I haven’t seen this meme before but the person in the upper right and middle left look the same. And the rest of the panels look like one other person. Matches with the shoulder strap another person commented on. Probably someone took two different commercials of the same product and stitched them together.

Peanuts too ;)

Oh sure, you are totally right about that. I didn’t mean for you to feel attacked or anything. I was trying to discuss if the meme actually did play into some lefty norms of its own. Since you already took up this position I just tried arguing from the opposite position. There are definitely a lot of norms in lefty culture as well, what you describe as “absolute” I guess. And imo it is crucial to keep reflecting upon this and be vary of those norms.

Haha thanks for the explanation :) Actually figuring out that Jon cannot hear Garfields thoughts and that Garfield is always a step ahead of him made it much easier to understand

Exactly, pretty fun!

Hm, maybe that is your own insecurity with the subject speaking? Because the affirmations clearly state that “you don’t need to” and not that you shouldn’t. Obviously it is fine to capitalize on your passion. But often when you are really interested in any topic or good at something, you get told by all sorts of people that you should make money out of it. So there is a certain societal pressure based on capitalism to do so. And these affirmations just state that you don’t need to. But it is with stay at home moms maybe. You sure can stay at home and do the household and care for the kids etc. But you definitely don’t need to and it is important to get the message out that these expectations are highly problematic. Same goes for the expectation to capitalize on your interests.

Yeah, especially since even self-driving cars prove to be a much bigger headache to accomplish than anticipated. If we cannot even figure those out in so many years, it will take even longer to add a whole other dimension to all the variability.

I don’t get it. What is the progression in this supposed to be?

Well, fuck the idea of moral sin as well! I don’t care about it either.

Not using the tidyverse I see…

Oh funny, in the wiki article it mentions black coral to be megafauna. Never thought of corals as megafauna, fascinating!

Well, spiders, mosquitoes and ticks all play an important role as well ;)

In order to get less parasites maybe we should let the biosphere do its thing and through less disturbance we would probably be less affected as well.

And how much crappy art was pushed to popularity just because it was more easily marketable. To be popular you have to somewhat sell out and there are probably thousands of marginalized artists no one ever discovered because of that :/

Interessanter Artikel, aber da kommt nirgendwo irgendwas von Ernährung vor. Hast du den falschen Artikel verlinkt?

Und zudem sind solche Artikel immer runtergebrochen auf ein unterkomplexes Niveau, wo viele Nuancen fehlen. Wenn der Spiegel schon schreibt “aber nicht nur wegen all der versprühten Chemie”, kannst du erahnen, dass sie es mit einem wissenschaftlichen Ansatz nicht so ernst nehmen…

Fair point, I guess this would be a good reason to plot it like this. Maybe the author of the graph should have labeled it accordingly to avoid confusion though…

The Y axis is throwing me off a bit. If the X axis already shows the amount of protein per mass, why would you also couple the Y axis to the amount of protein? So all the products low on the X axis automatically increase along the Y axis. For example, the vegetables are probably that costly in this graph because they have a low protein content, not because they are necessarily that expensive.

Thanks for the context :)

Hahaha lol, I didn’t catch that at all but now it is pretty obvious

Not personally my style but hilarious designs!

A post that incidentally showed up just above this one in my feed showing that gay people are not necessarily allies to all queer people:

https://sopuli.xyz/post/13852549

And just because someone is friends with a gay person is even less reason to suggest they are necessarily queer-inclusive.