Lots of folks seem to have hobbies or put themselves through challenges that from the outside seem pretty masochistic. They generally claim they like the challenge, want to prove themselves or some other thing, but people who run the Marathon de Sable or swallow a Cessna light aircraft sure seem to gain pleasure from putting themselves through pain…

I’m mot sure I understand what kind of answer you are looking for. What did the Whig historiography achieve? Or the Great Man theory? Isn’t Critical Theory an academic approach that allows people in the humanities a different theoretical framework to approach the problems of culture, history, literature, etc? It’s been pretty successful in that, and while I believe that academic scholarship has some influence on world affairs, it’s generally the political zetgeist exerts more pressure on academic thinking than the other way around…

The Queen apparently watched the amazing 80s Flash Gordon movie every Christmas. And it’s about overthrowing a tyrannical monarch…

Like everyone else’s comments, if it’s actually noisy you should speak to a doctor. But I do deep breathing sometimes when I’m angry/anxious to help me relax, and now my partner is conditioned to spot the very quiet sound of me doing it. I’ve had a chest cold for the last few weeks and he kept asking if I was okay because I was taking deep breaths.

My point is, even if their breathing is quiet, the sound of someone taking slow breaths can be noticeable. Only tip I can think of is to practice breathing smoothly and regularly. When I’m actively trying to take a slow, long breath I notice it can be quite uneven. I breathe in, that breath tails off and I breathe in some more. That leads to an uneven sound that is more noticeable. If I really focus I can breath steadily and smoothly and it’s much less noticeable.

How do you think it would hold up for someone who didn’t play back in the day?

I got my Trekkie mom the Star Trek 25th Anniversary game for christmas, but I defitnely ended up playing it more myself!

Any particular thing will change, and if you look more specifically at the factors and data around it, you can make a more accurate guess about that change. But that’s pretty difficult for big, unpredictable things that we don’t have a lot of examples of (like “big world religions”).

Current data is that Christianity has been on massive growth spurt since the 1800s. There were 2.4 billion in 2020 and that is estimated to go up to 3.3 billion by 2050. So if you’re looking at growth rates, forecasts etc, Christianity is only going to get bigger.

Obviously, a lot of that growth is due to general population growth (although growth rate of Christianity was higher than the global growth rate) And if you make some pretty big assumptions about world development, ‘progress’ and waning religious belief you could believe that Christianity will boom and then shrink. But there’s not a lot of evidence for that currently. And that’s why I brought up that general guideline - we don’t have any reason to believe that Christianity is going to disappear anytime soon, and we don’t have any evidence that it’ll be here in 10,000 years. So, if I was an immortal onlooker, and I had to make a bet, I’d guess it’d be around for another few thousand years.

Maybe it would help if you explained more about why you think it’s surprising these religions are still around after thousands of years? Religions and cultural items like that don’t generally get ‘superceded’ by new inventions (as happens with technology), instead they general adapt and change to the needs of the culture that uses them. Christianity is the 2000s is massively different from even 500 years ago, let alone 1500 years ago. And in the 3000s it’s more likely that Christianity will be around, but significantly changed, than that it has faded away.

Seems to be! Rolled out to the free tier, according to the article. But you need to install the app.

I can’t remember the theories name, but I came across a suggestion from a historian (or sociologist? Or something…) that if you have to estimate how long a cultural feature will last, your best guess is “roughly as long as its existed for”.

So the pyramids at Giza are over 4000 years old. If we lack any specific knowledge of reasons ( predicting the stone erosion, or knowing that bombing is likely in the area soon) then all we can know is that they have lasted a long time, so probably could last a good bit longer. And if we guess random ages, they will average out to a middling number (just like if you roll a lot of d6s you’ll average out 3.5). The could be destroyed next year, but that’s an extreme outlier, and they could last 40,000 years but that’s also an extreme. So something around the 2000 - 6000 mark would probably be a good bet.

Similarly, Facebook has been around for 20 years. If the company collapsed next year, that’d be possible but unlikely. They could last into the next century, but again, most companies don’t. So guessing in the 10-30 years would be safe.

Obviously, it’s just a huge “rule of thumb” but I found it interesting. So instead of being surprised that Christianity is still here, twenty years past its second millenium, it’s more realistic to assume that you’re seeing it somewhere near its midpoint, rather than at an extreme. So we’re likely to have Christians for another few thousand years!

Tl:Dr if something has lasted a thousand years, it’s likely to last a good time longer.

