Sounds like great news, no?
Just as we had a time before fungus digesting plant matter, we’ve now had a time before fungus digesting plastics.
“Soon” we’ll get bacteria and insects doing the same, and all our plastic buildings will need to be protected just as the wood ones.
What I dealt, you must also have smelt
You have a powerful sense of smell, I sense a powerful smell, we are not the same.
Yeah, and although greedy, maybe not enough to ruffle feathers over.
No payment for sub-1000 streams/year
It’s always worthwhile to learn new things!
And programming is a tool, so it’s typically made to be clear how to use it, although of course people will differ on what needs to be clarified the most.
My experience is that there’s way too much discussion in what tool to pick, it doesn’t matter that much and almost all of the common languages will allow you to do all the things. And even though some will be better adapted for certain applications, it’s easy to pick up the new tool when relevant, and you’ll be that much ahead by being well versed in one.
As for how to learn, I find that you kind of need to figure out the basic syntax in each language (loops, conditionals, output, memory management, typology, lists, function calling, maybe classes/libraries if you’re fancy), and then start doing projects.
A nice intro for C# is the C# Player’s Guide by R B Whitaker, using some gamification and storytelling to get you through the basics, and even leave you prepared to tackle your first projects (by practicing design philosophy, how to break down projects, etc).
Otherwise, Python is a lot of fun, it’s made to be very easy to jump into, and then it’s fully featured to do anything you’d like it to. Unfortunately all my resources for it are in my local language, but it has many many users so I’m sure there’s great resources to be found in your own language.
I understand that this information is against your internal narrative, but a quick look at data for 2021 shows:
One in two women and one in five men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a busy public place.
And data from 2022 shows 45% for the same measure.
As for harassment:
2022 - 55% of women 16-34 felt harassed
2021 - Three out of five, 60% felt harassed during the year.
Twice as many women reported being harassed as men, and several reported changing their behaviour because of harassment.
This is also echoed in international studies over multiple cultures. Women are much more often harassed than men, almost exclusively by men, and have more limited freedoms, expressions and rights than men.
This is not controversial, it is well established in study after study, there is an actual right answer to this, and it’s not the one you’re proposing.
How is it that you keep ignoring data when faced with it, and instead of presenting supportive data resort to arguing feelings and whataboutisms?
Edit: Link to 2022 raw data
From the study summary:
Three out of five women aged 16 to 34 years experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months
Three out of five is 60%.
Did… did you miss the #metoo movement?
Where like 60% of women get harassed regularly, and 50 % felt unsafe walking home in public, due to men. Or 79% of women felt unsafe while exercising, due to men. And 88% of travelling women felt unsafe, due to men.
Bears are hungry, scared, have cubs to protect, or mostly want to be left alone. They won’t stalk you, leer at you, catcall or grope you.
You sir, are the one lacking self reflection.
We’re trying to describe the scarcity of something in units of something becoming less scarce every year. ftfy
Your last response wasn’t constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I’ll just end this here.
Have a nice rest of your existence.
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.
That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life
As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.
A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?
I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.
Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to “feel”.
But my position isn’t the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.
Is there any reason to feel different after you’ve died than before you were born?
I’m definitely over 10 years old
What? Most religious dogma is predicated upon free will, meaning we are capable of rearranging things according to our own machinations.
It would be like bacteria in a petri dish reorganising and reproducing, but it’s still creation in a sense separated from the creator.
deleted by creator
Tl;dr:
Bathtubs started small due to size constraints of rooms, but got smaller because it’s cheaper to manufacture and handle smaller tubs.
#savedyouaclick