I swap PCs regularly and I hate how long it takes to install windows.

Also windows borked a games drive once and I never forgave it.

Then I learned all the privacy stuff.

Genuine question: why do you want to be a Co-owner and not just start a server?

It seems you’re aware of what goes into it normally. Except technical aspects. Is that all?

Tom Bombadill was an insane add to the story.

“Yeah I thought it would be interesting to have a guy who could just end the story but he loves his girlfriend too much.”

Let me guess

Engineering or CS?

I dunno, after perusing the website, I’m sold!

I’m so sold I’m gonna go get circumcised a second time!

https://www.constantinocongress.com/

Also, I guess that if your country is predominantly white you’ll end up mostly with white people.

Despite what the great replacers think, America is still mostly white or at least passably white.

Poor homie is probably both lonely and horny. A terrible combination.

So long as Daniel is paid from Mullvad, Mullvad financially supports the far right by proxy.

So this doesn’t feel like an issue to me because its a digital download.

This means we know an infinite number of these games could be made. There is no scarcity issue at hand. So my digital copy sitting unplayed doesn’t remove from someone else’s ability to play. Therefore I don’t really care that I don’t play those games.

Also, invite your friends over for a lan party

I’m a fan of academic and Pop-academic sources.

Pop Academic is usually the much easier to read version of a proper academic quality book. I’m a fan of Bart D. Erhman and a lot of his books are pop academia, but they reference his academic works.

The process I was taught for this kind of source finding is 1) Search for a broader topic 2) Find a well referenced book on the broader topic 3) Read book reviews of the book to determine if it has the content you want 4) Read the book or skim the book looking for mention of the idea you want to know more about 5) Check the relevant sources of that section.

If there are no sources listed (or they don’t exist because they’re hallucinations), its probably not a good book for information.

Alright you got me here. 3 redbulls today, even sugar free, kinda fucked me up.

But importantly I met my arbitrary corporate deadlines! No I won’t be recognized for my sacrifice! Why did I do this to myself?

Gingers are Lorax-kin

I’m not living to eat.

I guess that’s fair. That’s probably our biggest difference since I enjoy the whole cooking process. Tweaking seasonings as the process continues to make something complex and delicious.

But if that was never interesting then I guess it wasn’t a big loss.

Do you enjoy eating?

Damn I wish

I once knew a guy who was overweight and had his face fucked up in an ATV accident who was constantly cheating on his various girlfriends.

Looks really don’t matter.

IF you got wide feet, Lems and Zero do pretty good. Lems I know goes to 15, but I’m just a 12

If Plato is accurate then I don’t know if he didn’t talk out of his ass.

What’s the threshold?

Everyone’s different. A Diabetic can have less soda than a non-diabetic. Your body will tell you if you’ve had too much because you’ll feel sick, just like with the steaks. It also depends on caffeinated versus non-caffeinated and regular versus sugar free. It very much is a “listen to your body” situation.

You are inadvertently correct, although I understand that you are being facetious

Yes I’m being facetious. I’m using a logical fallacy called “Reductio ad absurdum” it’s what the guy in the video did. The point isn’t to be a logical disproof it’s to push a logical premise to an extreme example to make the base premise seem absurd. He did a worse job at it since he stopped comparing apples to apples and started comparing apples to genocide, which was crazy. I was still listening at Heroin, but boy did that escalate.

I wanted to stay within the realm of things considered treatment of the self for which the saying applies. People don’t eat genocide. We don’t do genocide in a way it only affects our selves. That’s a completely different philosophical discussion we can have. It would be weird if you want to, but, hell I’m weird too. That said, this was clearly a move done to shock and upset the viewer. a Reductio ad absurdum ad absurdum if you will. It was not an argument against moderation, it was emotional manipulation (I can’t be too mad about this, all rhetoric is that his was just tactless).

Why don’t you give this a try? You’ll find that in fact your body knows exactly how many steaks you can eat a day, and you’ll find it impossible to over eat steaks.

It’s impossible to over eat steaks? If you’re not paying attention to your body or flat ignoring it then yes you can. I’ve eaten several thousand calories of steak in a single sitting and felt terrible afterwards. I don’t do that regularly so it’s fine, but that’s in moderation.

“Everything in moderation” being a falsehood isn’t the same as “good things should not be done in moderation.”

What do you mean by this? I haven’t seen anything that proves or is convincing that EIM is a falsehood and I don’t why it wouldn’t apply to the second premise there since it hasn’t been disproven in the realm of human food.

Anything in excess is bad is almost a fundamental truth for me and this applies to more than just food. So, why shouldn’t I be moderate in even good things since there is also no such thing as a completely good thing. There’s nothing in this world that we can have in excess that doesn’t come with a drawback. Getting an education is good, but you lose time to yourself and your family. Working out is good, but too much and you can permanently injure yourself. Eating steak is good, but eating too many too regularly will make you fat.

Damn that’s a pretty good explanation actually

If I enjoy it, yes.

I drink wine and beer in moderation because it tastes good or interesting (I’ve tried to like hard liquor, but its just not as appealing to me). Its a ritual implement to unwind with. A human art that’s been practiced for thousands of years. Its bad for me, we know that, but its enjoyable.

The point of “everything in moderation” is to show that foods we consume for pleasure don’t generally cause problems unless consumed regularly or excessively. Obviously when you extend the phrase ad absurdum it will fall apart because its now being applied to absurd things. Hell, it could be applied to healthy things.

A soda a day is not good for you but that’s such a low amount of sugar and acid that the body can generally handle it. In fact, ive known a great many hills folk well into their 80’s -90’s who drink zero sugar mountain dew daily who i can only hope I will be as active as them at that age.

Fifty sodas a day is obviously not good for you because that’s more than what the body can adjust for and will probably damage livers and kidneys over time.

I could do the same about carnivore since the reasonable assumption from his attack on moderation is that I should never do things in moderation. So if carnivore is healthy, more carnivore is more healthy. Instead of one steak a day, I should eat two Tomahawk steaks and I can’t forget my fat so I drink a gallon of bone broth mixed with 50% beef tallow every day. Surely that’s healthy.

Exercise is good for me so why do it in moderation? I should work out as hard as I can every single day until I pass out from exhaustion.

Water is good for me? I should drink 3 gallons as quickly as I can, get water poisoning, and die.