‘Oh boy, I can’t wait for that new indie action film “Fullført Informatikk” to release!’

Looking up ‘blockbuster word origin’ on Searx.ng, it seems generally accepted that the term origin started with WWII bombs.

Oxford Reference

Wikipedia

A stack exchange convo that goes into some detail

He’s giving a blood transfusion to the bus, hence why the IV bag is so big.

Based on that description, that dude on the left is a tall fella.

That wasn’t my personal experience from the comment. I simply recognised it as anti-intellectual virtue signalling and didn’t want that to go unchallenged. It just seemed very clear that the intent of your comment was to belittle those picking the comic apart.

Your original comment reads

DEAR LORD PEOPLE, SOMETIMES THERE IS NOT A DEEPER MESSAGE AND IT’S JUST A DUMB JOKE!

It’s pretty blankly a thought terminating cliché without your later clarification, same as the noteable “The curtains were fucking blue” meme. Even with your clarification, you are now bringing up yet another one of the comics to try and show there is no deeper substance to find from these comics, which I disagree.

With most of these comics, the author does enjoy using absurd humor. But they do still have some grounding in real things. The first example you give is poking fun at taking the saying ‘you can do anything you set your mind to’ and the second is a joke about dual-businesses, with the premise being, generically, a business with one service that’s normal and another service that’s something almost no one is going to request.

There’s still some interesting things within that you can get from looking closer at them, even when they’re absurd by nature. Again, let people have their hobbies. Don’t try to make people feel like fools for picking silly comics apart.

Sure, that’s what satire is. A parody of something to criticise it. Often using clichés to ensure the subject is immediately identifiable.

This comic is a satire of militant atheists, because the author finds that militant atheists are insufferable and deserve to be made fun of, as the comic is doing. Why else would the author choose them specifically to satirize?

You chose those two comments to point at examples of unintellectual discussion. I am pointing out that they are not as unintellectual as you paint them to be. I don’t strongly agree with what they are saying, but that does not immediately disqualify them from contributing from the conversation. Your comment was the only one calling for the termination of the pursuit of deeper meaning in the comic, which is an anti-intellectual stance.

That’s somewhat my bad for taking the adversarial tone of your original comment to being serious and about all comments looking into the comic’s unsaid meanings.

At the same time, though, the comic is 100% meant to make fun of militant atheists, as in atheists who make their whole personality atheism. The folks who’s sole goal seemingly is to make everyone stop being religious. And the punchline is that despite achieving his goal, he only managed to make his mother’s life worse by forcing her through an epiphany she wasn’t ready for and then abandoning her with her own thoughts. The comic is partially funny because of it making fun of militant atheists. The other portion of the humor is the absurd nature of the situation.

The first comment you show takes that joke personally and the second resonates with that message. Neither of these are really off the mark, as grating as their tones may be to some.

I mean, you get to make your own contribution because we’re on an open platform, not for any other reason. quite often intellectual spaces shut down and deplatform anti-intellectual rhetoric and thought-terminating cliches such as what you’ve stated. It serves no one discussing the intricacies of any work to have someone yelling “The curtains were fucking blue!”, and this comment section literally exists to discuss the above comic and its various aspects.

“…I’m sorry, could you repeat that? The forest God wants to patch THEIR cell tower into our network? They have a cell tower?.. I guess patch them in…”

I take this comic to be more poking fun at the portion of atheists who make their entire personality around disproving God’s existence - people who try to spread atheism the same way christians spread their own gospel. It’s largely not applicable to other atheists.

The first experience for many is crushing despair. It can take time to get out of that slump and learn to find meaning in a meaningless world.

Don’t be anti-intellectual about this silly comic. People can apply intellectual analysis to stupid things if they want to, and they damn-well may find deeper meaning sometimes.

Let people have their hobbies.

I’ve got a somewhat different take, but similar

We are shedding light on the world through science and philosophy. We first figure out the most effective ways to think about things with philosophy, and then we apply that thought process with the scientific method to further our understanding.

Eventually, we will always reach the shadows on the edge our understanding, whether personally or as a society. Past that point, we are really just making up apparitions in the dark, until we can shed light on that edge.

That process of spotting forms in the dark is always going to be informed by some unfalsifiable ideation, either because we can’t test the ideas we have, or because the ideas we have are inherently unproveable.

To me, it really doesn’t matter what kind of ideation you have past that point of shadow, be it religion or nihilism or panpsychism or determinism, but I hope that whatever idea you have faith in brings you solace and makes those dark forms in shadow less daunting.

The problem comes, when you chose to be in the dark about something and apply faith-based arguments where light has already been shed, or when you use apparitions you made up as an excuse to do harm to others.

A polyglot is anyone who speaks way more languages than you feel comfortable with. /s

So let’s talk about chirality first so that definition is covered. Your left and right shoes are chiral mirror images of one another, since they are clearly like one another, but there’s no way to rotate a right shoe to turn it into a left shoe and vice versa. Another example, this time of a 2D chiral object, would be a spiral. A spiral spins either clockwise or counter clockwise, and no rotation in a 2D space can change that. You need to rotate the spiral in a 3rd dimension to get it to become its mirror image. You might do the same to a shoe, but you’d have to rotate it in a 4th dimension since it’s a 3D object.

So a good test of orientabilIty is this: take a lesser-dimensioned chiral shape and traverse it along the shape of choice. If there exists no traversal which can make the chiral object look like its mirror image, then the shape is orientable. This can also be said as the shape having clockwise and anti-clockwise as distinct directions. Both the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle are non-orientable because they can convert lesser-dimensional chiral objects into their mirror images simply by traversing those objects along their surface in the right fashion.

I use krita mostly to draw out my crazy ideas in hopes that I might actually refine them later, only for them to sit in shadow for the rest of time.

True, the bar chart is probably the best, but both pie and bar outperform, by a wide margin, whatever NYT’s chart is. With this many categories, I feel a pie chart will handle this info better than a bar chart.

NYT, wtf is this shite infographic? Just use pie charts, they’re so much simpler to parse.

Very clearly a toad. Points deducted.

Edit: so apparently all toads are frogs, but not only that, this is a tomato frog and not a toad at all. My whole life is a lie and shit like this is why I have trust issues.