You might like them in isolation but icons need to exist in a lot of uis and contexts so having an overly detailed one will make it look weird when juxtaposed with what’s around it.
I like it too, the old one was too detailed which makes it stand out too much. Icons need to work in a lot of contexts so simpler is almost always better.
The old one was great – in the context of late 00s to early 2010s design philosophy. It fit right in with Apple‘s skeumorphic design language and Microsofts Aero design. The new one is the perfect answer to the modern, more minimalist design. (Although I’m glad we’re mostly out of the "flat“ design era of Windows Metro and similar UIs)
That’s true, it fit in with the trends of the time. I guess part of my feeling is that I never actually liked skeumorphic design so I’ve been happy that flat caught on. There was a period where it did get too flat, but I like the middle ground we’re at now.
Man, I went years without a cost of living increase… I told my landlord this, and that same year he raised my rent over 10% with only 60 days notice. That’s illegal in my state on two different levels. I met with an attorney, and the was basically nothing I could do that wouldn’t result in me needing to move out.
At the time, the rent was really bad in the city. I could find a comparable place to live, but the moving cost and hassle was too high.
This is how landlords do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it.
It’s the free country thing. Typical rental leases renew every year (and typically, renters like that freedom). A landlord can simply decline to renew if you’re “too much trouble”.
So you could challenge the illegal rent increase in court and win, but then he declines to renew. You could refuse to pay the illegal increase (doing it the right/legal way) and/or even just stop paying rent. But then he eventually evicts you, or just declines to renew.
In the end, rent is supposed to be temporary. And when it is temporary enough that moving out can be your leverage, it works. If you are settling down somewhere, it really should be owned.
I believe in nature, humans are regarded as persistence hunters. Which is to say we have incredible stamina and perseverance while hunting. Other creatures can run faster than us, but only for short stints, relatively speaking, as long as we can keep track of them, we can continue to pursue prey for hours or days without significant external assistance (food, water, rest, help from others, etc).
So regardless of what we may be trying to kill, if we continue to keep our focus on it, we can absolutely find and kill it, given a long enough timeframe.
This also explains marathons, quite frankly. I don’t see too many animals just running for dozens of kilometers without a reason to do so. Many can’t run that far, and those that could, generally never would… Unless they’re running from us, I suppose.
Something like the cheetah, is very very fast in short duration, but after a few minutes of running at full speed, it’s thermal regulation tends to fail and it is biologically required to stop or it will overheat and die.
Add to that our intellectual capacity for planning, the creation of tools to assist us, strategy, teamwork, and all the things that are associated with intelligence and we’re basically a killing machine, if we choose to be…
Amazingly, we’re also the only species that we know to exist that feels bad about eating our prey. I’ve never seen a lion have an existential breakdown after killing off a gazelle so it can eat, yet there’s entire subcultures of people who refuse to cause any harm to their food. Have you people not understood the “circle of life”? Did you not watch the lion king?
i mean that’s more down to us being intelligent and social while also liking to eat meat, if elephants hunted they’d probably face similar moral quandries
There is very little evidence for the idea of persistence hunting ever beeing a thing.
Despite the idea’s foothold in popular culture, however, there is no hard evidence that ancient humans were persistence hunters, much less that persistence hunting shaped evolutionary traits. In fact, what evidence there is doesn’t support the notion that early humans acquired their meaty meals through feats of running endurance; it flatly contradicts it.
Nice, I like you. You stick to the point. So many of these comments are just people getting butthurt about hunting in general.
I do apologize that I haven’t done enough research on the topic and I can’t really engage in the conversation further. I hope you have a wonderful day.
To your last point, I think it’s a natural progression of our species. We realize that we were stupid animals like them at one point, and look at us now? Technically they are just earlier in their evolutionary chain (some of them, some species due to the way evolution played out will never be a fully intelligent species like humans, but we know some of them are already well on their way) so are we really just eating what would just be babies in terms of intelligence?
