Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
So you play Tibetans in the middle of the PRC's occupation of Tibet sometime during 1959. All Tibetan beliefs are assumed to be true, including sorcery, bodhisattva, and the idea that there is a nine-headed demon lord behind the PRC's power.
I'm just skimming it right now, but I can't seem to find any sections on how everything ties together.
Scooby-Doo and Shaggy both enjoy these. Not to be confused with the other trope "Scooby Stack".
In many of the newer cartoons, however, these sandwiches never contain meat, since voice actor Casey Kasem (who did Shaggy) became a vegetarian and insisted that all his characters eat vegetarian, too. (Although it wouldn't be terribly out of character for Shaggy anyway. In early cartoons he would eat hamburgers, tacos, and pretty much anything else, meat or veggie.) Interestingly, Kasem's favorite kind of sandwich is apparently eggplant.
Wasn't there a bit in the newest Scooby Doo series where their favorite burger joint is replaced with a vegan place, to their sick disgust?
Western cultural norms paint anyone who isn't European as being part of one of a handful of ethnic supergroups.
Try to tell someone that you're say, Ethiopian, and watch the blank stares roll in.
It's less to do with ethnic and more to do with politics.
I'm not a communist. I've never been a communist. I've never read Mao's little red book and I do not condone the PRC's actions that cause suffering in any way.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Programmers are the perfect storm of bad philosophy because they are clever, mostly self taught even when they went through formal education, woefully unread in important humanistic texts, but making up for it with pulp fiction and pop science, encouraged by their craft to think independently, formally, about the world, facing problems whose difficulty is broad rather than deep that are solved by ingenious corner cutting and going around the unbreakable core of the issue so as to get the practical results, thus having not just a tendency to shallow knowledge, but a skewed concept of knowledge itself as whatever gets things to work as opposed to thorough in depth understanding (a different concept of "depth" too), given a false sense of competence by the practical success of their efforts, habituated by a work that consists in inventing problem specific languages to understand language as something one redefines at will on a case by case basis, every word contingent.
The latter point is the most important. Programmers are liable to say things like "asking whether machines can think is like asking whether submarines can swim", or "the question of whether machines can think is too meaningless to be worth discussion", to pull the arguing semantics card, to answer like Paul Graham "define free will" to the question "are we free?", and to be completely nonplussed when philosophers get upset, for instance, for using "morality" in a self contained namespace that makes no claim about other people's use of the word.
most of that's basically true but (I'm not racist) programming can in some cases be essentially generic problem solving, especially when making large architectural decisions, and in that mode you do have to look at the core issues
What even is the point of putting ads at the end of YouTube videos? Do they think I'm going to sit around and watch a commercial now that the thing I came to watch is over?
Probably it is for people who listen to music on youtube. If you're listening to a playlist that goes from one video to the next and you're not right at your computer controlling it, then you'll hear that ad.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
What even is the point of putting ads at the end of YouTube videos? Do they think I'm going to sit around and watch a commercial now that the thing I came to watch is over?
Probably it is for people who listen to music on youtube. If you're listening to a playlist that goes from one video to the next and you're not right at your computer controlling it, then you'll hear that ad.
That makes sense. I hadn't thought of playlists, since I almost never use them myself.
Comments
half the time people have never heard the initialism though
See how many people FTFO or GTFO.
want
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
What a terrible night to have a curse
Programmers are the perfect storm of bad philosophy because they are clever, mostly self taught even when they went through formal education, woefully unread in important humanistic texts, but making up for it with pulp fiction and pop science, encouraged by their craft to think independently, formally, about the world, facing problems whose difficulty is broad rather than deep that are solved by ingenious corner cutting and going around the unbreakable core of the issue so as to get the practical results, thus having not just a tendency to shallow knowledge, but a skewed concept of knowledge itself as whatever gets things to work as opposed to thorough in depth understanding (a different concept of "depth" too), given a false sense of competence by the practical success of their efforts, habituated by a work that consists in inventing problem specific languages to understand language as something one redefines at will on a case by case basis, every word contingent.
The latter point is the most important. Programmers are liable to say things like "asking whether machines can think is like asking whether submarines can swim", or "the question of whether machines can think is too meaningless to be worth discussion", to pull the arguing semantics card, to answer like Paul Graham "define free will" to the question "are we free?", and to be completely nonplussed when philosophers get upset, for instance, for using "morality" in a self contained namespace that makes no claim about other people's use of the word.
Why you're supposed to hate it http://www.theawl.com/2013/02/crash-the-most-loathsome-best-picture-of-them-all
really now?