This is a board for topics that don't fit on other boards, but that are still otaku/hobby related.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 16448)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, EPUB, GIF, JPEG, JPG, MP3, MP4, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, SWF, TORRENT, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 7000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 3543 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 134575630513.jpg - (64.06KB , 336x447 , ponderings.jpg )
16448 No. 16448 [Edit]
Ponderings general 2. Post things you've thought about.

Previous thread >>15685
545 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 37036 [Edit]
People can buy a crispr kit online for less than 200$ these days, pretty much any part of the world has insects and plants to dissect and I would consider much of programming to be softer than biology, but I see your point. I'm pursuing a biomed engineering degree, but I don't think I'll have anybody around these parts to talk about that stuff with once I actually know something about it.
>> No. 37037 [Edit]
Neat, I didn't know that. I wonder if high schools will start adopting it as part of their curriculum.

>I would consider much of programming to be softer than biology
Hm maybe "softer" isn't a good word (it's too vague). More precisely you could say that you have more definite knowledge about the state of the system in question (computer, living organism respectively) and it's easier to manipulate that state in programming. Whereas with biological systems it's harder to isolate and manipulate just one aspect; while you could do it in vitro, often those results may not generalize to in-vivo because of all sorts of cross-interactions that couldn't have been known apriori. It's in that sense that biology is more "messy" and the strength of results obtained is a lot softer/weaker.

>anybody around these parts to talk about that stuff with once I actually know something about it.
You never know; try posting on /navi/! More activity is always welcome. Although I do wonder where the biologists hang out. Outside of stackexchange-esque QA sites, I don't recall ever coming across a discussion forum for biology.
>> No. 37088 [Edit]
I found out that you can cause gum recession from brushing too hard. Stupid money grubbing dentists never bothered to tell me that I've been eroding my gums over the past few decades. Apparently they're also supposed to be measuring your gum depth every visit so it can be tracked, but they don't bother to do that either.
>> No. 37089 [Edit]
My dentist does. Sounds like you've got a shitty dentist. You should never put pressure on your teeth when flossing. Being thorough and forceful are different.
>> No. 37090 [Edit]
>they're also supposed to be measuring your gum depth every visit
Mine does too, but didn't really mention the strength thing. They have however told me that brushing in down to up for your lower teeth and up to down for the top teeth) can help in regenerating gums. Kind of like pushing the gums in the direction they should go.
>> No. 37091 [Edit]
> can help in regenerating gums
I thought that gums cannot be regrow? That aside, it does seem like the technique of "brushing in down to up for your lower teeth and up to down for the top teeth" would be less irritating to the gums and also potentially more effective in cleaning stuff.

Post edited on 21st Dec 2020, 7:16pm
>> No. 37096 [Edit]
File 160862073096.jpg - (548.28KB , 800x800 , 9dcafdfe0078375b6e5fd3fb97e717e6.jpg )
I've been thinking lately that human beings aren't meant to know the truth about a lot of thing. They're meant to believe in comfortable delusions. Maybe the truth is poisonous to human beings.

There's just the abyss. The reality that existence itself is completely indifferent to anyone or anything. No matter how badly one or more people suffer, it really doesn't make a difference. It really doesn't matter. There really isn't a good reason to care.

People always say "we're just a tiny blue dot in the middle of nowhere, so we should get along", but they don't follow through with this thinking and acknowledge it also means it wouldn't matter if this tiny blue dot completely vanished. None of their moral hang-ups matter either.

I'm afraid that if people knew I felt this way, they kill me. Knowing that me dying wouldn't make any difference at all makes it even scarier.

Post edited on 21st Dec 2020, 11:06pm
>> No. 37098 [Edit]
What you said made me think of Lovecraft.
As I see it, being "insignificant" is not a thought that bothers me. It's a matter of size? It seems quite banal, even if we're a tiny fraction, being unique means we're not insignificant at all. And if we're not unique and the universe is full of life then there's so much to see and learn to be abandoned to existential dread.

>The reality that existence itself is completely indifferent to anyone or anything.

I don't know enough about it so I will not talk about it as if I knew, but I suspect modern science has put some doubts into that.
>> No. 37099 [Edit]
The population is becoming increasingly atheist so I think most feel that way anyway, they just get on with their lives. Personally whether I matter or not in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant to me and doesn't change anything at all.
>> No. 37100 [Edit]
>The reality that existence itself is completely indifferent to anyone or anything. No matter how badly one or more people suffer, it really doesn't make a difference. It really doesn't matter. There really isn't a good reason to care.

