If you’re asking for a real answer the answer is a coffee bean massages his tits to spurt out coffee into the jay and raccoon’s mouth and then they can be active enough to actually do work to get enough money to get tickets to a rock concert.
Edit: Also, discounting “internet relationships” is tricky. It’s not the case that relationships facilitated through the internet are inherently worse than other relationships (friendship or romantic). But I think it is clearly the case that it’s more difficult for a lot of people to thrive in them than in face-to-face relationships.
So, when someone says they’re dating someone they met through the internet, I think some skepticism is warranted, but only until you have a better idea of the kind of relationship that is actually happening instead of just “it’s on the internet.”
Same thing happens with younger people in relationships, like high schoolers. It’s possible for them to be long-lasting, intimate, respectful things. It’s just really hard to believe without more evidence, because most people aren’t like that.
Marelo: Applying basic statistics concepts to pop-psychology since forever ago.
Doubledit: I should also note that I think as more and more people grow up with constant internet access and socializing on the internet becomes more and more the norm rather than the outlier, this difficulty most people have will wane and people will wonder why people had a problem with it to begin with.
Apparently there are people who think that Route 4 and Desert Resort in the new Pokemon games are some kind of reference to Ground Zero. I’ve seen this little theory presented on Tumblr and now it even shows up in a Cracked.com list of "Most Offensive 9/11 References."
Don’t get me wrong; I know that Cracked.com is a half crowd-sourced comedy website and in no way a scholarly and exceptionally thorough organization. But usually they do manage to be both funny and informative, seeing as their other mission is as a trivia dispensary.
Kinda dropped the ball here on that front.
At one point in that article the author derisively mentions conspiracy theories. Then he moves on to craft one from hearsay and haphazard dot connecting based on an overworld map and the unfortunate coincidence of a height statistic on a Pokemon only tangentially related to the area in question.
“Nevertheless, I have learned my lesson — never parody anything too accessible to the mainstream. It’s right back to low-rating, high-brow comedy for me. Look out for my next not-covered-by-the-media masterpiece, a satirical look at Edmond Husserl’s phenomenological approach to existential philosophy, and how it can suck my dick.”—S Peter Davis, Cracked.com
Well yeah, good artists can be really cool dudes, or they can be total dickwads, too.
Why does being good at art have to put you on a different level, though.
Why can’t everyone just be people, and if you want to make friends with someone who happens to be a good artist, then you should go ahead and do so?? I mean, what if you made friends with someone, then found out that they were good at art? It’s not like the only thing you’ll talk about ever is art. In fact, with most of my art friends, we hardly talk about art. Hell, in the Homestuck chat that I’m in, we hardly talk about Homestuck, unless something happens.
There’s a lot of different things to people, and you can become friends with someone about something for a completely different than whatever they might be good at.
idk, it just seems like a really weird thread of logic.
I mean I understand being nervous, or shy. For instance, I was nervous about meeting CoZ, and I knew her because she writes pretty good fanfics! But I met her either way, and we’re friends, and she’s just like any other person, too. But she happens to be good at her art.
idk. I don’t see why artists that are good with their trade are treated like a different brand of person.
The problem is you’re expecting it to make sense when it doesn’t!
I don’t understand why ability to draw comes into play at all?? Like, it’s not like this is tumblr exclusive, or anything. I’ve heard this argument a lot, on a buncha different sites. I’m sorry I probably sound really dumb.
It’s definitely a thing that happens all over the place! Insecurity is just something people often feel. It doesn’t usually make sense or have a basis in how other people actually react to the person.
It’s just another irrational fear that people gotta work through.
so it’s not telling you that you’re stuck in a place for life, it’s advising you on how to improve based on your current way of thinking.
maybe a lot of internet quizzes do mislead people, but this one seems to convey its message pretty clearly!
Fair enough! I didn’t look too deeply into this site in particular, instead trying to generalize it and others like it.
