Yeah, if you ever run across the theories of how dogs became so close to us, it started with wolves being willing to take the risks of scavenging near us, and eventually co-evolving (until selective breeding started).

Actively, intentionally domesticating a species is a slow process overall, and it wasn’t something that I’ve seen any specialists suggest would have been the case with dogs, or cats.

You assume it’s a one-way street.

Humans having a proclivity towards “cute” animals is as much an evolved trait as animals becoming “cuter” to better adapt to presence.

Hell, for that matter, it isn’t just us that have a proclivity towards “cuteness”. It exists in plenty of species, we just tend to be the ones most prone to it outside of very similar species.

It is absolutely evolution because it isn’t selective.

Y’all ain’t never heard a southren feller afore?

🎶Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely stable 🎶

It’s already an ER spin-off

I didn’t see the title at first, and “fuck yeah” was exactly what popped into my head

Obviously, tastes vary, but the nostalgia crack part of the show is fairly minor compared to the actual story. It’s really there more to establish that it is set in the past and give a quick handwave to character background.

It gets used less after the first episode or two of each season, which do tend to be a bit more focused on set-up and “vibe” building to some degree or another each season.

There’s no guarantee you’d like it, but the first episode of the first season isn’t really a good example of the show as a whole, nor are the first episodes of each season. Imo, they tend to be a way to let both established audience and new viewers “settle in” rather than being integral to the overall plot arcs. They do tend to serve as character updates (after season one where they serve to establish characters) though, so skipping them entirely wouldn’t be ideal. It is doable though.

Which only matters if you’re remotely interested in watching it at all

Annnnd ear wormed

Well, calling it misogyny isn’t a directly accurate issue, though if you step back a ways, the connection is there. Part of why Hillary caught so much shit was the fact of her being a her in the first place.

However, the joke has existed for decades, long before she was a relevant name in the public consciousness. I’ve heard or seen it applied to politicians since the eighties at least, sometimes with long ex presidents. Hillary wasn’t the first woman to catch that kind of generic joke, Geraldine Ferarra (spelling?) was the target of pretty much every cookie cutter joke like that, and she was nowhere near the hot target Clinton still is now (even after the collapse of her public influence). So there’s room for debate on the joke itself being misogynistic.

But the mods in question definitely nailed that it’s a stupid, unfunny, cookie cutter joke. It’s the kind of unfunny crap people complain about being subjected to at holiday gatherings by an asshole relative that can’t drop their identity politics long enough to be decent company at fucking Christmas.

Also, backhanding the back of someone’s head is an awkward movement when both people are seated close enough together to talk, and it makes this specific use of the joke format fail hard because it engages the logic filters, so if you’re going to use it in the future, consult a professional joke crafter.

We thought, briefly, that our rooster had undergone that since the person we got it from swore up and down it was a hen.

But, nah, it was just a rooster and it was obviously so well before he started crowing.

No more or less flawless than windows, Android, or the iOS stuff.

It’s different flaws.

In a pinch, some superglue liberally applied can either block reception or muffle it so much that anything it could send would be largely useless. Or you can open it up and remove it and hope nothing else breaks in the process.

I’m always the coolest motherfucker in the room, even when I’m also the motherfucker in the comfy chair snoring like a sasquatch with adenoid issues because I am also the sleepiest motherfucker in the room

I just wish Wheaton had gotten better scripts to work with.

He put in the work, and turned in reliable performances across the years of the show, but an actor can only do so much. Wesley was so spottily written that nobody could have made the character entirely likable to the fan base as a whole.

Turtle vagina

'Pon occasion.

Not every time, because I have to make my own sauce since I’m picky about vinegar on greens. But when I’ve had the stamina to make a batch, yes

Y’all want some collards and beans?

Sadly, nothing that I want to run in waydroid works lol.

It’s an awesome thing, and I’m glad it’s out there though

Well, I gotta point at PTB on this one, despite generally being okay with preemptive bans.

I’m not saying that an admin shouldn’t be able to do this; they take the risks and hassles of making the fediverse function, so they get some leeway before PTB can be fully applied.

But there is still a range of ways to execute this kind of decision that aren’t cool. Making it personal is right at the PTB side of that range.

As an example, if I wanted to ban you from southsamurairocks.edu because I didn’t agree with your beliefs, and the hassles that might come from them, or your reputation, I think it would be my obligation to give that as the reason, not just the fact that it’s you. It crosses the line from making a measured policy decision into just being a dick without the guts to just be a dick outright and honestly.

Like, if we had beef, and that’s why I ban you, I’m going to publicly state that I don’t like you, and thus don’t want you in my instance. Not just be snarky by using your name as shorthand for it.

It’s the smugness of it that makes it PTB instead of a legitimate preemptive ban. Nobody has to let anyone onto their instance if they don’t want to. But you gotta be up front and detailed about it if you don’t want to be the asshole.

It really does require non scientific information to address.

Consciousness is not fully understood. Without that, anything regarding consciousness is still at least a little unanswerable. You can’t point to when and where consciousness ends if you don’t know what it is, what defines it in the first place. Death isn’t exactly at consensus either.

That means NDEs can’t be pinned down with 100% accuracy yet.

Here’s what I know. Nobody that has had the cells of their brain break down, as in begin decomposition, has ever come back.

So, based on that, I think the NDE experience is going to be based in some kind of brain activity. If the neurons are “melting”, they can’t function if enough of them aren’t melting and you can jump start things again, they weren’t dead at all. That, to me, is the definition of death that matters: if you can come back, it ain’t death.

Considering the general amount of precise experimentation in measuring the brain and body during the process of dying is extremely thin and limited by the very process, I don’t think we have the right tools to measure anything that would “prove” anything about NDEs, only indicate some probabilities.

But those probabilities lean much harder to it being a chemical and/or electrical event.

Now, if you want to bring souls into it, you aren’t dealing with science in the first place because it is currently impossible to even detect whether or not souls exist, it is a matter of faith. It’s essentially impossible to prove they don’t exist, but there’s absolutely nothing ever measured that points to anything resembling credible proof that they do. So souls just don’t matter for NDE discussions in a framework of science. You might as well factor in what granfaloon a person is mixed up with as a soul.

I’m not saying you can’t believe in souls and still attempt science regarding death, just that souls aren’t studyable with science.

Since nothing in any NDE has ever been unique to NDEs, it does make it harder to put faith in them as something other than a physical process. Everything anyone has ever described (at least in any useful setting) as happening has also happened with the influence of drugs, magnetic fields, meditation, or spiritual practices. Probably others my brain isn’t pulling up as well that aren’t under one of those headings, but I think it shows what I mean well enough.

And that point is that if the experiences aren’t different from things you can experience while alive, why would they be useful for determining if the person had died?