Must be containing them in his neck cus damn

First balkanize the US, then China?

Maybe it references all of them

Yes because the only possible reason someone might not support a law they live under, is because they are ignorant of it

Know your customer

Best I can offer is a community, and no land

Are they not?

Liquid, solids and gases

So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be “named” after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).

I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?

??? You yourself said “even if we are talking about chicken eggs, it is still the egg first” and I was making a point against that.

Sounds like someone was jealous

I think the simplest way to explain it is:

• colours in a computer work by adding light. Add enough light wavelengths makes white.
• colours in paint work by taking colours out of the light it is reflecting. Take enough light wavelengths out and you get black

Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg

I don’t think It’s that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg

Ironically, I think the ability to be content single is a fairly attractive trait.

I actually think that isn’t even the case most of the time. I think usually “you are too nice” actually just means “I like you and the way you act, I am just not attracted to you”.

The problem with just being honest about the lack of attraction, is that many people will take it to mean something is wrong with them, or even that attraction still might be possible if they just try harder. It’s hard to accept that some people just won’t be attracted to you, even if you do everything right. It isn’t a “game” you can always win.

He is blowing their minds

I mean, I find the tech fascinating and probably would like it, except that I hate the way it was created, the way it is peddled, the things it is used for, the companies who use it, the way it “talks”, the impact it has had on society, the impact it has on the environment, the way it is monetised, and the companies who own it.

And all that makes it difficult to “just appreciate the tech”

I don’t think I’ve heard of “radical left” outside of the US? In Europe I only recall “far left” and “far right”

I posted about my doubts about a concept due to scalability. Was your response to that not an argument for why scalability need not be a concern? Maybe I misunderstood it.

Also, your condescension is unnecessary. You don’t know how long I’ve been thinking about something.

In what way does capitalism require moving close to your job? The line between want and need in these situations is very thin. They need to work, and they want to not spend much of their day commuting. If they didn’t have to work at all they might prefer to live elsewhere, but in a world where they do have to work, they would rather live closer to work. Though afaik abolishing capitalism does not mean abolishing the need to work (though it would greatly reduce the amount of work)

For universities and recreation you seem to be saying it is not necessary to live in a city to access, which I agree with, but it’s irrelevant. The fact is that people still do live in cities because they want to live closer to university, or they want to have access to a wide variety of recreational activities. Even without a profit motive, having a large number of people nearby is a good reason to build recreational centres, and having access to a wide range of recreational activities is still a good motivation to live in a place. On top of this, many dense population centres are around natural sources of recreation which cannot be simply built elsewhere, like beaches, mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.

You don’t have to convince me that cities as they exist now are generally terrible, I totally agree with you. But evidently a huge number of people still think it is worth living in cities, and if cities/ high population centres in general still exist even without capitalism, then the scalability of a system is still very much a valid concern, no?