Removed by mod

Removed by mod

• Attack and bomb a country during ongoing negotiations.
• Wipe out a truckload of their air defences
• Use air superiority to bomb thousands of civilians
• Propose ceasefire without having achieved any political goals at all
• The country immediately starts rebuilding their decimated air defences to prevent you from bombing them during the ongoing negotiations (like you did last time)
• shockedpicatchu.jpg
• this_is_a_provocation.wav

Removed by mod

Best I can do is three fiddy :/

Accidental means you didn’t have consent.

Dude… at this point you’re just looking for something to be triggered by. If I open the kitchen door and it hits my SO standing on the other side, that’s not domestic violence, it’s an accident. If my hand gets caught in her hair while we’re messing around that’s not non-consensual hair pulling and sexual assault, it’s an accident.

When accidents happen, you apologise, accept the apology, and keep having fun together.

I’ve found myself sitting alone in my car in an abandoned parking lot just listening to some music and wondering what I’m doing with my life. The strange thing is that, by all objective measures, I have a really good life. I have an SO that I love more than anything in the world, and which is fantastic to me, I have parents and siblings that I have great relationships to, I have a job that I really enjoy, and I have good friends. Despite all that, I sometimes get this need to just “disappear” for a little while and isolate myself while listening to sad music. I don’t really enjoy it either, it’s more like some kind of cathartic feeling, like theres some kind of sadness in me that occasionally just wells up and needs to be given some space. It’s quite rare (maybe once a year or something on that order), but it does happen. It’s actually really nice to see that this is something relatable - I’ve never really spoken to anybody about it.

I haven’t really been keeping up with the particle physics community, what is the “next big thing” they’re looking for? In lieu of a single “next big thing” that would be comparable to the Higgs boson, what kind of things are they really looking for at the LHC these days?

The fact that the account is 9 years old (from long before he was famous) points to a potential for this being his real account.

NO!

i^2 == -1 =/> i == √-1

The root is NOT the inverse of the square, and assuming it is will lead you to nonsensical conclusions and banishment to the shadow realm. I reject your imagination and substitute my own… or, I would, but I’m not really up for imagining something funny on the fly right now.

Awake people can preemptively consent to being woken up however they like. Source: I have actively requested and enjoyed being woken up like this.

Not an edit: I REALLY hate it when other people try to tell me what I can and cannot consent to, so this personally grinds my gears.

Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.

Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and “settles” in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn’t… shot rockets at them after they did it??

Or conclude that they were accumulating mass some other way, such as

• Accumulating water
• Being severely constipated
• Some obscure bone disease that causes them to accumulate absurd amounts of minerals

My bet would be on (1) and/or (2).

I want to fill in on the fact that any journal can end up publishing garbage science if someone is able to dupe the reviewers. This means that no matter what journal you’re reading, you need to read science critically. Sensational claims require sensational evidence, and ideally any work should be 100% reproducible based on the information given in the article.

Depending on the field, you can also often get a good indicator by investigating the authors of the article (checking out the last author first is a good tip). This mostly applies to very recent research where looking at citations is a poor indicator of quality, but where research is often dominated by a few reputable research groups around the world.

For older research, looking at how often the article has been cited, by whom, and why, can give you a very good indicator of the quality of the research. Solid research is often built upon later, while garbage is often refuted and then abandoned.

Of course, none of the above is infallible, but if you read critically to ensure the research makes sense, find that it originates from a reputable group, and see that others have based newer research on it, it’s probably trustworthy. After a while you start building up an impression of the most important names and journals in the field, but that requires reading quite a few articles and noticing which names and journals repeatedly show up.