That's silly. So if your house catches fire you won't move from your chair and let yourself get carbonized and suffer an agonizing death just because 'the universe' doesn't care about you? You're failing to see the basics here. Pain sucks and is reason enough to care. Other people's suffering sucks and you should care about them too. Ultimatelu, not getting carbonized and dying as a fireball matters to you and that should suffice. Of course the universe doesn't care, the universe is not a person. It's not that the universe is indifferent, it's more like the universe is not human and you shouldn't expect it to have feelings for you.

You're wishing for some anthropomorphized version of the universe where it's a cool bro that will realign the cells of people with cancer and cure your toothache and getting scared that isn't the case. Well, maybe the problem here is that you want to be religious. Because it seems very clear to me you're have the secular version of doubting that God exists.

>I'm afraid that if people knew I felt this way, they kill me.
It's more likely they would try to explain to you how silly your line of thought is just like I'm doing now. I can see religious people trying to convince you that God does care and all bad things will be fixed on some next life. That's another vastly more likely possibility.
>> No. 37101 [Edit]
I think it matters less whether someone is a proclaimed atheist than whether they believe in inherent values of right and wrong. The christian and the atheist will probably agree with at least one thing that both believe is either morally wrong or right. Like, murder, or violent rape, or stuff like that. Now being a species with a need to survive, this makes sense to have values like that. But realistically the moral compass of the human race, if it even exists, is about as objective as the belief of anything or anyone that values their own survival above other things. If you have a moral compass I'm not trying to shit on you and say you're some dumb little sheep who isn't a smart nihilist like me. Frankly I believe morals only need to have value to the person holding them, as I also believe this is the only way they exist at all in our universe in any substance. Morals are just an idea, the concept of a concept. I don't think even god could have the power to make meaning exist, because I don't think it's a valid concept. It's not even about whether god is real or not in my opinion, right and wrong just aren't real, they aren't valid, you can't create something that has no frame of reference to our universe or the laws of causality themselves. It would just float away.
>> No. 37102 [Edit]
It does matter if one is religious as if one is religious they will believe that all suffering happens for a reason and that there is a greater power and a greater good, they would also view this life as temporary and a trial that will lead onto something different.

Morals and religion(which itself is often created to dictate morals) are important, they enable society to function properly. All though it is becoming less important as we know have such a strong legal authority, the power to enforce it and increasingly the technology to find any wrong doing that whether you believe something like murder is wrong or right is irrelevant, you would be dumb to do it anyway.
>> No. 37103 [Edit]
I think most atheists still believe in right and wrong, even if they give other reasons the average atheist tends to be a progressive, strongly of the liberal inclination. Classically liberal or otherwise I believe the distinction is actually not important, everything after the fall of the monarchy and state religion is the same liberalism to me. They would probably be pretty upset if I or someone else told them that their beliefs are not objective. The part of their brain that creates moral reaction is no different from a religious persons, only the specific morals differ and then only in what the "best" way to provide a morally good life for people is. As for the last part of your post, well, I think some element of that has always existed and also that some element of people obeying moral law will always exist. Ironically I think the "good" atheist who intellectually acknowledges the reality of his position on theology is rare. I think the atheist who both acknowledges it and personally lacks any moral preferences is even rarer or maybe non-existent. In a sense some of this is just because people will naturally feel upset if something bad happens to THEM, thus even the nihilist will despair at his own supposed unimportance rather than switching a flip in his brain to turn off his emotions.

Although the distinction between belief in a greater good, and having a belief in both a greater good AND a greater power, is important. Though it may come down to being as simple as whether someone tends towards collectivism or individualism or not.
>> No. 37104 [Edit]
Yes they do. Whether one is christian or not we still live in a christian society. Our values and morals have been passed down to us through the ages and while it has changed the core beliefs have remained as they are intrinsically a part of the media we consume and the way we are brought up. However, atheist are not held to it in the same way christian are and so are more likely to take liberties with it or go against it if it somehow benefits them, after all they are not going to go to hell for breaking a moral they will just feel bad about it(provided they feel they can get away with it).
>> No. 37105 [Edit]
File 160864005686.png - (1.08MB , 1280x720 , migodo.png )
Please take your religious discussion to /tat/. >>/r/15
>> No. 37106 [Edit]
File 160864036456.jpg - (244.30KB , 1266x900 , lolibooru 294592 heart_of_string horn_ornament hos.jpg )
>Other people's suffering sucks and you should care about them too.
Why? I avoid suffering myself because it's unpleasant, but I also know that my suffering is inconsequential. If my own suffering doesn't matter, why would another person's?

