If it weren’t for the work of dedicated scientists I’d have assumed the knife would have just melded its the rest of the general subway ambiance.
If it weren’t for the work of dedicated scientists I’d have assumed the knife would have just melded its the rest of the general subway ambiance.
lol.
We just got new Prusa printers at work and my coworker made a few Czechoslovakia jokes…
Honestly, I thought this was NotTheOnion at first.
I could see some anti-cyclist doing this to protest the “ridiculousness” of 15 minute cities.
No fuckin clue.
Where’s the crayons?
You don’t need religion to be a moral person, and you don’t have to reject religion to act amorally. But there is no perfect, universal, scientific morality. Cultures, communities, individuals will vary on what they consider a moral act, and morality can change with circumstance. When different moralities interact, there will be conflict. And the amoral (or rather those, who do not subscribe to the same morality as those around them) will always use others’ morality as a tool to manipulate, a curtain to hide behind, a weapon to wield, and a shield to defend with.
Religion helps communities to build a common morality in order to reduce tensions and foster fellowship within the group. But there will always be communities. There will always be disagreements, confusion, frustration, pride, loyalty, forgetfulness, honor, greed, hunger, struggle, disease, countervailing needs and desires, and mercy. The absence of religion would not stop people from seeking safe harbor and kinship in others, whether that is social clubs, fandoms, sports teams, political parties, activist organizations, etc. And when that kinship is endangered or perceived to be endangered, the absence of religion will not stop people from seeking to obstruct, forestall, eliminate, or revenge against whatever or whomever is perceived to be the cause.
Chamel Linux, because of the chameleon.
Then since Tumbleweed is a rolling release, that would make it Patchy Chamel
Good luck!
Over here the reaction has been “They want us to think critically? What are they hiding‽” “They’re teaching kids to think critically? That’s indoctrination!”
And the one behind the conjoined twins with a giant nipple on its sternum
Vhile ve are at it, Chadus, let’s get rid of the letter u as vell. It is redicvlovs to have so many letters to keep track of vhen a covple can do dovble dvty as consonants and vovels alike, as the letter y does. Actualli, let’s do avai vith “y.” And “j” too for simpliciti. “I” mai vork iust as vell in both iobs.
I hate that punctuation is “supposed” to go inside quotation marks. If you doing anything more complex than a simple statement of a quote, you run into cases where it doesn’t make sense to me.
Did he say “I had pancakes for supper?”
and Did he say “I had pancakes for supper”?
mean different things to me.
Similarly:
That jerk called me a “tomato!”
and That jerk called me a “tomato”!
It feels to me that the first examples add emphasis to the quotes that did not exist when originally spoken, whereas the second examples isolate the quote, which is the whole point of putting it in quotation marks.
You’ve got some schmutz on your screen.
Elmer can go Fudd himself. Store brand non-toxic craft paste is just as flavorful an half the price.