It’s making fun of the long-standing trend of using abstract generated imagery that fetishizes a technological view of the world while trying to talk about human issues, as well as tacky, over-the-top AI art broadly.

There is also an “anti-meme” trend online that uses literal translations of imagery to make absurdist jokes.

Nostalgia is not about the actual thing itself, but the person you were when you enjoyed that thing.

This is no longer about what you want, we’ll just inject pineapple juice and rum in your other arm and bring you to party down with some vampire hotties.

The short answer is most of life on Earth shares some basic levels of chemistry. That doesn’t mean it’s a perfect fit though, just that human bodies are resilient enough to make due with terrible substitutes at times.

I think if people really understood that anything you eat and drink is also going into your bloodstream we might all be a lot more careful about what we consume.

And bras for womenfolk stranded on the island.

An unusual reaction to the prospect of having your life saved, but far easier to arrange than other solutions I guess.

That could have potentially been bred out for domesticated strains like we did with horses also, but we never even got to that point because horse hierarchy and zebra hierarchy are very different beasts, and you can’t really tame a zebra matriarch and have the rest of the herd fall into line, because zebras don’t have that kind of matriarchal social system. They are so mistrustful and hard to approach that we were never even able to get to square one.

It’s simultaneously less “magical” and more mind-blowing when you understand that this is more likely to point to the universe being more accurately described as an information system on a “flat” event horizon than an actual 3D space with depth and scale.

Our brains just turn this into a 3D experience of the universe and create the illusion of space and time as separate things.

I tried truffles once and that came closer to tasting the way ants smell than regular mushrooms. As you said, more metallic, sharper and more “alien.” People seem to like truffle a lot, I guess I will save money in my life by not having that indulgence.

it would be a pointless thing to lie about

It was started as a prank against boys who masturbate but don’t know much about the world, like the idea that girls can tell you’ve done it. It’s childish and a lot of people keep it going.

I firmly believe the people though that the people who think they can tell are just smelling BO or the person has terrible hygiene and is not cleaning up after doing the deed. (Body/sweat/clothes smells are going to be much, much stronger than any remaining residue from sexual activity, alone or with others.) It’s very easy to get a confirmation bias here because I guarantee if you smell someone deliberately you’re going to notice smells you don’t normally, and if you ask them if they’ve masturbated that day, most guys if they were honest will say yes because for most guy’s that’s a daily activity anyway. I would need to see an actual controlled study to think there’s any reality to the claim.

I can smell ants and it’s a pretty weird smell, but I don’t get any of the bitter food problems that some people have with certain vegetables.

With the exception of mushrooms. For some reason mushrooms spark that same sensitivity to ant scents, it’s a similar sickly scent and makes me think of decay and loamy undergrowth and is very unappetizing so I’ve never enjoyed mushrooms.

I don’t think that’s real, like the “clogged showers” urban legend that won’t die.

I can smell ants strongly and have an aversion to them, and cilantro tastes wonderful to me.

Develop agriculture and domesticate animals and become the first species in 3.7 billion years to finally beat the constant struggle for food and basically defeat hunger as a society and nobody says shit.

Draw one picture of a stick figure fucking a giant sloth on a cave wall and you will be known as the Northern Slothfuckers for all of history.

Additionally, imagine if it’s true that the universe is actually infinite. There’s no real reason to believe it’s not, and if it is, that means we cannot possibly predict some things about it. Such as the chances of us living in a densely populated region versus being literally a trillion light-years from the nearest occupied planet. Large-scale patterns of distribution of just about anything could look like anything imaginable over any given area, and there may never be a scale in which homogeneity becomes stable and perpetual.

And not only would something have to be alive there, they would have to have be intelligent and have formed civilization that is currently using radio technology, AND be at a point where they are actively listening at the point in which the signal arrives there, assuming we can send a signal strong enough to be received at all at that distance, which may be doubtful unless we put in a lot of effort as a species to send a super-signal to a distant star.

For reference, Earth has had life for somewhere between 3.5 to 4 billion years. Our entire species has lived for around a million years at most, and out of that time we only figured out electromagnetism in the last couple centuries, and only started actively using radio in the last century.

A hundred years out of ~4,000,000,000 is microscopically small. If another species developed their technology a century or two before or after us we have no way to know if they would possibly notice or recieve a radio signal, but it’s far more likely if the planet had intelligent life that it would have developed some number of millions of years before or after us. We don’t even know if other intelligent beings would use radio.

I’m sure there are or have been plenty of sapient beings emerging in the galaxy but they could have had entire, multi-million year epic stories play out and rise to glorious intergalactic heights with grand stellar-empires, and then either collapse in a million-year war or evolve past material consciousness, and still have been just a pinpoint in the timeline somewhere between the extinction of our dinosaurs and like, the evolution of early whales.

To say we are ships passing in the night would be a vast understatement of the problem.

he problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.

You haven’t said why though, I have received zero good arguments why reclassifying a ball of ice and rock that crosses other planetary orbits harms science, it’s a dumb hill to even point at, much less die on.

Pluto is a wonderful, amazing and beautiful world. I will never forget the awe I felt when I saw the first images when New Horizons blasted past it, the colors and textures and vivid landscapes and variety and hazy atmosphere layers, an utter treat, literally brought tears to my eyes that I got to see something I thought I would never see in my lifetime.

All that said, it’s fine it’s been reclassified, it takes nothing away from the world and the dwarf planets are ALL interesting and worth admiring.

Okay you googled what classifies a planet and saw the line about mercury, I am familiar but not sure how that makes any of this “unscientific.” Mercury mostly fits the criteria, pluto definitely does not.

I’m just confused how anyone has a problem with this, nothing is perfect, nothing has hard boundaries but we have to draw lines somewhere or we have solar system models where when we say “planet” we include 90 other objects that are very far removed from each other, besides being “somewhat roundish.”

I’m perfectly fine with 400 astronomers deciding to draw a line somewhere, they’re ones doing the goddamn work. I’m sure there’s a share of people seeking attention pretending to be outraged, but why give those voices power? If you’re an astronomer doing planetary science, you need to define different kinds of bodies, they’re not doing it to make people comfortable, and it shouldn’t make you uncomfortable, if it does that’s really, really weird. From the outside it screams some kind of issues with authority.

Yes, you are right it changes nothing in how we live, so I’m baffled why there’s always one out a hundred people just angry that people doing science changed something in the way they do work.

I don’t think the original user I was asking actually has logical steps as much as a desperate need to get negative attention online, but thank you for the good faith attempt.