Very helpful, thank you!

Ahh that’s interesting, so the issue is as much having a conveniently shifting position as it is a further-right-than-progressives static position. Thanks a ton, that helps me understand a lot!

Gotcha, so it means fake leftists almost? Does it imply someone is even further right than a current “centrist”? Or more like, “the center is right wing at this point, and so much so that even the Dems who are just left of center are still on the right [but therefore less than centrists still]”? This is not meant to be obstinate, your response was just very helpful and I want to bracket in on where folks consider liberals to be on the political spectrum so I can understand/use it properly.

Yo how’d they fit a smartphone in there

Read G.E. Moore’s take on it https://uen.pressbooks.pub/knowledgeforhumans/chapter/g-e-moores-hands/

It’s a common and ultimately pointless/self-indulgent philosophical “question,” lots of good essays on it.

Lol they said “threatening violence” because it was the easiest thing to ban you with. The real reason you got banned is that you’re a psycho, man. You sound like you are saying you wish you were allowed to hurt or kill your own children, and you’re talking about them as property. That’s crazy person shit.

The shock wave needs a medium (air) to travel through. So if the bomb was touching a ship, it would certainly transfer kinetic energy, but if there was any space (not air) between them, there is still no shockwave for the ship to feel.

Based on the text and graphics, what’s up with this (poorly) AI-generated poster? Looks like it was done with the free tier of a knockoff Dall-e

Like almost any concept, the argument over free will really becomes semantic (and pedantic) when pushed to academic extremes. At a certain point it shifts to “is there a difference between free will and the apparent ability to choose what we do in any given moment?”

This scientist claims that the inability to tease any choice from the infinite variables that affect that decision means that the decision isn’t ours. It is an equally valid conclusion that you don’t need to know every single thing that influences you in order to have agency among those influences.

Moore’s take on the Cartesian question of “how do we know we exist?” is similar. It points out that the debate actually has nothing to do with existence, but what it means to “know” something, and that “knowing,” like anything, can of course be made impossible with philosophical and academic contortions (e.g., arguments like “but what if this is a simulation and there is a “great deception” that only convinces you that you exist?”). It is not that some form of knowing cannot exist, it is that people are capable of imagining fantasies in which knowing cannot exist, and Moore denies that we should let the ability to conceptualize something beyond the intended context of our language (i.e., perceived reality) pervert our ability to see and accept something concrete.

Is Moore right? Who knows, but he gets at the point that the answers to questions of free will, existence, ontology, etc. have more to do with how the questions are framed academically and philosophically than with how the same concepts actually operate in real life. It will always be possibly to frame a question (or to define the words within a question) in a way that denies the possibility of knowing or agency. But the ability to do so doesn’t mean that other methods of asking or knowing are impossible.

2 here, still full, and thanks for the reminder to check!

I think that another risk you run by putting Gunn in this role after he found the only success in modern DC movies and series is pressure to become too Gunn-y. The same way that Marvel was so taken with Taika Waititi’s Ragnarok that they had him go even more Waititi on Love and Thunder, which clearly made it worse, and then tried to incorporate similar humor in other projects that fell flat. Sometimes playing to hard into a unique success just proves that it was either largely novelty-driven or that you just can’t recapture it.

Ask what the most important skills or experiences to develop are for the transition to level 2, if there are any new or unexpected needs emerging in the department, if there are any specific departmental or company-wife priorities or goals for the coming year, and if there’s any way your specific role can more actively support those goals.

Depending on the type of place, you can ask if you’re perceived as taking feedback well and/or being up for a challenge, saying that you want that to be clear and would like to work on it if it isn’t. The fine line is asking a question that seems like it’s just meant to make you look good vs. a legitimate request for somewhere you can grow or do more good for the team/company, which is why keeping things focused on questions that will have actionable responses is a great move. Hope this helps and good luck! Sounds like you don’t have much to be worried about if they’re already prepping you for a promotion!

Thank you for allowing me to delegate my stalking

Where’d you land, out of curiosity?

Yahoo was a massive failed effort, but it hardly even compares to that haircut.