Where does the line get drawn, how intelligent does something have to be before it seems like just as much of a crime as eating a human child? We already know there are species, that we currently eat, that have the intellgence and capacity to learn similar to that of Human toddlers! Is that not something that gives you at least pause? Do you not at least have the thought that: “This animal I’m about to eat scientifically seems like they are just as capable of cognitive thinking and complex emotions and attachments as a toddler, am I okay with this?” What’s your answer to that question? For me, it’s not black and white, it’s not a simple yes or no answer, and I feel like most people who believe what they say about the intelligence of these creatures must be similar.
Then to top it off, through animal and plant husbandry, factory farming, and automation of food production we are rapidly approaching a point where we might notneed to eat these intelligent species to survive, due to our ability to grow our own food, even meat now! One day in the future, we realistically can envision a world where everything we eat is grown in some capacity. When we reach that point, shouldn’t we ask that question again? When the needs of our species can be met through technology, what is our responsibility to the lives of these creatures at this point? When does it become pointless killing of living beings? It’s a genuine question.
Me personally, I don’t think we are quite at the evolutionary point where we can sustain our society without the products of agriculture as they currently stand, so I think it’s unrealistic to try to force everyone to stop eating animal meat in the short term. I think it’s a great philosophical question we should keep asking and keep revisiting, because I think one day in the future the answer will eventually change to a world where we might change the way we view animals. And in the meantime, I’m all for legislation to try to make the process of cultivating animal products as ethical and harmless to them as possible, I feel like that’s the least I can do for the species while we use them as a battery to fuel human evolution.
We are pack hunters. That’s what makes the difference. Cooperation and communication. No amount of running far will ever come close to compete with the power of making plans and communicating them to others.
I don’t know if your second to last paragraph is a meme, but all humans reject immoral behaviors that occur in the wild, not just vegans. Lions also commit infanticide so their genetics carry on and competing male lions don’t, it makes sense biologically. Yet humans don’t commit this behavior because we know it’s wrong. Dolphins rape other dolphins, which again for the furthering of your own genetics makes sense. You should implant your seed in as many helpless victims as you can, and yet again, humans don’t do this because we know it’s wrong.
Pretending like vegans are the weird ones because we’re simply consistent about our morality is wild. Non-vegans even get upset at the idea of eating dogs or cats, so it’s not even like they’re universally in favor of torturing and slaughtering helpless animals, only the ones that have been objectified by whatever culture they live in.
Weird and wrong. These are extremely subjective… Same with good or bad.
I’m sure the gazelle thinks it’s bad to be killed and eaten, I’m sure they think it’s wrong. The Lions who hunted it down and ate it think it’s good and the right thing to do.
This is entirely subjective. The universe doesn’t have an absolute of good, bad, right, wrong, weird, or normal. It simply is. Anything that is good/bad or right/wrong is a matter of opinion and perspective.
Only humans attribute their system of right and wrong to animals that may be entirely okay with the matters at hand. We don’t impose our laws and values into animals just as they cannot impose their morals and values on us. To judge them for the actions that they take without being able to understand their thoughts and feelings on those matters is juvenile.
You simply cannot transpose human notions of right and wrong into situations where humans have no say, no context, and no understanding of the social constructs of those species.
I’m sorry that you don’t like it, but I promise that the animals you’re referring to, see it differently than you.
We don’t understand it, and maybe we never will. Let them do their thing and if there’s ever a time where we can adequately communicate with those animals and ask them how they feel about what’s happening, then at that point, maybe we can take action for or against it as appropriate.
Until then, let them live the way they choose to live. Let them sort out their own problems as we have been trying to do for humanity.
Normative truths are just as foundational as descriptive truths. You use the same logic to get there. I hope you’re intelligent enough to be an epistemological nihilist, so hopefully you know the basis for all scientific and descriptive understanding of the universe is self-evident axioms. The same is true for moral truths. Harm is axiomatically bad in the same way that our senses are accurately able to translate information of an external universe into our brains.