Notice, though, that it still categorizes people as “left-brainers” and “right-brainers.” That’s still an implication that there is something essentially different about people who score differently on the test, which is inaccurate and still falls under the essentialist attitude that I find so damaging.
Edit: It’s also still inaccurate to say that the left brain handles logic and language whereas the right brain handles visuals and creativity. That’s a gross exaggeration of what happens with lateralization.
Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (eg. logic, creativity) being lateralized, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides.
While functions are lateralized, the lateralizations are functional trends, which differ across individuals and specific function. Short of having undergone a hemispherectomy (removal of a cerebral hemisphere), no one is a “left-brain only” or “right-brain only” person.
Lateralization of the human brain is a thing that happens, yes, but it’s super ridiculous to take it to the extremes of assigning character traits to “strengths” or whatever in the left or the right brain. That’s not how it works.
You’re not a right-brained person or a left-brained person or whatever; percentages assigned to these are absolutely meaningless. You’re a person who has a brain which has both hemispheres which work in tandem to process the world. There is no built-in barrier preventing you from being better at writing or logic, nor is there one preventing you from being better at visual arts and creativity, based on such a simplistic notion as right versus left brain (assuming that you don’t have various disorders which would make these tasks more difficult, like dysgraphia).
Lateralization happens when you’re developing. It’s just how the brain tends to map functions. There are exceptions, people who developed differently. It’s not a matter of one side or the other dictating your capabilities and proclivities. The environment you’re presented with as you develop, and how your brain responds to it, are what matter.
And the thing is, people respond to ideas like this with wholehearted acceptance, and walk around spreading misconceptions about the way we are. Maybe someone takes the quiz, passes it on, doesn’t take it seriously, sure, okay. But the idea still gets passed on to someone who maybe does take it seriously. And the idea is a pretty shitty one. It encourages the attitude of innate talent being more important than hard work and learning, the idea of essentialism, the same idea that permeates bad gender and sex notions, that plagues the teaching world, that says You Are Who You Are And Cannot Improve.
I think this is important to point out. Thanks for reading my rant.
Spiders cannot physically die of natural causes. If kept safe, a spider can continue to live and grow larger for a theoretically unlimited amount of time. In fact, in China there exists a collection of ‘holy’ spiders, hatched some 2,800 years ago during the height of the…
oh god why
This ain’t true.
Spiders die of old age just like any other animal. Edit: Entering “mang-tsun dynasty” in Google returns hits for… this list. And nothing else.
A 530 pound spider that couldn’t support its own weight? LMFAO nope. Didn’t happen.
"Copperhead Spiders" don’t even appear to exist outside of this copy-pasted "trivia" thing. The idea of a spider spinning solid steel is also laughable. Also the name is not ironic.
Pretty much everything in this list is incredibly wrong and/or suspicious. Google exists for a reason, people!
I am in love. It’s like Chrome but with my addons. This is precisely what I wanted.
Anyone have any issues with it I should know about before I put it on my home computers as well as my work computer?
Edit: From Gankro:
It can randomly become really broken, but using safe mode to reset it to “factory settings” seems to fix it. Basically I think the transfer from 3 to 4 can be a bit wonky. So resetting all your Firefox settings may be desirable, at which point you can manually set them back. However you may be fine without (the break doesn’t seem to happen initially, but rather a few weeks in). Some technologies (e.g. Blackboard) don’t recognize it however, which is annoying.
Overall it seems to be much faster (try opening the Homestuck Act 1-4 search page in FF3 and then in FF4; BIG difference), and they’re patching wonky stuff fairly efficiently. Also out of morbid curiosity I just opened Chrome, Opera, IE, and Firefox 4 with 3 tabs each and checked their memory use:
Chrome: 84 956 K Firefox: 134 824 K IE: 142 296 K Opera: 70 692 K (For reference, Flash is running at 132 372 K)
Firefox is still a pretty hefty resource hog, especially compared to the dainty Opera, but IE still champions complete uselessness. Obviously this isn’t a particularly comprehensive test since none of these are running “factory” settings, and they’re all idling, but still interesting none the less.