It’s a birria taco but your point still stands.
It’s a birria taco but your point still stands.
Given that monitors tend to be wider than they are high, can’t see how this is a win tbh. Unless you’re going vertical monitor, then it’s the same real estate right?
E: words E2: I reread, if you can find that add-on I’d love to know what it is.
I will look at this but I never have more than 4 tabs open so…
Yeah, I didn’t really think you had that many tabs open in one window. But it was funny to think someone might have done that. Think how small they’d be!
Each tab must have been one micron wide, how did you even expect to be able to click on a specific one in the future with that many open - wait, I think I’ve answered my own question.
Yeah, I was thinking the same tbh. All you can really say is whatever it is has 3 syllabuls, it’s so muffled everything else is pareidolia.
I hear “KA-MA-LA” pretty clearly there, I really can’t make it out as “lock him up”.
me and Norton antivirus in 10,000 years
(me on the left)
Couldn’t agree more, children’s shows should absolutely be about peeling away the thin veneer of sanity that’s all there is protecting us from the gargling, writhing chaos and madness that lies in the darkness beyond.
It builds character.
The burden of proof is on you there bud.
If you want to make extraordinary claims like “I came into your room and implanted your memories”, then you’re going to have to provide some evidence for that. I don’t need to do anything.
You’re also completely missing the point of the original post and my response. There was never any questions about whether memories are real, the question was whether the memory of a thing has the same value as the real time experience of a thing.
(Also, at least I’ve got a prosthetic brain, you’re clearly still on the waiting list :p)
Can you not tell the difference between memory and reality?
Don’t get me wrong, it would be absolutely incredible having such perfect recall that memories are indistinguishable from the present, I just don’t think that’s a trait many humans naturally possess.
You, me and every western philosopher for the last few hundred years all want an answer to this but as far as I know, the short answer is no - you can’t empirically prove anything exists outside of your own thoughts.
However, unless you particularly enjoy trying to answer that question, it’s simply more practical to accept as a fact, that your senses are telling the truth when they tell you something is real.
It’s an axiom, but axioms are helpful for allowing us to get on with living when we would otherwise just get stuck in a pointless loop of asking unanswerable questions.
That said, if you do enjoy the challenge of trying to answer these sorts of questions, you could probably start with Rene Descartes’ - Discourse on the Method. In that, Descartes kicks this whole topic off by asking “what happens if I systematically deconstruct everything I know to be real?” and eventually comes to the conclusion that yes, everything outside of our minds can be doubted but the one, irrefutable fact that holds up under any amount of scepticism, is that “if I can think, I exist”.
This is a pretty digestible article about the importance of the discovery of “cogito, ergo sum”/“I think, therefore I am”.
What I’m getting at is that the way you’re talking about the sequels is exactly the way people spoke about the prequels when they came out.
I hated the prequels when they came out, I still think they’re basically unwatchable. But they weren’t aimed at me, and a whole new generation of SW fans grew up with a deep fondness for them.
I expect we’ll see the same thing with the sequels.
Someone in 20 years: Say what you will about the sequels, at least they’re not the threquels.
I believe Starling Bank and Monzo both do virtual cards (looks like you need to pay for a Plus account in Monzo but it comes free with Starling).
I think what you're asking about is called Archeological context.
The basic gist is that archeologists will be able to date not just the find itself, but the soil it's in and other potential finds within the same layer of soil/around the site.
So you're right, if you just found two Roman swords on a bench in the Cotswolds, you probably couldn't infer from that that the Roman military had definitely been present. But if you find them in a specific layer of soil along with other Roman artifacts, that starts to build up context around the find. The more evidence you collect, the better able you are to put a date on when the swords arrived at your site.
They’re talking about pulling it open as in the pic, which makes it get cold, let’s all the goodness fall out and ruins the dippiness imo.
But you do you, I’m not your abuella.