If you disagree with the former, we can’t have moral discussions, and if you disagree with the latter we can’t have scientific discussions. This is how the whole of epistemology functions.
You’re also strawmanning me. Ought implies can, so an animal without an ability to act morally obviously has no moral obligations. I hope you somehow just severely misunderstand the vegan position, and you’re not intentionally spreading misinformation.
Factory farms aren’t us allowing them to sort out their own problems. We spawn billions of sentient creatures into torture boxes every year just to slaughter them when they’re a few months old in brutal and terrifically painful ways.
If you think that’s awesome, keep buying meat, more power to you, you’re just probably a psychopath (though I obviously can’t give you an official diagnosis).
I’ve also heard theories that our empathy is actually a hunting tool. If we were to lose our prey, say in the brush around a water source, we could put ourselves in its mind. From there, we could empathize and predict their actions, and so follow them, even without tracks. From the prey’s perspective, they finally lost us and escaped, they are exhausted and overheating, but alive. Suddenly the predictor re-emerges, and the chase is back on.
Vegetarianism being a fairly unique human trait suddenly makes sense, from this perspective. A lion doesn’t really need to get into the mind of their prey, and so empathising with them is actually a negative. For humans it was a critical tool. It’s only secondary that we turned it on each other, allowing for super-tribes to function.
The problem with eating meat is not the eating meat. I don’t give a fuck if someone eats meat from an animal that hasn’t suffered, that was free and in its natural habitat. I don’t know if I would myself because after 15 years of not eating meat I don’t think I’d still like it, but it’s not unethical. The problem is the untold amount of widespread suffering and cruelty of beings with emotions and sentience and attachments and capacity for both physical and emotional pain that is industrial livestock farming.
The land requirements for our current animal agricultural production is the same size as North American. That’s not sustainable. I say that as someone whose never gone a day without eating meat.
I understand not everyone can shift their diet, but I am curious, if you know it is unsustainable, why do you partake in the industry? Or is your food acquired more sustainably? I’m not trying to lay any sort of judgement or whatever, I am genuinely curious. A lot of people I know that eat meat that are aware of the issues with the industry will at least avoid eating meat at times.
I guess it’s the same way the US founding father’s can write about all men being created equal while still owning slaves themselves.
I’ve come to the realization that eating meat is wrong, but since I was born into a world where a mostly meat diet is ‘normal’ shifting away from it is difficult.
It’s like trying to quit smoking, an easy decision to make but hard to follow through.
You don’t need to quit, cutting down is fine. Even just trying a replacement (bean chilli instead of beef) one time is great too. If you like it you can replace more often, if not try something else.
Yeah, my last few statements were hyperbole. Sorry that didn’t come across to you. I’m also about as weird as they come, so “weirdo” really isn’t a jab, it’s just a statement of fact, we’re all different and weird from eachother.
The point, and fact remains that we’re the only species on the planet that can rationalize rejecting meat due to ethical concerns. Give a cat some factory farm meat and it won’t even think twice about eating it… rinse and repeat with pretty much any animal on earth other than humans.
Regardless of that point, I’m not about to tell anyone how to live, eat what you want. What you eat doesn’t affect or inform what I eat. I also want you to have options, so I don’t have any protest to the creation of things like veggie burgers or tofurkey or whatever. The only time I would have a problem with vegetarians/vegans is if their choices affect my ability to make a choice. eg. I can no longer get beef because there’s now a vegan law that forbids it (type of thing). It’s extreme to think about, but it’s along the same lines of laws forbidding LGBTQ+ people from getting married or something, or women getting abortions. Sally joe’s abortion doesn’t really cause any damage to your life, why do you care? if Jim and John want to get married, why do you care? It doesn’t stop anyone else from refusing to get an abortion, or refusing to get gay married, they’re just discriminatory laws that restrict people’s action based on other peoples wants… historically, vegetarians and vegans haven’t even tried to cross that line, and I don’t think that will change, which is good. The religious fanatics however, cross that line continually. I just want to live and be free to marry who I want and eat what I want and live where I want and how I want, with the understanding that those wants shouldn’t impact other people’s ability to do the same. On the same note, I want that freedom for mankind. Where everyone can do anything they want, as long as it does not impact others ability to do the same. If you take a look at most laws, that’s how they’re written, to prevent individuals from impacting others in a negative way; about the safety of the society as a whole. Don’t drive your car at excessive speeds, which may cause you to lose control and potentially crash, possibly into someone else, which will injure/kill them, which impacts that persons ability to pursue their own goals (etc).
