TerminalEncounter [she/her]

Oh, that’s a good tool

Is it burnout or does it seem like chores are insurmountable but possibly easier if someone else breaks them down to smaller tasks? Also could be both

ben ouais mais ce ne sont que des taches sur un écran lá.

ceci n’est pas un canard

It is crazy-making and it’s one of the reasons 2022 to 2024 had such enormous flops. They just don’t have any control over budgets at all, and apparently thought the era of superhero billion dollar box offices was never gonna end. I’m picking on capeshit unfairly because even the supposed auteur movies had way too big of a budget - and you don’t even see it on screen, the effects look so bad lol (unless it’s an Avatar, like you said)

The closest I’ve ever got to being alone in a theatre was a matinee showing of Don’t Breathe like 4 weeks into its run. Got 15 minutes in before someone else came by.

I watched it totally alone on Saturday night, never been in a theater alone! I’ve heard there were a lot of walk outs - which I don’t get, theres no accounting for taste of course, but I didn’t think it was leave early bad.

I loved the spectacle and the aesthetic and the fashion, the characters were sorta eh - this is a story where the characters aren’t grounded in realism but are supposed to be stand ins for ideas or movements. Aubrey Plaza was great in it, I actually kinda liked Shia LaBeouf as well. Adam Driver was so-so, but I think that was down to directing. Music choices were odd but I kinda dug it.

I really had a hard time following the plot. Lots of things happened and were resolved in the next scene - felt like about an hour was cut haphazardly. I didn’t have a theatre were an actor was hired to interview Cesar Catalina (Adam Driver) breaking the 4th walll butterfly aspect ratio and frame changed enough to keep some semblance of the effect.

• not really a spoiler it’s like the first scene.

Kind of a bizarre trip, glad Coppola got to make his Moby Dick of a movie. It’s way funnier than I was expecting something as pretentious as I figured it’d be - reminded me of Shakespeare style blending of High Art and Low Art, a comparison I’m sure Coppola would love. I bet I’ll watch this again on streaming or Blu Ray or something years later and see a bunch of stuff that didn’t make sense the first go.

Lady Gaga

I bear no resemblance. I can’t sing. I just think she’s neat.

Top is new york

Bottom is singapore, I think

🙄

The US doesn’t have the capability to do shit like that anymore. Rate of profit is way too anemic.

A big butt is masc. Ever seen baseball players? They got nice big butts. They get scouted at least partially on the sizes of their butts.

You will not exercise your way to a truly enormous giant butt. If that’s your goal, I’m sorry that you likely won’t achieve it. You can exercise to a big ol nice butt that can turn heads but I wouldn’t worry about it being “feminizing” cause… plenty og hot dudes have big butts

You may have never realized, but big ol bubble butt on a dude is considered very attractive lmao especially if it’s muscle.

There’s exercises that might make you leaner instead of bulkier but I don’t think there’s anything that can strictly feminize, I think this is the eternal struggle of self-styled femboys.

I use to work for IRRC (the part of the government that you get a work visa from).

The general IELTS is the one in the Canadian Language Benchmarks (there’s another version for French). Not every temporary residence visa needs English or French proficiency, generally you just need to be able to demonstrate you have enough English or French ability to do your job for a TFWP. There is no score requirement but obviously higher is better. If the officer in charge of your application is not satisfied that you can do your job in one of the official languages, then you will be denied entry.

You may also need to show a proof of health by taking an International Medical Exam. It depends on what country you are residing in or have resided in. For example, maybe you’ve been in the US on a work permit for the last 18 months but have an Indian passport - in that case you don’t need to submit health stuff. If someone with an American passport lived in India for the last 18 months, they would need to submit a health report. This website will show you if you need one: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/medical-police/medical-exams/requirements-temporary-residents/country-requirements.html if your plan is to become a permanent resident (PR) you’ll need an exam eventually.

Depending on the country you’re from, they also need to show proof of funds. It’s a little racist… basically if the country in question has a better GDP per capita than Mexico, then you will need to show you have proof of funds. Otherwise we were directed to not bother checking. Yes, seriously. Yes, the split is literally above Mexico. Yes, I know it’s dumb and it could be a problem for you. I don’t work there anymore for a reason.