My parents grew up in working class 1950s Britain. My dad’s parents slept in the kitchen (with a curtain round the bed for privacy), which was also the room that most “living” was done. The three kids shared a single small room, with both teenage boys sharing a double bed, their older sister got her own single bed, and she stayed there until she married and moved out in her early twenties. I remember seeing that room and even as a child it seemed cramped, no space really for anything else once the two beds were in it.

While the whole the family was living, eating and sleeping in two small room, an immaculate “front room” / parlour was kept solely for the two or three days a year where they had “company” (a family event like a wedding or funeral, or the priest visiting or something). The front room was bigger than both the others. It’s hard to comprehend the priorities that led to this sort of thing, but it was apparently extremely common in that time and place.

Interesting… Going to have to try it drunk!

I’m totally the same, but star trek fan, love all the older stuff and have given the new stuff a try but only really love SNW. So many friends are raving about LD but I could get through more than a few episodes. I just didn’t like the characters, or find the plots interesting, and most importantly found it completely unfunny.

I’m super jealous of all the people who love it, and I’m not criticising it. But I just didn’t connect with the humor, and like most comedies, if you don’t find them funny then characters and plots seem dumb.

I’m going to persevere and try to make it through the first season, just because I WANT to like it. But humor is personal, and even a good show can’t connect with everyone. I wish I heard more comments saying “it gets better after…” but the people who like it seem to just like it, so I’m not hopeful.

As many other people have said humans do not have same physical reactions to emotions. There’s some similarity for certain emotions (disgust seems to be the one that gets the most evidence) but there’s a lot of variety of how very basic emotions are expressed across the world. This study is a good example showing how Western subjects look to how the muscles and movements of the face show emotions, but East Asian subjects looked small movements of the eyes to identify emotions and their intensity.

Tbh, a stoned discovery that I still enjoy is chocolate chip cookies dipped in hummus.

But he didn’t say “this shower thought is the allegory of the cave” did he? He suggested a relationship between them by encouraging the op to familiarise themselves with the allegory of the cave. More of “if you liked this, you’ll love that” than “this is that”.

Its not that being smart is bad necessarily, but neither is it automatically good. I would never wish myself dumber, and maybe being smarter would be helpful… But most of my problems on life aren’t linked to a limited intelligence.

Obviously, it depends on your definition of intelligence (itself a complicated issue) but if the button would just give me better IQ score type intelligence I don’t think it’d help much. I’m plenty smart for my day to day life, job, relationships etc. The internal problems that prevent me achieving things are to do with focus and discipline / time management. And the main actual barriers are social or economic.

So sure, if the button made me so smart that I could somehow just see some novel solution that I could then market for money, so I could afford the life coach who would help me actually achieve the goals I want, then yeah smart me up! But being given a bunch of money would be a more direct solution. And a button that that improved my ability to actualise the plans I’m already smart enough to create would be muchore appealing!

Tldr: lemmy is full of people who are smart enough that not being smarter isn’t the main barrier I’m their life.

Does it do emoji predictions? I’ve got a few relationships that use a lot of emoji in chats, and the ability tomjusy type ‘salute’, ‘sad’, ‘kiss’ etc and get the emoji without scrolling through a library is what’s keeping me on Swiftkey.

Yeah, my (limited) experience of mediation would suggest that they’d still have earworms, but they’d not get so frustrated by it, by being able to avoid spiraling down “guh, I hate that song, where did I hear it? How long has it been stuck in…”

I mean, I agree, I’m not going to be losing any sleep worrying about the unsatisfied billionaires. But what he’s saying is that given the cost (losing 30 years of his life) the ‘reward’ ($35 billion) wasn’t enough. He’s not saying he doesn’t like or want the money, he’s saying its not enough to give up your life for.

If anything, it would explain why rich people keep pursuing money long after any sane person would be content with their millions/billions. Maybe if you just get given a few million you could be satisfied with it, but if you’ve had to sacrifice your life, friends, morality and so on to get it… And you realise it doesn’t actually make you happy, so you keep chasing more, hoping that eventually enough will be enough. Better that than realising you’re an idiot who fell for capitalism’s big lie and gave up the stuff that actually mattered in life to get more numbers on a sheet.

That’s interesting. How do they say it out loud? If 6am / 6:00 / 0600 is said “oh six hundred”, is 0000 “oh oh hundred”? “oh zero hundred”? “zero thousand”? “quadruple oh”?