I am a humanist above all else. I couldn’t give any fewer craps about who you are as a person (race, color, religion, creed, lifestyle, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc), as long as you’re not negatively affecting others to live their lives how they want, then by all means, do the things, be happy.
The only time I would have a problem with vegetarians/vegans is if their choices affect my ability to make a choice. eg. I can no longer get beef because there’s now a vegan law that forbids it (type of thing).
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about laws that make beef more expensive? (because of lower subsidies, stricter animal welfare regulations, or maybe higher taxes to cover climate impact)
Everything is more expensive. It continues to be more expensive all the time. So I’m not sure of your point, nor why the cost of beef would affect my willingness to eat it.
Laws that specifically make beef much more expensive could be seen as a milder way of banning beef (extreme example: if it costs as much as you make in a month, it’s basically banned), so I was curious where you draw the line of “their choices affecting my ability to make a choice”.
I suppose it mostly depends on by how much. If it’s an unreasonable amount, I’m sure that many will have something to say about it. Of course that raises the question of what would be considered to be a reasonable amount. 30 years ago, an increase of a few dollars for an average cut of beef would have people up in arms, but now, a $3 increase of the same would hardly be noticed.
Autonomy and choice is important, do you think less intelligent humans also deserve a right to autonomy? What about less intelligent animals? If you answered differently to these two questions, why?
Humans generally understand restricting choice is a good thing if the choice in question is committing harm. We don’t let people choose to rape, murder, etc. We don’t let people farm mentally disabled humans for their skin and meat. We don’t let people farm dogs and cats for their skin and meat. We do let people farm cows and pigs for their skin and meat.
Vegans have rectified this inconsistency, non-vegans haven’t. If you told me that you were fine with farming disabled humans, dogs, cats, etc. I’d at least applaud your consistency, but I have yet to meet a single non-vegan who is this consistent.
I understand your point and frankly, if anyone is okay with farming Hunan meat, regardless, then admitting to it, especially in a public forum would be social suicide.
There’s a nontrivial population on earth that don’t see any issue with killing and eating what most residents of first world countries would consider to be pets. But it’s all aside from the point that you’re making.
I understand you’re trying to provoke deep consideration on the matter, something most people won’t even consider doing, and I’ll tell you that I’ve come to terms with the decisions I’ve made, and justified them with deep dives into the logic of the scenario. There are social constructs of what is acceptable that I reject but don’t violate because of the social backlash that would ensue. There’s also the matter of preference, just as some people may like beets and others don’t, not all meat products are made equal either. Venison doesn’t have the same taste and consistency as beef, chicken or fish.
There’s also the matter of preferring what you know you like apart from trying something you’ve never had, eg, I haven’t really ever eaten shrimp and I have no desire to start. There’s many reasons for this that I’m just not going to get into as they’re not relevant to the point. Fact is, I can go buy shrimp at any time and have some and I choose not to. I’ve never had it and have no reason to avoid it, but I still won’t all the same.
The morality of handling the dead, specifically dead humans, by humans, is taboo pretty much regardless of who you are or what you do in life, and the dead are usually treated with a certain reverence and respect. So even if you’re not morally opposed to eating human meat, it’s likely you’re opposed to how it’s “farmed”. This is echoed in the film Soylent green. Fact is, we wouldn’t be okay with feeding or loved ones to the masses for nourishment, and most people can’t imagine anyone else would be okay with it, which is the critical point of the film. IMO, that a social construct and I further feel that it’s disengenous to the point. There’s very few creatures that engage in direct cannibalism. Even animals, with few exceptions, don’t do it.
