I suspect round one is like eating milk, and round two is a fine cheese. Or eating cabbage, and later experiencing it as a well-aged kimchi. I’m sure it’s full of probiotics.
I suspect round one is like eating milk, and round two is a fine cheese. Or eating cabbage, and later experiencing it as a well-aged kimchi. I’m sure it’s full of probiotics.
A longer digestive system is necessary to properly break down plant cellulose. This is why some small herbivores are copraphagic (eat their own shit, like rabbits): it takes two times through to extract adequate nutrients.
I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdism in humour. There are people who laugh when they see something disastrous happen, like a man reflexively trying to stop a cement truck from tipping and getting squashed dead. Or a recent news story of the only fatality in a school bus crash: it was an observer who got hit by a vehicle as he ran across the highway to see if the kids were ok. A lot of the time this laughing response to a disaster is interpreted as schadenfreude, but a good portion of the time I believe it’s absurdism.
We try so hard to have agency, to do something, but the World doesn’t give a fuck. You have two choices when shit goes so wrong: you can wail about the unfairness of it all, or you can laugh at the absurdity of our efforts in the face of the colossal chaos of it all. The laughter is stronger.
It’s interesting to me that some cultures seem to have absurd humour baked in. The Aussies and Kiwis seem to have it. They just make jokes about and laugh at the most horrific situations.
I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdist humour. Dan Carlin relates a story of an old Air Force colonel who
“Vamipre”.
The leaves change colour
Technology fails humans
A second stone age.
A power outage
Turns my shiny computer
Into a dead rock.
EDIT: Lemmy edited out my paragraph breaks.
Like, what made him vomit, what was his vomit made of, and if that wasn’t a fucking joint then what was it?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re naturally superior.
That sounds like Gabor Maté’s work.
He he he … No. It’s closer to skwurl.
Seriously. It’s pretty discouraging and off-putting. Although, when I was in the Aquitaine I don’t think I got any of that.
… Maybe it’s because they remember being under English management and don’t want to give anyone an excuse?
I do find the French have very little ability to understand their language if it’s getting mangled.
No. It’s feminine because you put dirty things in it.
EDIT: I’m going to get lynched by the hyper vigilant with you. We’re in this together now.
Catholics every Friday.
Oh. Are you telling me the anti-robot revolution hasn’t actually begun? Well, that’s disappointing. Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out.
Wait … That’s exactly what a ROBOT would say!
I want as few cars as possible, mixed zoning, and walkable cities.I don’t believe in a technocentris utopia. I want more quality relationships, and technology in our lives to be more restrained. I am in no way an advocate for the status quo (which by all accounts is AI and robot cars). Robot cars are a step in the wrong direction.
Not unless that human driver was blindly following their navigation app like a total idiot. A person would have said, “oh shit, I want to get out of here.”
Anyway, I believe under it all we’ve got a tension between generally two different worldviews: those who believe Star Trek is utopia, and those who would rather life was more Hobbittish.
Personally, The Shire sounds like a nice place to live. Can we choose that please? You can still have computers, let’s just chill on the whole racing to meet our cyberpunk future.
The article states that there was no known motive, but it also states that automated cars in SF have been attacking people and emergency vehicles, in addition to blocking traffic for human drivers.
It’s pretty clear that this is the beginning of the anti-robot revolution.
Except all those apostrophes are like whole Latin phrases that the French just ate!
I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.
Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.