The Weezer pork and beans video was actually fucking sweet

Ok

I think you’re missing what this is. They’re not adding sponsor segments.

They’re scanning the video, establishing where “free visual space” is, and then embedding advertising into that space. It becomes part of the video, not an intermission. You don’t cut a “time segment” to remove it, you have to cut a “space segment” to remove it. And then what do you fill it with?

There are certainly ways to mitigate it, but they’re not great.

I think it’s great to have at least one person thinking about these things.

I can’t deny that her urge to decorate does make the house look better. It makes me happy.

I just don’t think she can comprehend the absolute vacuum in my brain where “home anesthetics” should be.

I had a similar conversation with my wife about table cloth length.

She just kept pushing it: “what do you think about a table cloth that’s longer?” “What if it was shorter?” “What if it was longer one direction than another direction?”

My love, I don’t think about table cloths. No part of my brain is equipped to evaluate hypothetical cloths in a way that would be realistically beneficial to the conversation.

https://xkcd.com/927/

The guy was obviously being a troll.

But, there certainly isn’t a consensus on racism. Some vocal elements demand that for for something to be racist, there also has to be a racial power imbalance working in the favor of the person being racist… and they’ll use that distinction to explain how actions that would be evaluated as racist by the definitions you provided actually aren’t if the target is in a position of racial privilege.

And, personally, I think that definition was literally seeded as a wedge by state actors for the explicit purpose of sowing discord, but here we are.

I actually did love at the beginning of season 1 where Picard is shitting on starfleet.

As meh as S1 ended up being, and as poorly as pretty much everything was done in S2… what I was most afraid of was that they’d somehow molest Picards character itself.

They didn’t do that

Also loved S3.

It had roughly the same structure as any Muppet movie (we gotta get the whole gang together for one last show!) Say what you will about the Muppets (and by that I mean: choose your words carefully) but God damn it’s a formula that works.

It’s certainly the last time we’ll see that crew together. Never in a million years could I comprehend they’d put them on the bridge of the Enterprise D.

Did it have the philosophical explorations that I loved from the series? No. Did I need it to be? No. Where my boys at, how they been? Did thier bonds stand the test of time?

Technically the post is reducing another culture to a form of therapy

That’s still just convention. In cartesian systems the only requirement is that x and y are orthogonal.

When you add a third dimension, and additional concern arises being what direction of z is the positive one. You’ll notice the two examples are not the same, if you flip either one so the x/y line up, there is still disagreement about which direction z is pointing.

deleted by creator

Yes this was it! Thank you!

Life… uhhh…

It’s not mine. Literally look back through this comment thread.

The person you replied to said “steal” was a poor choice of words and you piped up to say it wasn’t. That was the moment you entered into a semantic argument.

Someone is gonna need to double check this, but I feel like it’s saw a documentary that said cheetahs are super anxious… in the doc I feel like a guy slept in a makeshift shelter with cheetahs in a thunderstorm to help chill them out.

It sounds so bizarre that im not actually convinced this wasn’t a dream, though…

Your disagreement with op about the definition of stealing IS the semantic argument. That’s what a semantic argument is.

You got into a semantic argument… and then started laying down incoherent definitions that you made up on the spot.

Yes, I agree, you are absolutely trolling.

You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc

I’m going to drive directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which I promise you, I’m not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand) is just bad.

Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.

Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.

Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way for something im actively digesting.

Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.