You're failing to understand my premise. Your entire way of thinking seems to be based on things you mistakenly believe are facts("basics"). You lack mental flexibility.

Never mentioned religion.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 4:34am
>> No. 37108 [Edit]
>I also know that my suffering is inconsequential
You have this very silly idea that if the universe is not an anthropomorphized buddy of yours that cares about your fate then nothing is of consequence. It doesn't make sense. Pain and suffering is enough of a consequence for action, avoiding suffering is an end on itself.

>my premise.
Your premise is that you want the universe to have human feelings for you and you're feeling dejected because it obviously doesn't. In other words you just want God to exist. >>37105 is actually right. You're having religious breakdown even if you swapped a couple of words here and there. Eitherway, this is not the place to discuss it.
>> No. 37109 [Edit]
File 160865014181.jpg - (133.55KB , 697x523 , 83c111d436e311e244460dc07b2338c7.jpg )
>Pain and suffering is enough of a consequence for action
I've already explained why I would avoid pain. That doesn't transfer to anybody else though. I don't feel other people's pain and they don't feel mine.

>you want
Why are you putting words into my mouth and why do you seem so emotionally invested? I feel dejected because I feel alienated from others. They don't talk about things dispassionately as a matter of what's good or bad for society. They seem to really "care" when there isn't a real reason to, so I don't think they see what I do. I wouldn't mind the universe not caring if something else cared about me and gave me a sense of purpose and hope.

Why is the pondering thread not the one to discuss stuff like this? It's like your offended that I'm questioning something you hold near and dear.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 7:26am
>> No. 37110 [Edit]
It's true, your suffering and the suffering of others does not matter at all and maybe sometimes we can even profit off it. But to say that anothers suffering is completely irrelevant and will not effect you nor could it effect you is wrong. If you live with a sister or brother or even have a neighbor that you are close with or even a boss or coworker you do not like but have to work with then her or his suffering does effect you. If your sister is suffering she is not going to be pleasant to be around and her suffering may cause direct issues to your life, she may become depressed and stop working or get fired lowering the wealth of the household, she may take it out on you etc, conversely if she is happy she will be easier to be around and her life may improve and thus improve yours with it and if you help her when she is suffering she may help you when you are suffering in turn. If you just ignore her or add to her suffering it will only effect you negatively in the long run. Even in a more distant manner it can effect you, even if you are a heartless slave driver, you can only push your slaves so far, causing them to suffer too much will cause rebellion and easing their suffering slightly may improve their efficiency.

So even if you had no emotions or morals whatsoever, the suffering of others is going to negatively effect you and cause you to suffer.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 7:42am
>> No. 37111 [Edit]
That's a good point, but it only applies to people I'm involved with somehow. There are many more people whose circumstances have no effect on me. Most suffering is irrelevant to me then.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 8:23am
>> No. 37112 [Edit]
>it only applies to people I'm involved with somehow
Which is everyone on the planet. I don't think it's difficult to see how humanity is closely connected, specially on this day and age. Those people who died on the London bombings because of a conflict half a world away would have plenty to say about that. That's just one tiny example out of numerous anyone could give, you don't even need to think that hard really.
>> No. 37113 [Edit]
File 160865807825.jpg - (445.98KB , 850x867 , sample_0806c0e25ff19dc904e69e517c135f2e.jpg )
Right now, somebody, more than one person probably, is dying or getting murdered or raped or is a sex slave. All of those people in nursing homes who barely know what's going on around them or those who have a terminal illness too. I'll never know anything about those people. I probably wouldn't like them even if I knew them. I can't see how they affect me. My connection to some average stranger on the other side of the planet is more distant than the insects outside my home. They wouldn't admit it unless provoked, but I think everybody feels the same about me.

People always talk about shared humanity or whatever in an abstract way, but almost all people don't think like me. They don't value what I value. They constantly disappoint me. I'd accept a machine or a fish that thinks like me before a person who doesn't.