So let’s put to bed the idea that humans, as a whole, would every be morally or socially okay with the idea of eating human meat. Same as so many other animals on the planet.
So we, as humans, omnivores, can choose to either participate in eating flesh of animals or not, that’s a personal decision, not one that should be mandated by any law. Human meat is off the table, and simply mentioning it speaks more about you than it does about the listener, that you would go to the length of comparing eating beef or chicken, to cannibalism. It’s a weak argument at best but has the virtue of having a lot of shock value.
For me, aside from cannibalism, I’m pretty okay with anything dying for my continued survival. Same as any meat eating predator on the planet. I hold no animosity to the animals I eat, I don’t want to eradicate them nor cause them suffering; simply, my desire to live is more potent than my empathy for their continued life. Fact is, as humans, we are not the majority of animal biomass on the planet, so carving out a small number of other animals so I can live is, in my opinion, fine. Their numbers will hardly vary and I get to live with all the benefits that the meat of their dead, provide. That enables me to continue to have stupid conversations like this, and help my fellow man.
I recognise animals as having intelligence, but as a human, I’ll always consider humanity as governed by a different set of rules. There’s no jail for a rabid animal that slaughters it’s own kind, only that their fellow animals fight it and kill it. Humans are held to different standards for crimes against humanity, since we at least consider ourselves to be more civilized. No single person acts as judge, jury and executioner. Even when there is a fatal shooting performed by law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter), there’s still a trial to determine if the action was just, as we have agreed must be done as a society. Turning that idea on it’s head, we posthumously hold the dead person accountable for their final acts and whether killing them was a reasonable response to their actions and any immediate danger to life that they may have posed. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions in the court of law regardless if you died or not. This is exclusive to actions by humans against humans. We hold ourselves to a different standard. We always have and as far as I can see, we always will.
Tribes of wild cats can shift their loyalty on which Alpha Male can fight the best, they have their own laws that govern who lives and who dies, and what actions must be taken towards any winners or losers in their own system of law, same as us. The punishment can vary from disenfranchisement to death. Bears also have this same sort of law structure, etc. Most animals have some way of dealing with their own kind, and regard their own laws separate from other species. It’s not like a goat is going to rule over a pride of Lions or anything. In the same way, the laws of goats have no bearing on how lions rule their respective kingdoms. Once you step away from any specific animal and their kingdom, the rules that govern that animal don’t have any bearing on the social and law structure of another animal. We are the same way. Everything behaves this way on the planet. Humans are no exception.
When it comes to food, every other carnivorous animal on the planet cares not about the social structure or ongoing survival of the animals that they kill, and for centuries, humans were the same. Now that we have an understanding of nutrition and sufficient agriculture to sustain it, humans can now make a decision if they want to continue to eat the animals that historically were our prey. Some have chosen not to, and that’s fine.
Trying to guilt me into making that choice by falsely leading me to think that eating animals is akin to cannibalism is insane and to me, invalidates you as a trusted speaker. You’re free to say what you wish, you have the freedom of speech, but bluntly, your opinion of me for my choices is not valid because of what you’ve said, and tried to imply or draw comparisons to regarding my choices.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).
Someday I have a dream that the ADA relaxes its guidelines for certification that need everything to be so industrialized and monitored. And then, we could start selling meat of the “problem animals” that we have way too many of, like deer and boars. As long as they can stop people from breeding them (Hanoi Rat Massacre problems all over again) hunting could be a somewhat lucrative activity, and we wouldn’t be contributing to global production problems by eating meat.
Of course, we’d need people to be aware that someday once those populations are under control, we’d have to change habits. And we know how people react to change…
To my understanding (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) transmissions of prions disease is primarily through two methods, eating of brain matter, something most never do, even eating animals brain matter, or undercooked flesh (and/or bodily fluids - like blood, which ties into undercooked flesh).
