But you have to understand, to 74 million people, the Fox News Cinematic Universe is reality. There’s regular bullshit, and then there’s bullshit so widely believed that you actually have to study the bullshit, just to be able to predict what its subscribers will do next. Like religion.

On the starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk!

Counterpoint: he’s controversial because of what he says and does, not because of lies people tell about him.

I tried to explain this near the time of the event, back when I was on reddit. For this I received mass downvoting, and a universal consensus that misgendering is perfectly appropriate as long as the target has done something evil. Even from trans people. “We don’t claim her!”

It would be one thing if these same people also misgendered any given cis person who did wrong. But they don’t, and that double standard is transphobia. “Of course I would never misgender Hitler. He was AMAB. He earned it. You’re not AMAB? Then your right to be a man is contingent on your behavior. I’ll decide if you’ve been good enough to deserve it.”

We’ve got a long way to go culturally before people recognize that there is literally one and only one valid criterion for entitlement to a certain gender identity: claiming it.

One year anniversary of having a baseball sized tumor removed from his liver. He had been so lethargic while he was sick, but ever since he fully recovered, he’s been like a puppy again. We are still lucky enough to have this dog’s company.

For airborne contagions. Next question.

I’ve got the daily low-dose version, and it’s changed my life. True to expectation from a dissociative drug, it causes me not to feel so much personal identification with the unwanted thoughts that keep bubbling up in my head. It may not work for everyone, but it works for me.

I’m so dreadfully sorry. I cannot help myself. Please forgive me.

It’s “zero kelvins” not “zero degrees Kelvin.”

The question was, “How do you deal with depression about climate change?” Maybe voting in local elections does that for you (singular), but it may not work for you (general).

Already doing that. No change in material conditions, still depressed. Next idea?

Well then it becomes a logistical question. How?

100mg of ketamine every day, half in the morning, half in the afternoon.

So your solution to depression about climate change is, “singlehandedly accomplish what all of the non-evil politicians have been trying and failing to do for decades, but do that while both powerless and depressed”?

Privacy Pass just randomly generated Prince Andrew and now my browser is all sweaty.

Please do bring facts. Then, cite your sources. You have sources, right?

… right?

Lick more boots.

You could always go for the Peace prize. If war criminals can get them, anybody’s got a shot.

And since when is reality governed by majority opinion?

Anyway, maybe Copenhagen is right, and God does play dice. But if Many Worlds is right (and it seems more reasonable to me that “a bomb really does explode elsewhere in the wavefunction” has an observable effect on an experiment than “a bomb might have exploded but randomly decided not to” has any observable effect), then that’s a nail in the coffin for the simulation hypothesis.

But this assumes a QM interpretation which includes wavefunction collapse. In Many Worlds (and, to me, this experiment is proof of Many Worlds), both the branch where the bomb explodes and the branch where it doesn’t explode are equally real. When the bomb explodes in the other branch which you don’t observe, you learn the bomb was live. When the bomb explodes in the branch you do observe, your counterpart in the other branch learns the bomb was live. When the bomb is a dud, nothing happens. These are the observed probabilities: 50% nothing happens, 25% you learn the bomb was live without it exploding, 25% your bomb explodes.

This is a powerful argument against the simulation hypothesis. The computer running the universe would have to keep processing the simulation in both forks every time the universe splits, which happens all the time. It would be far less complex to just simulate Newtonian physics.

Huh, I had always heard it as “turbulent priest,” but as I look it up, I realize there would obviously be multiple valid translations, cause Henry said it in French.