Most people find honesty disarming. If you say “I’m socially awkward and I feel nervous around you. It’s got nothing to do with you as a person. It’s an issue of mine and I’m trying to work on it. I’m sorry if I’ve made you feel uncomfortable or otherwise upset you” she will probably accept that. And this is something you should be working on, BTW, although only you can really say what form that should take.
As some others have said, do not mention her looks or your crush.
It’s tricky business. The idea has to be plausible enough to attract investors, but implausible enough not to get looked at too closely by clever investors. Similarly, you have to drum up enough publicity to get interest, but not enough to get scrutiny.
Get the balance wrong and you get Theranos.
Neither. I brush them whilst standing next to the sink.
My hot take is that, of all the intensifiers, “literally” is the one that makes the most sense.
What are the options? “Really”, “actually”, and “literally”. What do they mean?
So if you’re trying to say that you’re scared rather than that you actually soiled yourself, which makes the most sense as a sentence: “I really shit myself”, “I actually shit myself”, or “I literally shit myself”? It’s the latter, right? Because (most) literature is fictional. And reality is reality.
I mean, none of it really matters because, as you say, the “rules” of English are just cobbled-together-nonsense. But to take the “you don’t mean literally because you didn’t have shit up your back” people at face value and apply their logic - “literally” makes the most sense.
Somewhat related - if “flammable” and “inflammable” can both mean “catches on fire easily” so that “doesn’t catch on fire easily” has to be the ridiculous “nonflammable”, then there’s no reason why people can’t use “irregardless”. No, the construction of the word doesn’t make strict logical sense. And…?
As an aside, you can tell how successful the rebranding of twitter as “x” has been, since even now more than 2 years after the rebranding news articles still have to add “formerly known as twitter” every time they mention it.
This was going to be my answer - one of the ships from the Culture could actually form the Culture for us and let us live in it
I remember when, to make a point,a blogger put Hitler quotes over images of Taylor Swift and people shared them around
I once saw a Japanese person post that if you can’t think of a word in Japanese and instead just say the English word in a really racist Japanese accent, then you’ve got about a 50% chance of being right
Yeah, that took a turn
Okay, if you prefer to frame the flaws in your reasoning like that, then I’m happy to do so. That doesn’t make the conclusion less flawed. The conversation isn’t about the hows and whyfores of formal logic, it’s about whether the conclusion is likely to be true.
None of what you’ve said ameliorates the faulty logic I highlighted. You have instead just added more assumptions.
There’s a few wild leaps in logic, here.
Firstly, we know of life evolving once. Just one planet. In the entire universe. We can postulate that with such a vast universe (and possibly multiverse) that it’s probable that other life exists elsewhere, but we don’t know that. It could be a unique event or an incredibly rare event. We can’t say, because 1 is way too small a sample size to extrapolate from.
But you’re not even extrapolating from 1 datapoint. You’re extrapolating from something that you think might be true at some point in the future.
If we’re in a simulation then we’d have no idea what’s outside that simulation, so we’d have no idea what an easter egg would look like.
But it’s not my job to find evidence to prove other people’s claims. It’s their job to provide evidence for those claims. That’s true regardless of whether the claim is that we live in a simulation, that we’re ruled over by a benevolent omnipotent god, or whether there’s a teapot orbiting between Mars and the sun.
Thanks.
Generally speaking I tend to just leave the C: drive for utilities and use external drives for data, as much as possible. I understand that Linux handles files and stuff somewhat differently, but that would still generally be my plan.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I’d gathered. I’ve got a few dead computers around and I’m going to take a drive out of one of those and use that for the Linux while keeping Windows on the drive it’s already on.
No harm in trying, right?
Thanks.
Not any more, there’s a blanket