Many people claim the Loch Ness monster is an animal thought to be extinct though. The thylacine is generally held to be a cryptid in my experience.
stray
joined 3 months ago
The wording for the fad diet section bothered me. If benefits of calorie restriction and fasting aren't scientifically supported, why are their Wikipedia pages full of scientific research regarding their benefits?
Things like the actual uses of aromatherapy make me wonder what to call them. Maybe the word placebo applies, but I feel that there's a certain level of arbitrariness needed for that specific word.
There's something about aromas and the soft gestures of reiki that are pleasurable to us in a more objective sense. We don't like them simply because we've been told they're good for us; we like them because we like them. A waterfall will make most people feel good even you don't tell them it's good for them, so I don't feel it can be called a placebo effect. What is the term for a thing which isn't directly a medicine, but is medically beneficial by promoting a sense of wellbeing?
I don't think that laughter should be considered medicine in a literal sense because it would make the term too broad, but also because these things are at least somewhat subject to taste rather than the truly objective effects of drugs. A given drug might effect two people differently, but the difference is a matter of chemistry rather than the subject's opinion.
(Maybe it will all be the same someday when we've dialed in how everybody's brains work in exact detail and tailor treatments more specifically. Maybe we'll actually prescribe touching grass instead of suggesting it.)
It's not originally theirs and you shouldn't let them have it.
But "their" is singular all the time.
He's Biblically accuracymaxxing.
I'm not aware of any other species sexually selecting for mammary size. Some birds do a puffy chest thing.
It might be a learned association rather than anything instinctive about tiddies. There's this one study where they gave rats a backpack fetish, but it has a sad ending because then they murdered all the rats. They did phrase the murder like they were doing a Satanic ritual though, and that kind of took some of the murdery edge off it for me.
I've been looking forward to like 20 years from now when all the incels will be into girls with too many fingers.
Maybe he should get Mexico to pay for it.
At least half the population buys into the "fake news" shit about how Trump never did anything wrong and all of this is somehow making more jobs for Americans. I'm not kidding. I have this argument too often. I don't know what to do about it. It's so frustrating and depressing.
Pigs are so nice too; I wish they didn't have that association. :(
“devs too focused on making a game pretty instead of fun” is talking about making the art photorealistic with fancy hair engines and such, when doing so doesn't add meaningfully to the experience and only serves to needlessly complicate development and inflate the cost.
We can tell that making all these 3D models and animations is a problem for the devs because they've said so repeatedly. They've even said they can't have every Pokemon in the same game as a result. Instead of the lovely pixel art of FRLG we have a mish-mash of dead-eyed, poorly-animated cartoons with PSP-quality "realistic" terrain that grate against each other. And for what? Why do 3D when you can only do 3D so poorly?
I dunno, man, that doesn't sound too crazy. I'm in a really bad condition for learning new things right now, and I can't even figure out what claims this idea would be making. It sounds like it's just describing a process of advancement and the types of conflicts that arise?
I'm finding this especially hard to grasp because my brain's on a tangent about how you'd really go about falsifying most stuff in history or sociology. You gonna put a bunch of people in a series of jars with carefully controlled conditions for hundreds of years and observe the results? Like we have this piece of paper from 1700 that says Jimothy won the big game, but our understanding of this guy and his alleged win of this supposed game are totally vibes-based because we don't have a time machine. I think like the best you can do is try to base your beliefs and claims off things that have been observed repeatedly, but does that make these kinds of topics unscientific? We test what we can and go with our best guess for what we can't, right? This is going to bother me.