So it should be safe in theory, as long as we properly cook the meat and don’t eat the brain. Since we do the same for all of the meat we ingest, it should be fine…
Not that I’m going to go advocating for anyone eating human meat. I’m just saying, to my understanding, if we follow standard handling and cooking, we shouldn’t really have any risk factors for prions disease. Personally, I’ll stick to beef, chicken, turkey, lamb and pork. If it’s all the same to everyone else… And obviously some delicious veggies and fruits.
Related: prions disease can result from other sources, such as genetics or “sporadically”… According to the wiki article on it, but I’m strictly speaking about transmission of the disease.
So, we used to allow selling deer meat. It resulted in people almost hunting deer in north America to extinction.
The ban is about animal conservation, not food safety.
Your second paragraph already happened, and we’re living in the long tail maintenance cycle that follows.
The current system of deer hunting essentially sets a quota for how many can be killed, and there’s essentially never a problem hitting that number.
In the majority of cases the deer is processed, typically by a certified processor to ensure food safety and reporting of any observed disease, and consumed.
If you don’t want the meat, some processors will process it for you and donate it and give you a discount on the trophy parts. At the least there’s a process for getting donations to people.
I’ve never heard of someone wasting the meat. Not for any moral reasons specifically, although there are those, but just based on appreciation for seasonal treat. It’s getting to the season where I’ll probably be gifted 5-10 pounds of venison, so I’m looking forward to it.
Get a better quality instant noodle from an Asian market. Put frozen dumplings and veggies in it while bringing to a boil. Crack an egg in there right after putting the noodles.
Through very little effort, you’ve leveled up your Ramen to close to restaurant quality bachelor food.
Bruh, I’m 33 and I started playing Subnautica for the first time a few weeks ago only to realize that in the first day I accidentally played for 10 hours. You just need to find the right game for you to revitalize your interest in gaming. Whatever that game may be!
Subnautica just does that to you. I completed an entire hardcore playthrough in a single session once (Mostly because I already knew what I was doing but it was still like 14-15 hours straight).
Is VR in subnautica an actual way to play or just a once in a while gimmick. I’ve had it in my library since back when it was beta and have never played more than a few minutes. Installed it since it does VR through steamlink but haven’t played yet.
I honestly couldn’t say as I startled playing the normal version. But as spooky as that game can get, I don’t think I’d even want to try VR version lol.
The vanilla VR implementation in Subnautica is very old and kind of tacked onto the game as an afterthought. You have to play with a regular controller and I found the menus to be in the most eye-strain spot possible.
I know there is at least one VR mod to fix it and bring in motion controls but I’ve never tried it.
Dang. I thought maybe since it gained so much support and got so big since from when I got it in a $15 indie humble bundle that it might actually be a good one. I’ll finally try it tonight.
Have you tried the VR mod for Firewatch? I just got it on a random steam sale for $2, played a bit on my steamdeck, and was thinking the entire time I wish this was VR.
I haven’t gotten too far in, so I want to get the VR mod installed and restart. It’s so good so far, though the intro really does suck, like emotionally. I think it’s a perfect format for VR with the walking/ basic interaction format, nothing too complex, and great comfy visuals. I hope it works.
Sometimes, I feel like I should wait until things get better and fixed, but sometimes that leads to me missing things. I wish there were more open source, hacking, development, just community for VR. I’ve used it since Google cardboard and things really have never taken off. I think with steamlink now streaming to quest headsets, that really help.
That’s the thing with ancient wisdom. Over thousands of years, it either stands true and turns into common sense, or is replaced with better modern wisdom.
It’s also because it was meant to be read by lords and nobles to teach them the basics of war. A lot of them were EXTREMELY disconnected with reality and didn’t even fathom basic shit like “Oh yeah your troops need food. They can’t just forage mid war like animals would”
Reminds me of that time I drove an hour across town to one of our remote offices… Only for the printer to be unplugged AND the cable to be sitting in the hallway (you could trip over it!)
