@FlyingLionWithABook's banner p

FlyingLionWithABook

Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 25 19:25:25 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1739

FlyingLionWithABook

Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 25 19:25:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1739

Verified Email

I pulled the two pounds thing out of thin air, but I remember looking it up at some point and finding that there was some kind of limit to the amount of fat you can gain in a day. That limit may very well be how much you can stomach. There might also be a bottleneck in the number of calories the gut can absorb at once. On the other hand, I don't think excess blood sugars ever get peed out, so presumably if you had more sugars than the body could convert to glycogen and fat in a day then you might have hyperglycemia? Which is not good for the body. On the other hand, you never hear about non-diabetics eating themselves into dangerous levels of hyperglycemia, so there's got to be some mechanism that prevents that.

Realistically though I think you have the right of it: even if you tried its extremely difficult to eat an extra 7,000 calories in a day.

The pumpkins are good, but my absolute favorite is Reese's easter bunnies. I don't know what it is, but they are fantastic. I also like the Reese's nutcrackers and "holiday lights" that come out around Christmas time, they have a good chocolate to peanut butter ratio.

Haribo Tangfastics

Man, Haribo: those apple rings were my forbidden fruit as a lad, in that my folks wouldn't buy them for me every time I saw them.

I actually can believe the "record number of applicants" excuse. When I applied for a passport back in 2019 it was easy to schedule an appointment for the application at our city's post office. In 2022 and earlier this year I tried applying for another passport and there were no appointment spots available at all: they were all fully booked for as far out as they allowed you to book them. I had to search through post offices in neighboring towns before I found one available within a week, and that was in a town 40 minutes away.

The speed at which passports are being processed shouldn't necessarily have any impact on the amount of appointments available. It's possible that the post offices in my area reduced the number of available appointment slots, but it didn't seem like they did. Maybe it's as simple as there being a regular number of passports that Americans apply for each year and COVID made people skip a year or two and we're still sorting out the pent up demand?

The only thing that could make the current race entertaining is if Biden or Trump randomly drop dead,

Man, at this point I'm hoping Trump will randomly drop dead.

Well hoping is a strong word. I don't wish anyone dead, I don't think Trump deserves to be dead, I would be horrified and outraged if somebody killed him. It's just that I'm a Republican and I want to win. Trump seems to me to be just about the only Republican running who could possibly lose to Biden. A huge chunk of the country hates the man, and while he has a passionate fanbase a significant section of Republicans are tired of the Donald. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life and I'm not sure I'll vote for Trump if he ends up the nominee (not that I'd vote for Biden, I'd just throw it away on a protest vote for DeSantis or leave it blank). I voted for Trump in 2020 but all the talk of the election being stolen without the goods to back it up has soured me significantly. I want Republicans to win, but you don't rock the boat of democratic legitimacy like that. You could break America that way. I think a lot of Republicans feel the same way.

The way things are going Trump is probably going to be the nominee. And if he is then I think he's more likely to lose than not. The only way I can think of that would change the outcome is if Trump keeled over. It doesn't seem likely though: he may be old, but he's certainly spry. According to the SSA Actuarial Tables a man Trump's age only has a 4.9152% chance of dying in the next twelve months anyway.

If the meek demanded a blank cheque, then they're no longer meek and no longer qualify to inherit the earth. Problem solved!

The legitimacy is legitimately valuable! Even if the election was stolen from you, you gracefully accept defeat unless you have the receipts.

I had a lot of fun with Cultist Simulator. The main thing I liked was how failed runs would continue into a narrative, which made the learning curve become thematic instead of frustrating. My first character find an eldritch book, tries to study it, goes mad (going mad being my first failure state). My second character works at the madhouse and learns some eldritch secrets from my first character, becomes a painter with a cult following (ha), a then goes mad. My third character, a layabout son of a gentryman, learns about the painter from his dying father who was a big fan of his paintings. He investigates and discovers the eldritch book and by this point I had learned enough to prevent him from going mad. He gathered a real cult, stole some artifacts, summoned monsters to attempt to kill plucky detectives, escaped conviction in the courts, and managed to transform himself into an immortal being of twisted flesh. Great success!