The Golden Rule got kind of expanded into the Kantian Categorical Imperative - instead of what one should do to be moral, it tells us what we should not do. So he says, “do not treat people as purely a means to an end, because they are human and have intrinsic worth” for example, don’t lie, don’t cheat, etc. Which isn’t a bad way to live life. Of course, he said it’d be wrong to lie to an axe murderer the whereabouts of your loved ones on the grounds that it treats even the axe murderer as a means to an end rather than as a person… so not perfect anyway. Ideally, if everyone is following the Golden Rule or the Categorical Imperative then there is no harm ever done. But we don’t live in an ideal world.

Socrates said “there is no moral evil” because he said it was impossible for anyone with sufficient knowledge to act in an evil way. Because, in his view, if they knew enough they would act in their best interests - which means limiting harm and never treating others poorly. For him that meant education and the cultivation of certain virtues meant people would act well instead of giving rules to say what is the right or wrong way to act - except his virtues were made up in Antiquity lol so didn’t really include a lot of respect for women’s rights for example.

Sometimes Justice and Doing What Is Right demands we get some retribution or are made whole after some harm was done (for example, being abused by a person in authority) or even act punitively to prevent future harm (like removing those teachers from their jobs, maybe even banning them from ever working with anyone vulnerable, not just children). In that case, it’s wrong to keep treating someone well when they’re harming you - it’s only going to encourage further harm to someone else.

Maybe treating them as you would have them treat you might include “hey, if I’m acting like a dick and abusing people - tell me and others and do everything you can to stop me from doing that.” Sure, that’s “badly” for narcissists who think they can never be wrong but not for people who aren’t, right? If I said something harmful carelessly, I would hope to be corrected! There’s certainly a class of people who really think treating them “well” means doing whatever they say to do and accepting all punishment, earned or not. IMO, they have a very poor understanding of what being treated well really means lol

Some herbivores can’t digest their food all the way, cows get around it by having more than one stomach and also chewing their cud (vomiting up from first stomach and rechewing). Rabbits do the same thing as koalas, partially digest their food and eat their poop.

Science and religion are often compatible, I know of some Hindu thinkers (for example) who say scientific knowledge is to be taken as truth and religious truth should not contradict it - just that this scientific knowledge cannot explain the whole mysteries of the cosmos. You might be aware of “the god of the gaps” and arguments like that, or that God somehow created the universe using the laws of physics as we understand them. Historically, scientific thought and religious thought were often united and people pursued science and philosophy due to attempting to understand God (like many Islamic scholars in the 7th century or like Renee Descartes who ultimately sought to prove the existence of God by pure reasoning). Science as a complete system of belief without some religious aspect is actually a fairly recent phenomenon that likely had very little to do with any particular scientific discovery.

Indeed, science can do very little to explain why things happen. It’s great at explaining how - e.g. science is great at explaining how fire burns or how a calculator can display an answer but it can be iffy on why. Now, “why” fire burns is probably more of a malformed question like what’s north of the north pole but we’re human, we like to ask why and seek purpose. Meaning makers.

The decline of religiosity wasn’t really driven by science showing biblical stories weren’t real, it’s a process driven by material reality and class relations. Although many people considered themselves Christian or religious in the west, they were very Deist and didn’t think God had much influence with the world apart from answering paradoxes like what was the primum movens etc.

Going further back, religion wasn’t a choice or something to reason to - it was just your life and your community. In medieval Europe, you didn’t really reason your way into a system of beliefs they all tied together into an economic system called the feudal mode of production. You just were a Christian and so was everyone you knew. Maybe some monks debated some esoteric aspects of theology but most people just lived their lives. This lasted for a while through to the Enlightenment and the emergence of capitalism in the 17th century. Except for some malcontents and rebels, people still didn’t reason towards being Christian, say. It was just your life - more like a hangover from that older mode of production and social cohesion than something necessary to maintaining capitalism.

Fast forward to the actual decline of religiosity and rise of spiritual none-of-the-aboves and nothing-in-particular. This was a process started in the mid 20th century (not really in WW1 which was conceived often as a holy or religious war by the soldiers and officer class including miracles and appearances of angels and so on). In reaction to the rise of consumerism and individualism - now religion became a choice or affectation! This is where we start to see the irreligious begin their massive growth but especially by the beginning of the 00s. It’s tempting to say Quantum Mechanics, GR, a scientific basis for cosmological origins like the big bang are responsible for the loss of religion - but in my view, these just coincided due to a third cause (that of economic changes and the settling in of mature capitalism).

I got decimated in the forum today 😫

I got *decimated* in the forum today 😏

I beg of you, just eat beans it’s so much easier than trying to fix industrial meat agriculture. There will never be a fix for it that makes ut affordable and green.

Tiny charter shredded in tiny shredder