Turns out the city doesn’t have flamboyantly dressed supervillains at all. Batman is just running around Gotham, sleep deprived as hell, grabbing confused commuters by the shoulders and accusing them of being The Penguin.
The difference is that the short man in the suit has professional liability insurance.
If someone tries some dumb shit and gets a pavement facial Moama can almost certainly beat an assault charge, but civil injury claims are notoriously bad if you’re rich. An ambulance chaser will offer to take the case for free and be such a pest that its worth $100k to Moama to make him fuck off.
The little guy can sit there in court, dispassionately explaining that he felt his client was in danger and let the ambulance chaser argue with an insurance company (and we all know how much they love cutting cheques).
If a crazy fan rushes him for a hug, you dont know if they have a knife. It sounds outlandish but Monica Seles was stabbed by a deranged fan of her rival in 1992 in the middle of a tennis match. Nutcases happen. So he pushes them away, no harder than you or I would if some rando rushes us for a hug. They trip, fall and “hurt their back”.
Now he has an assault allegation on a woman a foot and a half shorter than him who just wanted to get a photo with him and he looks like an enormous asshole. Now that charge wont go anywhere in court because its essentially baseless, but a civil judgement over wether or not he is responsible for her injury is another story.
Also sure, Mamoa is a big guy and fit, but he’s an actor, right? Not a fighter?
It’s kind of like how Nick Offerman said in an interview once. Everyone sees him as this manly man because of the roles he plays and because he wood-works. But he’s from a real “country” family. A rural farming community where everyone was self-sufficient and real “manly” men type. He’s the one who wanted to be an actor who never has to work with his hands again.
What I’m saying is those men have jobs where they protect people from physical violence with physical violence. Jason Mamoa pretends to hit people on camera.
Lol right, every time I see all these macho guys on camera and in the press, I remember the kids in drama club in highschool. These are those kids grown up
Yeah IDK about that, I don’t think you can act a fake fight convincingly without having at least some actual skill. The moves they use are always derived from actual martial arts, the only difference is that your partner knows ahead of time what’s going to happen and how to react, and you don’t hit them to hurt. But I’m pretty sure you could figure that part out pretty easily if push comes to shove.
As long as he’s fighting an untrained opponent who’s shorter than him, my money would be on Mamoa. And even if he’s trained I’d still bet on him unless we’re talking about one of the Gracie’s.
I’ve taken H2H, rapier, short sword and shield, sword and dagger and a few other stage combat classes in both UK and US — and then in production you usually just get “any old sword” (usually a heavy one, as Tybalt in R&J they gave me this really fancy grip with a finger hole for my index, but it made supranative positions difficult)
You’re right in that they are based on real combat — you learn fencing footwork and guards, but also you’re learning a mix of slight of hand (how to “knap” - fake the sound of hitting /being hit while reacting like its real), and safety instructions. As someone who came from ballroom to jazz/modern dance to acting, it’s more like dance, especially freeform contact improv dance, than it is like actual fighting.
I imagine in real fights-to-the-death there’s a lot less concern about safety, distancing and the lines your body draws in movement, and more about hurting the other fellow as efficiently as possible.
to clarify, I meant it looks and feels like contact improv (the so-named discipline of dance, not to be confused with improv comedy etc) not that it was improvised.
Do you think an insurance company would charge you the same as a celebrity? You sit around the house where a Cheeto in the windpipe is the most dangerous thing you encounter.
But even he doesn't look like in man of steel on a Thursday morning. He looks like that after he got a good pump and not eating and drinking for days.
I'm still gay for cavill tho
There was an old reddit thread were one woman argued that women arent attracted to “gym rats” and used Henry Cavill as an example of a man with a physique who doesn’t spend hours in the gym everyday.
People who doesn’t do resistance training have a negative amount of knowledge of what it takes to get in “shape”.