The game clearly expects you to fail a few times before you get your feet under you, and that really works. Delving into the secrets that men were not meant to know should be dangerous, with a high casualty rate.

I'll have to check out BOH. Thanks for the recommendation.

The difference between DeSantis and Gavin Newsom is that DeSantis has shown himself to be competent at governing. Things have been going pretty great for Florida in material terms during his tenure, while California is more of a basket case than ever (that 2021-2022 Florida was the fastest growing state in the union for the first time since the 50s, while California lost population over the last two years says a lot).

On the other hand, being a competent governor doesn't mean that you can run a competent presidential campaign. We'll see what happens when the primaries start, but as a DeSantis supporter I've got a bad feeling about his chances.

Has Dr. Peterson officially converted?

Definitely circles. As a lifelong Christian I have met exactly one person who called themselves a Christian but didn't believe in the resurrection, and I've met a lot of Christians. Even that guy changed his mind about it and is now an Anglican priest (I'm pretty sure he changed his mind, but being an Anglican priest doesn't exactly prove anything in that regard).

Must have been. Googling around about it now all I get are the same articles I've seen about him ever since his rise to fame: "Is Dr. Peterson a Christian?" "Has Jordan Peterson Converted?" And, true to Betteridge's Law of Headlines, the answer is always "I don't know" and "no" respectively.

I have also lived an entirely straightlaced life. I had the opportunity to take a mild psychedelic in a safe environment and took advantage of it: ketamine. People say ketamine is non-addictive (like all psychedelics I guess) and I have to agree. It was a good experience, and I'm glad I did it, but I don't exactly have an urge to go out and have that experience again. It was what it was.

I don't really have any advice other than "I, a straightlaced square, took a not-too-strong-but-strong-enough does of ketamine in a safe environment, had an experience I consider valuable, and didn't come out of it a loon." I'm pretty much the same person I was. I don't know if that's reassuring, or means that there wasn't any point to it.

I'm sure FlyingLionWithABook can pull up the full quote,

Speak of the devil, and he shall (eventually) appear!

People get from books the idea that if you have married the right person you may expect to go on "being in love" for ever. As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they have made a mistake and are entitled to a change—not realising that, when they have changed, the glamour will presently go out of the new love just as it went out of the old one. In this department of life, as in every other, thrills come at the beginning and do not last. The sort of thrill a boy has at the first idea of flying will not go on when he has joined the R.A.F. and is really learning to fly. The thrill you feel on first seeing some delightful place dies away when you really go to live there.

Does this mean it would be better not to learn to fly and not to live in the beautiful place? By no means. In both cases, if you go through with it, the dying away of the first thrill will be compensated for by a quieter and more lasting kind of interest. What is more (and I can hardly find words to tell you how important I think this), it is just the people who are ready to submit to the loss of the thrill and settle down to the sober interest, who are then most likely to meet new thrills in some quite different direction. The man who has learned to fly and becomes a good pilot will suddenly discover music; the man who has settled down to live in the beauty spot will discover gardening.

This is, I think, one little part of what Christ meant by saying that a thing will not really live unless it first dies. It is simply no good trying to keep any thrill: that is the very worst thing you can do. Let the thrill go—let it die away—go on through that period of death into the quieter interest and happiness that follow —and you will find you are living in a world of new thrills all the time. But if you decide to make thrills your regular diet and try to prolong them artificially, they will all get weaker and weaker, and fewer and fewer, and you will be a bored, disillusioned old man for the rest of your life.

It is because so few people understand this that you find many middle-aged men and women maundering about their lost youth, at the very age when new horizons ought to be appearing and new doors opening all round them. It is much better fun to learn to swim than to go on endlessly (and hopelessly) trying to get back the feeling you had when you first went paddling as a small boy.

