, and calculate it with pinpoint precision.

Not understanding the cause of something =/= not understanding the concept of something

Ghosts are supernatural because we don’t even know if they’re real, nevermind their cause…

If we were able to prove their existence, we can understand the concept and learn how they work - with sufficient understanding of how they integrate into nature, they would no longer be supernatural.

It isn’t that vague or subjective, either something fits into humanity’s understanding of the natural world or it doesn’t.

Anyways, I’m just about done with this, so hope you have a good one.

Your source doesn’t specifically say the word “superorganism”, but that is what the idea of the superorganic points to - a higher level superorganism, the same as a bee hive, a termite nest, or an ant colony…

It doesn’t refer to any ability/inability to understand culture, which was my main point.

Yeah, because they believe in ghosts, they don’t know they’re real…

If you can’t definitively, scientifically prove ghosts exist, then there is no way to understand how they work in nature, ergo they’re supernatural. I don’t think it’s that vague…

We don’t know the exact cause of life on earth, doesn’t mean all life on Earth (including you) is supernatural.

Last I was aware, the idea of human culture being “superorganic” referred to the idea of our culture itself acting as an organism above the individuals that compose it, i.e. a superorganism.

The concept being based on emergent behaviour observed in colony forming insects (I.e. ants, bees, etc.) to act as an apparent single larger organism.

That isn’t the same as the concept of the supernatural, where it refers to things beyond our understanding of nature.

Not knowing the exact cause of a natural phenomena doesn’t mean that we don’t understand how it fits into nature - if it exists, then it can be understood, ergo not supernatural.

It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that you give such a vague definition as to what qualifies as supernatural that damn near anything you feel like could qualify.

Supermatural IS things beyond our understanding of nature, phenomena that cannot be explained by science.

If we could scientifically prove ghosts exist, the phenomena associated with them are no longer inexplicable to science, they would no longer beyond our understanding of nature, ergo they’d no longer be supernatural - just natural

Supernatural means things that are beyond nature (I.e. don’t obey our known understand of nature).

If ghosts are proven to exist in nature, then they become part of nature, thus are no longer supernatural.

We might not have a definitive explanation for gravity, but it is definitively within our understanding of nature - we can observe it, test it, and predict its effects far into the future.

Exactly. The supernatural is things beyond nature - if you can prove something supernatural is part of nature, then it’s not supernatural, so it would now be natural.

It’s similar to the quote, “What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine”