I only saw it in year 7! To think that something so explicit could be shown to primary schoolers nowadays…

Any grown adults want to meet up to play tag in the woods?

I’ve heard stories of people who’ve been overweight that’d never see lengthy lives because the burden of weight would be too much.

Absolute fear mongering! I see lots of people who comfortable being fat their whole lives and live a normal lifespan.

The hardest part from my experience of being slightly overweight is that it is harder to feel ready for any type of exercise, and I also got tired more quickly just from pulling the weight around when I walked to places.

If geopolitics worked exactly like a command and conquer game, they could halt the expansion of AI dominion and score a massive victory against climate change accelerationsts by doing so.

Picture the big reflecting pool clearing up overnight after the White House has burned to ash

It sounds very tough!

You are at least the second person to mention IBS/other stomach issues and interestingly I made this post because I’m suffering the worst stomach pain of my life, which i think must have been bought on by lifting with bad form. So I guess this is a sign I really need to see the doctor about this? I will.

And best of luck with seeking employment. Hiring cafe is good for finding remote work

I cannot self-terminate. If I could, I would have.

I have learned this too. It’s like the darkest sentence ever, lol. (Assuming you replace the middle period with a ; semicolon or dash)

But I’m proud of you and super impressed. Interested in the math and science courses if you have them to-hand

I loved watching the hobbit in the cinema, but i was a kid and I don’t think I will ever sit down to watch it all again.

The first one felt okay to have as one long film, i.e natural, but it’s weird that it would end with the eagle rescue after Goblin town.

If i think about it off the top of my head, some scenes they stretched out in film 1 (“An Unexpected Journey”) were:

• The “prelude” scenes of E r e b o r, which were very beautiful and cinematic, but most movies would convey in one or two scenes.
• confrontations such as with the trolls and the goblins
• CGI sequences like Radagast leading the wargs away from the dwarves

I’ve not thought about it before but it really is a shame because as soon as a shorter version comes along, people will prioritise that film instead.

Socialism!!! That’s socialism, how dare they!

That’s fair enough, but I guess the premise of star wars is that they’ve always known about the force since pre-space times (Though literature outside of the movies explains the opposite), so to me it seems more like just the fantasy premise of the series.

Honestly the only Bradbury novel I’ve read so far was Fahrenheit 451 (I loved it). That’s probably not sci fi, because tho it is set in the future, the futuristic elements which couldn’t exist today are spoke about in vague terms and it’s more a story of highlighting what’s wrong with our current society by extrapolating where it will go from here

One of the best documentaries I watched was Brian Cox’s Solar System, so yes that’s a very good example of how the purely scientific can create a pretty fantastical impression!

It strikes me as very sciencey.

• The space travel, for instance, is “how could space travel actually work?” And even when they have a satisfying explanation for planet to planet travel, they need one for longer distances, so they introduce those wormhole gates? I haven’t read very far into it
• it tries to make space colonisation as realistic as possible, including the body horror

And therein lies the balance. Real science for where we know (or think we know) the boundaries of science, and completely theoretical fantasy for things we don’t know about (the existence of alien life and what shape it might take)

Yes but I’m interested in other people’s views on this. Thought it would cultivate interesting discussion

I am anger

I’m sure I agree but your comment suggests you could summarise what else you think should be factored into the measure of success, and now I’m curious to hear it

At least OP said women and not “females”

Weaponised schizophrenia

Men are attracted to the “airhead type” because those women are good at making men feel good about themselves and keeping up lively conversation; and though people usually prioritise companions who have the same interests as them, they enjoy talking also to a lively conversation partner, perhaps someone as-different-from-themselves as possible: someone who surprises them.

Many men feel that all women have the “airhead” quality - no, not as in they’re all stupid, but as in they’re lively and conversational in that stereotypical way that disrupts the man-to-man conversation; and though they do not speak to men as equals (preferring to talk over them or jerk the conversation off on some other tangent, perhaps, or dwell on uniquely feminine topics which baffle/disinterest the male listener), this is seen as no big loss, really. For women are different to men, and their presence in our lives is welcome precisely because of that rather than in spite of it.

The important thing to remember is that people change overtime and every person is more multifaceted than massive media would have us believe - so yes, that is “just Hollywood.” Who’s to say why a man likes an “airhead,” she probably has more depth to her than you know about.

Edited to change one comma into a colon, and formalise grammar in final sentence

Pizza is a savoury cake.

Guacamole is so much nicer than avocado. I probably eat more guac than mashed potatoes, usually on toast or in wraps though. As the Aztec gods intended.