I am not sure if I mispoke or misread. Apologies for implying ignorance, I just wanted to dump my mind

Ok I recognise Andre and Arnold, who’s the dude on the left?

All social media can be anonymous if you want it to be ;)

I’m sorry you lost me there mate. Let’s take them in order

I’m not and have never been a political candidate.

The performative outrage of which I speak is people encouraging that the Democrats be punished despite the explicitly stated desire and highly probable outcome of the Republicans enabling greater atrocities, whilst disregarding the harder and more useful work of pushing individuals to oppose the genocide within the existing system of reality

What is this even meant to mean? This is precisely the performative outrage of which I speak, and it doesn’t even carry semantic weight. It’s just useless pseudo-accusatory sentiment

Performative outrage is so much easier than working towards real change though!

Been saying that for years. Same for Muse, although they took after different parts of Radiohead’s ouvre. Never really felt anyone huge corresponded to the Kid A/Amnesiac stuff though. Nobody jumps out there.

Lol yeah can only imagine what playing ‘hunt the bad device’ would’ve been like back when those boxes had actual fuses on them. (That’s the game where the main circuit breaker gets tripped and you have to figure out first what ring it’s on, and then which specific item is tripping it)

No fuses in the switch box though, it’s a box of circuits breakers

I don’t think 23 is wildly off from 25, and honestly this is just the first one I found that mentions it, I’ve seen various different sources for different reasons in the past. But the average is based on genetic mutations, and obviously in any given human it’s irrelevant how large a generation is as to how much genetic mutation is contributed by the generation. Like even if there are 8 billion people today, that doesn’t imply that you somehow got more generic inheritance from your parents than they did from theirs back when there were 6 billion people or whatever. Judging average to be the average per generation (a reasonable inference given the methodology) the last few years won’t make much of a difference in a timescale of 250k years

I can’t find the article I vaguely remember from a while ago, here’s another random one that has mothers in the bronze age ranging from 16-40ish https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314262257_Bronze_Age_Beginnings_The_Conceptualization_of_Motherhood_in_Prehistoric_Europe although you can’t really infer much about averages from that.

Anyway yeah there have been periods in time when average age of mothers was younger, but generally if you look back on a long timescale it’s been older than people seem to assume. Seems to be quite common to have the notion that women all had children at 16 or whatever back in the day but not much to really bear that out that I can find.

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/average-age-of-conception-throughout-human-history/151423/ nah it’s pretty much been the average age of mothers for a very very long time indeed

There were moments in its history when it maybe wasn’t as bad as the competition, but it’s not been great of late

Ah, well correct. I appreciate your scholarship

Rust is brilliant for cli tools, which have the benefit you can usually make something useful to scratch an itch without it exploding in scope. Might be a better place to start than yaca…

I looked, and beheld a white horse. And the man that sat on it was death. And hell followed with him.

I could be misremembering that a bit tbf

Lol, most of the axis didn’t even have labels. The reductionism is obviously silly, but presenting the classic 2D model as if that was actually how words are used is genuinely hilarious

Or you appreciate authority in some matters, but reject it in others. That’s the point in the spectrum that rejects the simple binary.

Edit: just realised both my last posts were responding to you. I’m not stalking or weird shit I swear! It just happened I woke up with more opinions!

No, what I’m experiencing is the conventional meaning of the term as used by people in normal language not matching up with a technical definition that you favour. It’s fine that you prefer to use the word that way, you just can’t expect everyone else to

Well you’re not fucking wrong mate

Any assertion in chart form must be true!

Edit: ok now that I’m getting downvotes I feel I need to explain: the conventional usage of the word libertarian is not commensurate with it covering such a wide range of the political spectrum. Usually we mean people who favour mildly anarchistic views (minimal governmental institutions, low taxation, low intervention). Representing that niche as half of the political spectrum is highly disingenuous

But he was the one I was looking for