Why do you feel that connection? Do you really like people that much?

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 9:32am
>> No. 37114 [Edit]
I'm not talking about some weird spiritual connection here, or some empathy thing, I'm talking about literally, you're closely connected with those people. Food prices raise when there's more demand for it somewhere, it affects you. People littering the streets affect you. People using cars affect the air you breath. All the services provided to you so your toilet doesn't overflow and you drown in your own waste, that's all people's doing. All around you people are doing things that affect you directly, that's what I'm talking about. Those millions of people with cancer and that died of cancer were a force for medical research and advancement on treatment, so if you ever have cancer yourself, the only reason treatment exists is because other people had that and died before you. The only reason you have clothing is because people have been cold for thousands of years and collectively came up with an idea on how to not freeze to death. Literally everything you use, consume and even the things you think about, come from other people. The very language you use even. You didn't invent English did you? The very ideas you use and concepts and wording, you only have that because of your connection with other people.

You don't need to know a person for a connection to exist. For sure you don't need to like people for that connection to exist, it exists regardless of your wanting. It's literally all around you. I didn't think I would have to explain that people live in a society but there you go, I just did.
>> No. 37115 [Edit]
Any of the people you mentioned could have been swapped out for others. Including myself. Different people could have been born or gotten illnesses or have other bad things happen to them. People as an amorphous blob is different from them as individuals. As individuals, almost everybody is replaceable and disposable, if they're even useful to society to begin with, which not everybody is. What about neets? What about those sex slaves?

None of what you've written proves that individuals' suffering affects me. People suffer, yes, but they could be anybody. Society can handle a lot more suffering before it perceptibly changes anything for me. Tasmania could vanish and I'd barely notice it. More and more things are also being automated, so the significance of other people is diminishing.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 10:39am
>> No. 37116 [Edit]
Well it's like I said, it doesn't matter if you personally know them, if you consider them individuals or amorphous blobs. The connection exists. Those people are real and affect you directly. That post is going to be my only attempt at explaining that, if you still think you're floating in empty space independent of everyone but mom and dad then that's how you'll be leaving this conversation. Sorry.
>> No. 37117 [Edit]
Most of the things you're talking about actually came from a very small set of people that developed it in near-isolation. For clothes and basic tools, that is almost always developed separately by different tribes. For language, there's certainly a larger group but I'm sure I would still be speaking some language that would work well enough without it. Also this whole global reliance thing is more forced than anything else, considering it wouldn't even be true 150 years ago. It really does amaze me how some people are already in the mindset that this is one giant earth family.
>> No. 37118 [Edit]
You're really hung up on the idea that every single person is important, but completely ignore every example I've given where that's not the case. You can't explain to me how a neet in South Korea jumping off a building changes anything for me. If you tried, it would be contrived, tortured and unverifiable. Some people are undeniably more important than others in the sense you're talking about. That means there's no intrinsic worth to a person.

I never thought I was "floating in empty space independent of everyone but mom and dad" as you put it so condescendingly. As an oh so worldly person, do you really think if the murder rate in Laos increased by 2% your life would change in any way?
>> No. 37119 [Edit]
I never wanted to prove every single person is important. Importance is relative anyway, I just wanted to show that living in a society literally means you're connected to a huge number of people and that those people, regardless if you know them or not, have a real impact in your life. That's literally all I was trying to convey. I guess it's so obvious that you assumed I wanted to prove something else? Because I wasn't. That's it.

As for some people being more important than others, I suppose that's true, relatively speaking. For sure the president of the US have a lot more impact in history than the guy asking for change in front of the grocery store. But then again, I don't know how that factors into what I was trying to prove earlier. Again, maybe the stuff I was talking about is so obvious it looked like I wanted to prove something else. And I agree, there's no intrinsic worth to a person. How could it be? All value is attributed, including the value used to claim the president is more important than the panhandler. I would not be able to point out a single thing, human or otherwise, that has intrinsic value.

As for the murder rates in Laos, yes, I do think everything has consequences. To make a very long story short I agree with the propositions of chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>> No. 37120 [Edit]
File 16086682179.png - (704.56KB , 660x918 , 8c7fcb98353fae648a41413f570bb05f.png )
If you were responding to this
>If my own suffering doesn't matter, why would another person's?
By explaining that people are necessary for society to function, you misinterpreted what I meant by matter.

