I’ve heard (debated) etymology that “man” is gender neutral because in older English, “male” would have been “wereman” and “female” would have been “wifman,” so the “man” morpheme just designated “human” and the prefix designated the gender.

Which does imply that "were"wolves are exclusively male, and a female wolf person really should be called a wifwolf.

“Gee I’m so grateful for all this trauma.”

For me it was the natural conclusion from coming to accept a no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Before that, the ghost in the machine seemed to me like maybe it could be hiding somewhere in the spooky apparent randomness of wavefunction collapse, but if the universal wavefunction fully and deterministically describes the evolution in time of all particles everywhere, and there are no terms for “thoughts and feelings and free will” in that equation, then they are epiphenomena.

And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you’d have a point. But since we’re talking about your assertion that major earth religions are “directly excluded” by that definition of “higher beings,” i still fail to see the exclusion.

No one, I think, is in my tree.

I mean, it must be high or low.

Turns out that one was actually universal.

Run command: “Fiat Lux”

Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?

“This had better be good.”

“Fuck it, I’m tired of waiting, I’ll come back on the 8th day.”

“Oh, this IS good.”

“What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I’ll educate them myself.”

Instantiate avatar: “Jesus_Nazareth”

Which part is directly excluded?

If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.

Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.

https://youtu.be/OOCdIY_HKM4?feature=shared

This, but unironically.

Give shitty advice, get a shitty summary of your own shitty advice.

“If you’re not sure, better take the safer bet and nonconsensually burden some newly created living beings with the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.”

You are right, this video is clickbait mitigation, not clickbait itself. The haters are just primed to hate at the drop of a hat.

Thank heavens somebody understands the laws of thermodynamics.

Semantic stop signs, if you like.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FWMfQKG3RpZx6irjm/semantic-stopsigns

Well now I know you’re the type of person who starts a podcast newest to oldest instead of the other way around lol

No Such Thing As A Fish!

From the makers of BBC’s “QI,” a (nearly) endless collection of useless facts that will not change your life, but will make you more fun to talk to at parties. Not that you go to any parties.

It’s not about effort - it’s a matter of aesthetics.

Saw it on the big screen last night at the drive in. Flawless as always.