I’d heard that story before, had no idea it was a drag bar

Maybe he was an SCP

Something something featherless biped

Aren’t you legally required to have some kind of backup propulsion source anyway?

Your lateral velocity is changing. Change in velocity = acceleration. In fact, you’re now traveling in a circle, which requires constant acceleration towards the center.

When you turn the wheel, do you feel a g-force to the side? If yes, you’re accelerating.

BRAKE

IT’S SPELLED BRAKE

B-R-A-K-E

FUCK

If you set it on fire it makes a rainbow. There’s something profound in that.

I think, though, some people are too eager to throw out what they think is a reality check. Like in the post above, some are terrified of letting other trans people suffer (rightfully so), so they paint with too broad a brush and insist that someone must simply be in denial. I watched MLP, I like cute art and flowers and scented candles, and make female characters in video games because they get better fashion options. Does that mean I’m trans and denying it? No, it doesn’t.

It’s a delicate topic, and I won’t deny that there is a lot of stigma and social momentum against having these kinds of honest conversations about oneself. I’m just afraid that young people who are still trying to figure out who they are might get the wrong idea about themselves if people keep insisting that because you might like the color pink you must therefore be trans.

A featherless biped

THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED

The postwar attitude towards food was somewhat different than ours today. Back then, processed food was seen as a technological marvel, a symbol of man’s mastery over nature. Fortified bread meant your kids could get their essential nutrients. Any kind of vegetable could be found in a can - no more reliance on whatever was in season. Everything a housewife could need was pre-packaged, condensed, powdered, canned, or frozen. Processed food was advertised as tastier, healthier, and easier to prepare. Food companies would publish recipes like this, which were basically just “toss a can of this and a can of that together for an easy meal!”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

I was about to disagree with you, but then I realized that some humans are certainly dumber than a mushroom

Because I’ve never heard of De la Cruz, or any of the other third-party candidates that people keep espousing. And even if I had, my vote would be split among the other dozen candidates. That’s the fundamental problem with anyone left of the Democrat party - they’re not unified. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what would be best, everyone seems to have a different favorite candidate. Now all the votes that might have gone D are lost in the noise, while the R’s just fall in line like they always do.

What I keep getting held up on is that if the science keeps pointing toward the same conclusion, how do you actually apply those to society? How to you convince the voting masses to institute these changes? Because the average person won’t accept repealing things like three strikes and minimum sentencing, they just assume that a “tough on crime” attitude is the way to go. If a politician comes along offering justice system reform, he’d never make it into office because people would assume he’d be letting criminals run rampant unpunished.

Related, I’ve heard people argue against UBI by saying that it would just make people lazy and not want to work at all.

How do you build a system that doesn’t depend on voters not being morons? Everything I can think of, up to and including full-on authoritarianism, has human shittiness as a glaring weak point. The founding fathers assumed that people would, for the most part, act in good faith, and it kept us going for a couple hundred years, but all that is starting to fall apart.

Fires in January?

What an amazing year 2025 is turning out to be.

So does that mean that any artist which has viewed another piece of art and learned from it, and used that knowledge in their own works, has therefore committed plagiarism by not asking for permission or crediting every work they’ve ever seen?

I’m an author and one of the most common pieces of advice for authors is to read more. Reading other authors’ works teaches a lot about word choice, character development, world building, etc. How is that any different from an AI model learning from art pieces to make its own?

No! The food is in the dining room! You’re getting in the way! Smacks with wooden spoon Stop licking the beaters!