With the butterfly effect, you're assuming the consequent effect(s) to you has time to reach you before you die, which I don't think is true most of the time. Even if everything that happened to anyone would effect the stuff your body is made of eventually, the time it would take for that to happen could exceed your lifespan. Not everything will effect everything else greatly enough within a time frame short enough to "care" about most things. The eventual effect(s) might also be so small it might as well not have happened because the mind doesn't have enough reason to be distressed by it.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 12:19pm
>> No. 37121 [Edit]
File 160867335593.jpg - (386.09KB , 600x647 , pkc.jpg )
Hm, no, the only thing I ever meant and repeatedly said is that you're directly affected by a lot more people than you might assume at first.
But I see. Basically you're defending yourself from statements I never made and of course in your own view I'm distorting what you meant. Classic internet retarded discussion. And now you're getting ready for another round, trying to deflect things about the butterfly effect I never said. I merely said it exists and there you go imagining arbritary time frames and life spans and whatever else.

I'm not doing this again for another subject matter anon. I guess the only thing we can take from this is what a monumental waste of time arguing online is for all parties involved. Here's a gen1 poke for you. Be well.
>> No. 37122 [Edit]
File 160867520646.jpg - (309.03KB , 900x975 , 4c427a9071ccec427556c7b16ac10dbb.jpg )
Do you think every single discussion where two people disagree on something is an argument? Do you really think I was "deflecting" and "defending myself" like I'm concerned about my reputation? From my perspective, the response you just posted came out of nowhere.

>the only thing I ever meant and repeatedly said
Why did you reply to me with this >>37110 then? What was the point of that? Unless you assumed I think something I don't, and were trying to convey a message to me that you thought I was unaware of, there's no reason for you to have.

>I merely said it exists
No you didn't. You didn't randomly mention the butterfly effect for no reason what so ever and with no insinuation of a point as a random non sequitur.

>do you really think if the murder rate in Laos increased by 2% your life would change in any way?
>As for the murder rates in Laos, yes, I do think everything has consequences. To make a very long story short I agree with the propositions of chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
What could this possibly mean? Could it be that you implied your life would change when you wrote "yes... everything has consequences" because otherwise there would be literally no point in writing that? Could it be that you mention the butterfly effect as proof it would effect you because that's directly related to what we were talking about and otherwise mentioning it would have no point? No, that's stupid. Conversations are stupid.

Post edited on 22nd Dec 2020, 2:27pm
>> No. 37123 [Edit]
>Why did you reply to me with this >>37110 then?
I didn't.
>> No. 37159 [Edit]
"At the entrance of the modern time stands the “God-man.” At its exit will only the God in
the God-man evaporate? And can the God-man really die if only the God in him dies? They did
not think of this question, and thought they were through when in our days they brought to a
victorious end the work of the Illumination, the vanquishing of God: they did not notice that Man
has killed God in order to become now — “sole God on high.” The other world outside us is indeed
brushed away, and the great undertaking of the Illuminators completed; but the other world in us
has become a new heaven and calls us forth to renewed heaven-storming: God has had to give
place, yet not to us, but to — Man. How can you believe that the God-man is dead before the Man
in him, besides the God, is dead?"
I think this quote encompasses what I'm saying. It comes directly after Stirner explains how the ideologies seeking freedom elected to pursue it by removing people of things and thus freeing them of them, i.e. freedom FROM god, freedom FROM wealth (as opposed to freedom of wealth), freedom FROM dissenting opinions. What good does it do to remove god when you immediately replace it with mankind as a new, sacred object which must not be transgressed upon?
>> No. 37161 [Edit]
Mankind is more flexible and obviously not infallible, so it's a less strict master. Life has tended to improve when mankind is placed above God as described in a book that is not allowed to change. Also, not everything is about "freedom".
>> No. 37162 [Edit]
>Life has tended to improve when mankind is placed above God
In this context, barely. Mankind here refers to the vague idea of "mankind" as some magical standard to respect and revere.
>Also, not everything is about "freedom"
Freedom doesn't exist.
>> No. 37169 [Edit]
In Conan the Barbarian, the sentiment that two stood against many is heroic. But if one stands against many, is he a villain by default?
>> No. 37193 [Edit]
What do mangaka do during hiatus? Is the money they have enough to cover all their expenses or do they take side jobs in between? And who would be considered to be standing at the turning point in between the two possibilities? It is very hard for me to believe that someone com go for years or almost a decade without releasing anything and doesn't even have to work, even if the person may be famous.
>> No. 37194 [Edit]
I remember reading in Bakuman that even if you have a particularly successful work you barely make enough money to live a few years from it so you have to work again quickly, and that sounded like it was the authors talking about themselves after the huge hit that was Death Note.
On the other hand I remember Takimoto living years without working from Welcome to the NHK money, and that was just a light novel, but he also returned to being a hikki so maybe his expenses were just really low.
>> No. 37206 [Edit]
They can still make money from royalties, like most authors do.
>> No. 37267 [Edit]
File 160985165637.jpg - (133.17KB , 1245x701 , 20210105.jpg )
No. One man vs the world always makes the one as heroic.
>> No. 37329 [Edit]
File 161024589978.jpg - (11.22KB , 243x216 , FUT7.jpg )
Presentation does matter!
>> No. 37339 [Edit]
Do you ever wonder what the world would be like if everybody had your spending habits? So much money is spent on commercials for smart phones, fastfood, snakes and other assorted crap. I have a smart phone, but the next time I'll be replacing it will be in like 10 years probably. I never physically go the movie theater to watch a movie on the rare occasions that I do so. I don't pay for music either. I don't eat dorritoes or burgerking. I wear the same few articles of clothing for years until it gets worn down basically. Would the whole economy collapse if everybody spent money like me?