That reiterates the 10 words everyone needs to know when dealing with the police:

"I'm not answering any questions, and I want a lawyer."

Then you shut your trap.

See also Nathan Burney's excellent Self-Incrimination Flowchart, which lays out in detail exactly how to avoid incriminating yourself in the US.

https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

I agree diaper changing is no big deal. Waking up in the middle of the night during the newborn stage is just awful. My littlest is two and I still haven't recovered from sleep deprivation.

I am a HUGE fan of Total Warhammer in general. Love it. TW3 is fine, but the factions it comes with are a bit advanced. Definitely worth picking gup TW1 to get the "core" factions (Empire, Dwarves, Greenskins, and Vampires [which aren't really "core" but are fun]).

What in particular are you finding confusing? The way the Total Warhammer games "stack" together, TW3 is more like a really big expansion pack then a standalone game mechanics wise, so there is a lot to be confused about if you're just jumping in.

Some general advice:

-ABC: Always Be Conquering. The way the economy works massively rewards conquest and looting, and if you aren't constantly expanding you'll struggle. Even just winning a battle will reward you with gold, so the more you're fighting the more you're earning.

-A huge part of strategy is where you place your armies. The maps are huge (absolutely IMMENSE in the case of the Immoral Empires campaign) and it takes time for your armies to move across them. Enemy armies will show up where you didn't expect, so make sure you have armies positioned so that they can intercept an invading force within 2-3 turns.

-Look at the tooltip descriptions for each unit, they can be very handy. Some of them take some jargon learning to get, but you can hover over most things and an explanation will appear. One useful thing to know is that "Shock Cavalry" is great when charging into the enemy, and for about 20 seconds after the charge, but will not hold up in long term melee combat and will need to retreat and charge again. "Melee Cavalry" on the other hand has the stats needed to do well in prolonged melee combat.

-"Anti-large" units are a must, you need at least a couple of them in each army because even crummy anti-large units do great against monsters and cavalry.

-If a settlement you've conquered isn't in a great environment for your faction, or is in a position where it will be too costly to keep defended, then it's generally better to loot it, and then on the next turn raze it. If somebody settles on it the initial defenses will be very weak, so it's easy to roll back in and burn it back down.

There's way too much more to advise on, but I'd be happy to help with specific questions and confusions.

Why would you say that someone with a contemporary scientific worldview would find it harder to believe in the virgin birth than Joseph did? What have we learned since then that makes it harder to believe? Surely knowing the mechanics of fertilization and early human development doesn't change the fact that people in those days knew just as well as we do that you don't get pregnant without a father involved.

In both cases believing in a miraculous birth is believing in supernatural intervention, violating the natural order. It should be just as easy or difficult to believe in any age. What have we learned since then that would change that?

Supernatural forces being more involved than today might make it easier to believe that a miracle had occurred: it wouldn't change the fact that you would understand it to be a miracle. It's not like Joseph thought to himself "Well, I guess sometimes women can have babies without having sex with anyone." He knew just the same as we do that that sort of thing doesn't happen, and that if it does happen it would be a miracle. A virgin birth violates as many assumptions about how the world works back then as it does today: in both cases the only explanation for such a thing occurring would be a miracle (that is to say, a violation of the natural order by an outside force).

If someone put up missing posters of Gazan children buried in rubble, it would still be a pretty awful move for someone to tear them down. You don't tear down other people's posters, and doing so looks especially bad when the posters are raising awareness of dead kids.

If the posters are placed illegally, then yeah, you can tear them down. If they're not illegally posted, then tearing them down is suppressing the speech of fellow citizens, and you don't do that. It's un-American.

I don't like ads, but I don't tear them down.

You don't get to decide what speech is or is not appropriate! That's the whole point! If you don't like it, put up your own poster: but what is or is not allowed to be said in the public square is not based on your opinions. That's the whole point of the 1st Amendment.

Yes! You do! Unless it's a place where it's illegal to put up posters, you totally get to do that!

Silencing others is not speech, it's censorship.

The devil.