I’ve heard stories of people who’ve been overweight that’d never see lengthy lives because the burden of weight would be too much.

Absolute fear mongering! I see lots of people who comfortable being fat their whole lives and live a normal lifespan.

The hardest part from my experience of being slightly overweight is that it is harder to feel ready for any type of exercise, and I also got tired more quickly just from pulling the weight around when I walked to places.

It sounds very tough!

You are at least the second person to mention IBS/other stomach issues and interestingly I made this post because I’m suffering the worst stomach pain of my life, which i think must have been bought on by lifting with bad form. So I guess this is a sign I really need to see the doctor about this? I will.

And best of luck with seeking employment. Hiring cafe is good for finding remote work

I cannot self-terminate. If I could, I would have.

I have learned this too. It’s like the darkest sentence ever, lol. (Assuming you replace the middle period with a ; semicolon or dash)

But I’m proud of you and super impressed. Interested in the math and science courses if you have them to-hand

I loved watching the hobbit in the cinema, but i was a kid and I don’t think I will ever sit down to watch it all again.

The first one felt okay to have as one long film, i.e natural, but it’s weird that it would end with the eagle rescue after Goblin town.

If i think about it off the top of my head, some scenes they stretched out in film 1 (“An Unexpected Journey”) were:

• The “prelude” scenes of E r e b o r, which were very beautiful and cinematic, but most movies would convey in one or two scenes.
• confrontations such as with the trolls and the goblins
• CGI sequences like Radagast leading the wargs away from the dwarves

I’ve not thought about it before but it really is a shame because as soon as a shorter version comes along, people will prioritise that film instead.

Socialism!!! That’s socialism, how dare they!

That’s fair enough, but I guess the premise of star wars is that they’ve always known about the force since pre-space times (Though literature outside of the movies explains the opposite), so to me it seems more like just the fantasy premise of the series.

Honestly the only Bradbury novel I’ve read so far was Fahrenheit 451 (I loved it). That’s probably not sci fi, because tho it is set in the future, the futuristic elements which couldn’t exist today are spoke about in vague terms and it’s more a story of highlighting what’s wrong with our current society by extrapolating where it will go from here

One of the best documentaries I watched was Brian Cox’s Solar System, so yes that’s a very good example of how the purely scientific can create a pretty fantastical impression!

It strikes me as very sciencey.

• The space travel, for instance, is “how could space travel actually work?” And even when they have a satisfying explanation for planet to planet travel, they need one for longer distances, so they introduce those wormhole gates? I haven’t read very far into it
• it tries to make space colonisation as realistic as possible, including the body horror

And therein lies the balance. Real science for where we know (or think we know) the boundaries of science, and completely theoretical fantasy for things we don’t know about (the existence of alien life and what shape it might take)

Yes but I’m interested in other people’s views on this. Thought it would cultivate interesting discussion

Now at risk of doing leg work on their behalf: I think tankies often get confused about what they’re arguing for, and usually/initially don’t even believe it was “worth killing millions,” but rather they believe that millions were bound to die anyway just because the economy was in such rough shape. It takes a situation like that for communist revolution to spring up.

Tankies then lose sight of why they’re even defending people like Stalin in the first place, and get caught up in the arguments presented by other people, so they forget to present this idea. This level of person-worship is also a mistake in and of itself, because if they didn’t cling to the idea of a king, maybe they’d be able to defend his actions with more clarity

I think you mean “at the cost of killing tens of million people, and it wasn’t worth the cost of their lives” which I totally agree with. After all, killing people doesn’t send us to space. Sorry for my pedantry

I guess it must be a talking point that the CCP or it’s supporters use to justify their activity in tibet - “we’re just spreading technology. You don’t want us to be there? Then you must be luddite regressives who HATE the Tibetans”

I can’t tell if it’s genocide denialism but that tweeter is obviously being damn rude to a whole continent of people

This guy knows ball

Wassup Beijing