Post edited on 10th Jan 2021, 9:03pm
>> No. 37340 [Edit]
Not really, although it bothers me how terrible some people are with money, my sister works a full time job yet still lives in a share house and has no savings, I am in a better financial situation than her and I am on welfare, I'm in a better financial situation than most people in my family for that matter...

Money has to be spent at some point so it would not actually impact the economy as a whole just the products in it. If people stopped buying clothes all of the time it would raise the cost of clothing and probably encourage higher standards than the mass produced garbage we have as the market for mass produced garbage would be diminished. It would boost the money being spend in other fields too, if they are not spending it on clothes and other garbage then they will probably either spend it on more expensive goods like cars and jewelry or they will save up even more and use it to purchase property. Either way it ends up in the economy somehow.
>> No. 37341 [Edit]
In my case the following would go bankrupt:
Fashion industry, Soda and junk food, alcohol, tobacco, lottery, sports, hollywood and tv producers, concerts, social media...
The list is too long, but it'd be great
>> No. 37342 [Edit]
File 161038943070.jpg - (334.45KB , 2048x1450 , 1610333582107.jpg )
I had, actually. I would like to think the world would use less resources but there's other things I spend money in.
I don't buy clothes, I don't own an smpartphone, I don't drive, I don't use heat, I don't travel, I've never been in a plane or a ship, I don't drink alcohol, I use the cheapest internet available. In the other hand, I like fastfood, I like to go the movies sometimes (is it that bad? some people has critized me for this in the past) and I like model kits and physical games. I guess most of the economy, except the cultural japanese one and some few fastfood places, would disappear if all made the same. But I have an austerity mindset so I actually feel guilty about the few things I spend money in, if something.
>> No. 37343 [Edit]
Industries around the world would just find alternative means of getting your money, and more aggressive ways of manipulating people into spending money.
If everyone only bought a smart phone once every ten years, Phone companies would either cut the life span of all phones by more than half, or double their prices. Same would go for most other things. The only reason we get away with what we do, is because we're a very small minority that isn't worth paying attention to.
>> No. 37352 [Edit]
I just can't seem to figure out where Virginia falls in the regional breakup of the U.S. Is it south? North? Mid-Atlantic? Appalachia? No one seems to agree on this and I can't decide either. It's got a little bit of both but not enough of any one.
>> No. 37357 [Edit]
You know what's weird? I have no recollection of how I got here in the first place. I have great memory and remembers many threads from years ago, but I feel like I just woke up one day and the address was in front of me. Even the mentions screenshot at /pic/ doesn't have any mention of this site in that time. I wonder if some neets broke into my house and turned my computer on and left the site there.
>> No. 37358 [Edit]
You're welcome.
>> No. 37361 [Edit]
Can't say the same, I remember seeing it mentioned as an meetup location after a possible deletion of /a/ many years ago. Weird to think I would actually leave /a/ of my own accord first.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]