I eat cheese on its own as a snack regularly. I never eat bread on its own without at least butter on it.

It’s enjoyable to eat cheese on its own so there is no problem here. And I would also have just put the extra cheese on the last piece of bread but it wouldn’t annoy me in anyway. The bread I would just toss unless I was actually hungry, but I’ve been eating cheese and bread all day so I’m not likely to be hungry

Bread is not good for many birds to eat.

This is a silly premise to begin with, but to answer it having an extra piece of bread left is the less desirable option

Uhhh in this economy?!

I went to an IB school 25+ years ago, didn’t seem that crazy then. I’m curious how time has changed this

It’s a pagan celebration co opted by the church to expand the influence of Christianity.

December 25th is not even the correct day to celebrate the birth of Christ. That’s other pagan holidays being co opted to fuel conversion of “Savages”.

Yule is not a Christian celebration yet it has been supplanted by Christianity.

Some reading on the practice.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/christmas-tree-history

Explain Christmas Trees then

Neither should colours. Fuck you Pepsi Blue

I’m happy there are people that thoroughly enjoy this, such as yourself. I just don’t connect to it as anything other than jarring and unpleasant.

I had forgotten about this. I’m not pleased to be reminded of it.

I’m glad you enjoy it thoroughly though since I’ve never understood what is interesting or enjoyable about this in anyway.

Please take my share of the world’s this

Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines

Tried to incite and succeeded at inciting insurrection.

I don’t consider the ARPANET stuff the internet.

It’s the precursor. TCP/IP adoption isn’t a bad place to consider what is the internet. I think adoption/invention of WorldwideWeb is too late though I could agree to use it as the beginning of what most people think of what started the internet we see today.

I think somewhere in the 80s is accurate, however it doesn’t really matter as the internet wasn’t suddenly everywhere. It took a LOT of time to reach a lot of places so one can remember what the world was like without the internet, even if it was already around at that time.

I remember when most people didn’t have a computer let alone access to a modem of some kind.

Look at Dick Van Dyke. Over a 100 and still dancing

Yes. I watched my grandmother slide from the strongest person in our family into a barely recognizable shell as she would have me come sit with her and i would have to tell her repeatedly in 5 minute increments that her brain was a asshole and there’s nothing she can do but eat well, take care of herself. It didn’t matter to the dementia she had. When she was sitting in bed crying on my shoulder telling me that all her friends are dead, she can’t remember simple things and so many other batshit crazy things I can’t even remember, and all the while, everyday for about 10 years I woke up to check and see if she was a corpse that day.

I’m well well well aware of what 90 can look like.

120 is my goal. I want to be able to say i can remember the 1900s, 2000s and see what 2100 looks like.

Ain’t doing it without scientific help, but there is very very small chance I could get there.

Yes younglings, I remember a time when the internet didn’t exist!

That’s no different line of reasoning if you said billionaires don’t have too much money they are just bad a resource dispersal because we’ve built our society to reward greed and individualism. Which I wholly reject as well.

You aren’t wrong that we need to fix a lot of things such as our management or resources and waste products, and that greed and individualism are things we need to curtail, but just from water and food production going into the climate change we already have experienced, the global population is much worse off than it would be if we worked to reduce the global population by at least 1/3rd. (Under about 6.5 billion a d 4.9 being maximally ideal iirc)

That’s just how the data wizards worked things out. That number is not a static number either. If magically we woke up tomorrow and all of the systemic problems were suddenly functioning in the best possible technical capability we have right now, the global population could support about 18-20 billion if they were spread out maximally.

But that’s just not the reality we live in. We have so much waste both in usable things like food waste, and garbage from end of the line material(mostly plastic

That’s the conclusion I’ve arrived at after looking into this topic multiple multiple times. (I started looking at it seriously when countries began pulling out of the Kyoto Accords) I could be mistaken about some of the information I hold to be true, and if I am I will need to readjust my perspective on this, but I’m not going to do that with you. I dont have the patience or grace to argue with people who want to ignore reality.

I am? Okay where can I go that has no society? How do I get there? Am I allowed to be there?

We are massively overpopulated already.

Those who choose not to have kids are Making room already in all the pediatric and child services they will never use.

Those with kids benefit when those without kids get the same treatment.

Why are you in that relationship if you can’t do the things you seem to enjoy?

Absolutely none of these things aren’t improved by it being a lemonade, iced tea or a delicious Arny Palmy

“I don’t like it, but now we rely on it”

Look I’m not saying you didn’t use it responsibly, the tech can be used well. But it’s just better not to incorporate it and normalize it. We are already having problem with kids of all ages losing the ability to think critically and if we push this tech into every corner of our lives and never take an intentional stand against it, or we draw no lines in the sand and say here but no further, we are headed in the same direction that has billionaires and other oligarchs choosing for us what is even available to us.

Even what you said, without forcing people to wade through some journalists attempt at literature, well that’s a symptom of forcing journalists to turn every thing of interest they want to write on, into some opinion piece with a tasty juicy story that can be used for clicks and more traffic.

Maybe I’m just a grumpy old man now, but I’m also someone who doesn’t understand why people can’t sit through a good movie, if it’s more than 90 minutes. Like do you not enjoy the things you do?

It’s the constant pressure to turn everything into a headline, and just looking at headlines, that has helped put us in such a sorry state.

I’m not arguing that it is or isn’t a benign use of AI that’s really not part of why I replied, at least to my way of thinking.

It’s a stand against laziness. We have to hold ourselves accountable for the things we choose because they are convenient. Especially when they actually are because we as a whole can’t be trusted to use convenient things as if they arent a worse choice almost every time