Henry Cavill? The guy who played Superman and Geralt of Rivia? Nobody can possibly think he got that body by sitting around. That’s like saying guys don’t think Lady Gaga wears makeup on stage. He’s not just fit, he’s built out.
Any actor is someone who is selling their looks as part of the package. However they look, it is a choice and they put effort into it. Even Jack Black.
The only non-muscle hunk in this image is Jack Black (famously the poster boy for unconventionally attractive man, where the picture chosen is a younger and skinnier one), Joseph Quinn, and mayyybee Jeremy Allen White.
The nerve of putting Orlando fucking Bloom as Legolas or Cavill as The Witcher as "little". This disconnect is unfathomable.
This meme really gets the rise out of me because I agree with the sentiment but the example they chose are so bad.
The sentiment isn’t even true unless you’re in an urban center or in Europe.
Small town North American women love muscle dummies. There’s fuckin swarms of them in my town. Go to the bar and the only men there are roided up muscle dummies with swarms of women rallying around them.
It’s just fuckin wrong. Plenty of stupid women out there who just want a hunk of meat for a boyfriend.
However, courts generally do not require that you actually have read the terms, but just that you had reasonable notice and an opportunity to read them.
Nope. Not how it works. You don’t have to agree to anything. You don’t have to read anything. The provider has to inform you, which they do even if you block it.
I don’t believe you’re correct about this. Corporations love your take here, though. They absolutely have entire teams of lawyers that push this narrative as best they can.
That’s literally absolutely unequivocally incorrect. I have no clue why you think that but even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would have shown you you’re incorrect. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service
If you want more information you can go ahead and read up on GDPR or one of the numerous other laws around the world stating exactly the opposite of what you’re saying.
Considering many internet providers now have bandwidth caps, it is my policy do not allow arbitrary data on my network (aka ads). It’s also my policy that my policy supersedes any arbitrary terms of services. And that any platform accessing my network henceforth retroactively accepts my policy and terms of service.
Fermentation is still resulting in live organisms. Which essentially is what makes up a lot of food we eat. It doesn’t come out of a machine as only one atomic building block. And it is absolutely necessary in our nutrition to have this biodiversity even on a micro level to keep our body functioning.
Though it doesn’t mean you go lick the black mold in your shower. Just get some basic education of nutrition to the point you’re not so absolutely this negligently dumb about food as the OP.
Unless you’re drinking unfiltered beers, you shouldn’t actually have any live yeast left in your beer. And if there are prepare t6o be gassy as fuck for the rest of the day.
Which essentially is what makes up a lot of food we eat.
Well everything we eat was once living, or a product of something living. It’s not why people don’t like eating mold.
Mold still tastes nasty as fuck, blue cheese included, even if that particular mold is safe to eat.
I’m not forcing you to eat it but preference alone isn’t enough reason to be spreading misinformation and just being stupid. Just say you don’t like it. Stay away from educating anyone on it being anything more than your preference though.
It tastes nasty to you. That’s not something objective thing. You can dislike it all you want, but that doesn’t mean other people think the same.
And you can’t just say “all mold tastes nasty”, different kinds used in different ways have as wide of a spectrum of tastes as anything else. Common things that use mold: soy sauce, miso, tempeh, sake, cured meats, and many different kinds of cheeses (not just blue cheese) and more.
Or every other cheese, or yogurt, sour cream, etc…
It’s like everyone puts on their blinders. Every time you hear cultured, fermented, or the big ol’ stupid blanket term “probiotic”, it means bacteria, mold, or yeast. Every time you hear “active”, that means it’s live organisms.
We all love to eat bacteria, mold and yeast. It all depends on the type.
Yeast is an opportunistic pathogen that will secrete toxins. The reason that you don’t get sick when eating bread and stuff is because the yeast dies when you cook it, preventing infection. Although, I’m pretty sure you’ll be fine if you ate live yeast, because your stomach would kill them, also preventing an infection.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.