MushuChupacabra

On the Beach by Nevil Schute

There was a movie adaptation, which was also shit.

Oh noes, suspended from Shitter.

Clumsily, and in a way that harms revenue.

The sole purpose of being a flat earther is to be a very difficult person to deal with, so the content of their little belief system is irrelevant.

They’re the sovereign citizens of earth science.

Fascism

It’s the tastiest way I’ve had it.

I do not know much about the dipshit who narc-ed on the tater tots, other than him being a shitbird of the same feather.

But if I don’t look beyond that surface level, he’s really starting off on a good foot with me.

It was a specific choice. My PC is a little long in the tooth, sucks power, and is overly loud for where it was situated.

The pi is doing fine for my relatively non-demanding usage. If I do set up the old PC again, I’ll probably wind up installing Mint or something, rather than buy upgrades and crap to support Windows 11.

I just ditched my old Windows 10 PC for a raspberry pi 5, and am running KDE Plasma.

It’s refreshing to have an operating system that doesn’t suggestive sell to me.

I’m about to abandon/relegate my old Windows 10 PC to a backup, and replacing it with a raspberry pi 5 running Mint. I’m trying to run quieter with less power consumption.

Mass Effect 3, with a coherent ending that is related to the story that precedes it.

It’s complicated.

We have the technology to 3D scan a person to get a current set of measurements, and generate a virtual sewing mannequin. Make that mannequin as life like as possible, standardized, regularly updated, and available to all clothing manufacturers.

Let each manufacturer who wants to use it design skins of their designs, with as much of the physical properties of each garment imbued inn that mesh as the state of the art allows, for any garment, in any sizes, with whatever sizing nomenclature that they want to put on the market.

Let the customer browse, and decide on where to shop based on what they see. It would be nice to also walk into any shop with some clear ideas of what sizes you will be pulling off the rack.

No.

Against.

If I ever feel compelled to take up arms for any cause, I’d want my squad to be as committed to that cause as I am.

Edit: Delicious chupacabra dish.

Tucker Carlson.

Partially because of his extreme Backpfeifengesicht, but mostly for his Backpfeifenpersonality.

Right on. Color description is the most challenging to describe; a person who is colorblind will sill struggle with understanding the description of hues that they cannot see the same way as someone with normal color vision. They can see the same light, but because they have only two (or mostly two plus very few of the third cone) types of color sensitive receptors, they’re composing an image that cannot fill in the other colors, for lack of detection of qualitative information. Right now if I look at my messy kitchen island, I can see blues,greens. Reds pink, some purple, orange, browns and yellow on the various packages. If I use an app that simulates protan or deuteran colorblindness, the same view is reduced to blues yellows and browns. Everything that was red now looks brown. Green things look brown. Basically everything that isn’t blue seems to reduce to browns and yellows.

I have normal color vision, with the usual three types of color receptors. There are a few people who are tetrachromats, and have an additional channel of color information to add to the mix. They still see within the visible light spectrum, but can distinguish colors more easily than I can. This fascinates me, because I’m convinced that I’m seeing everything. But that’s no different from a color blind person making due with two instead of three types of receptor. Intellectually, I understand that four distinct qualitative receptors will report more color information to the brain than three will, but it’s still a challenge. I think of the tetrachromats as seeing what see, but with a much more refined ability to distinguish between very similar colors.

Interesting…

I’m not on reddit under this handle, and haven’t checked in for a few months. Sounds like I have to take down yet another Doppelganger.

The analogy works to a certain extent, with one lopsided difference between active listening and active viewing. With hearing, you could theoretically pay attention to one voice emanating from any direction, without repositioning yourself. You probably would turn towards the voice to optimize clarity, but it’s not a requirement.

With active viewing, you have to point your eyes directly at the item of interest. That six degree area of visual focus corresponds with visual receptor cells densely packed in one spot on the retina called the macula. The density of cone receptors falls off the further away you get from the macula.

Think of following that one conversation in a crowd, but with a directional microphone. That would give some sense of the manual activity that goes along with vision, to maintain reliable and current information about the visual environment.

Thanks!