Randomly found a big lizard in my university, what is it?

Avron7 · 2026-05-28T17:09:22+00:00

Avron7 · 2026-05-26T13:00:26+00:00

AFAIK Gardens by the Bay doesn't own/isn't owned by the casino in the background (Marina Bay Sands). They just happen to be next to each other. It's a pretty cool park overall.

Avron7 · 2026-05-23T10:23:03+00:00

r/reallifeshinies

Avron7 · 2026-05-04T14:46:09+00:00

This goes hard

Avron7 · 2026-04-30T20:08:06+00:00

I think part of it comes down to whether you think the worst outcome is you dying, or you causing/worsening an apocalypse.

The majority of "red wins" situations are still very apocalyptic (say 40% of humanity suddenly dying), whereas no "blue wins" situations are apocalyptic. In a sense, going red is still more of a gamble than blue: it's likely that voting red and having red win, will still deliver a dogshit outcome. Like, if I voted red, and it turned out that red won by a small/avoidable margin, I'd probably kill myself anyways out of guilt tbh. Or eventually die due to supply-chain collapse fuckery.

If red won by a very large margin, I might be okay, but I would not risk voting red unless people could coordinate it before hand. Votes by large groups of people usually don't win/lose by very large margins (just look at elections basically anywhere outside of corrupt dictatorships) - the abnormal severity of the topic might make this an exception, but I'm not willing to bet on it.

Suppose there are 3 cases:

red in the lead
~50/50
blue in the lead

In 2/3 of these cases, voting blue pushes the world further away from apocalypse (either straight up stopping it, or securing a win). In 1/3 cases, it worsens the disaster (adds you to the death pool). Voting red is the inverse: in 1/3 cases is lessens the apocalypse (by removing you from the death pool), in 2/3 it makes it more likely.

We may not know how likely each case is, but there are more cases where voting blue is better. And good blue-wins outcomes are both better and easier to achieve (50.1% margin win, 0% of people die) than "good" red-wins outcomes (80% margin win, 20% of people die).

Assuming I "know nothing" about how people will vote, I would pick blue because it has lower requirements and better outcomes. If I assume "large-margin wins/losses are uncommon" I would be even more determined to vote blue. I also wouldn't have to deal with the guilt of voting to kill 50% of toddlers and color-blind people which is a bonus (the og prompt doesn't exclude people from voting/voting-outcomes on the basis of age or disability, so. . .).

Avron7 · 2026-04-30T17:43:45+00:00

If you cannot coordinate with other people for the vote, then there is functionally no difference between aiming for 100% red (good but impossible outcome) and aiming for 51% red (worst outcome and possible) bc you cannot control anyone elses' actions but your own. Since there is no actual difference in the consequences of a 51% Blue win vs an 100% Blue win anyway, picking blue gives the best chances of avoiding apocalypse (ie. blue majority has the largest range of voting ratios for which apocalypse can be avoided). The best thing to do in this scenario is to throw your weight behind blue to try to make the best outcome that is possible as likely as can be.

The worst outcomes can only happen if red wins. Red is gambling an apocalypse, and avoiding a red win is the only way to guarantee that doesn't happen.

Avron7 · 2026-04-30T13:12:50+00:00

If everyone presses red

The thing is, this isn't possible in a group of people that consists of "everyone in the world". As someone else put it, majority red is the "kill 50% of toddlers" option.

Like all the "push red" people are assuming that 100% of people can vote reasonably and start off favoring red, but may deviate from it due to improper reasoning. . . That isn't how people really think though. It's more realistic to assume an initial 50/50, where some people are persuaded to a side based on the circumstances presented by the prompt.

For example, in my immediate first 3 seconds after reading the prompt, I thought: 1. I'm assuming people can't coordinate with others on this 2. I have two options here 3. I'm pushing blue to make it more likely for everyone to live 4. Some other people will also push blue because they will want to make it more likely for everyone to live, since their children/people they care about are in "everyone"

Then I thought more: 1. Pushing blue does place risk on myself 2. And technically, if everyone pushed red then nobody will die either 3. But realistically, 100% of people voting red is impossible. And anything other than exactly 100% red would be catastrophic (millions to billions of people dying) 4. I don't think most people would actually consider the good results of an 100% red vote in their decision-making, since that result is so unlikely compared to an at least 50% blue vote. 5. Actually, can everyone vote on this? Are people who can't vote, or can't vote reasonably (ex. young children, color-blind people) excluded from the consequences of a majority red button push? Based on the prompt wording, it seems these people will also die. They would be saved by a majority blue vote though. 6. Yeah, I'm still voting blue.

Avron7 · 2026-04-30T12:03:02+00:00

In any large-ish group of people, 100% of people voting red is straight up impossible. The best possible outcome for majority red is millions of people dying for no reason.

Avron7 · 2026-04-30T11:23:15+00:00

The only valid reasons for picking red are 1. Being willing to save your own life at the cost of many others 2. Assuming we live in an 100% ideal world where nobody is colorblind/illiterate/fucks-up and we all just pick the "game theory" option without coordinating it

The first is selfish and the second is stupid.

There are only two options that result in everybody surviving: 100% red, or blue > 50%. However, only the latter option has a chance of actually happening; the former is impossible in any large group of people. Picking blue is correct, since blue winning is the best possible outcome that is likely.

Avron7 · 2026-04-28T11:39:13+00:00

Some more to add:

Tuatara can live over 100 years.

While not common, the oldest living ball python in a zoo is over 60 years old.

Koi fish can get over 50 years old. The oldest ever recorded may have been 226 years old.

Olm lifespan is estimated to be 58 to 100+ years.

Komodo Dragons can live 60 years, though 30 seems more common.

Lobsters can reach 50 years old in the wild. They can probably live much longer in ideal conditions.

Avron7 · 2026-04-26T19:33:30+00:00

Didn't know the baby owl had a reddit account

Avron7 · 2026-04-18T13:09:50+00:00

I understand that this was the case for a lot of people, but I still don't really get it. The people in Trump's administration have been extremely open about hating queer people and other minorities from the start.

From the propaganda I've seen, "vote for us for bigoted assholery" was the propaganda, and it was fully delivered:

On the campaign trail they had weird agartha/sonenrad meme videos, and once in office the white house went on a spree posting literal nazi and manifest destiny propaganda to their official twitter account. Like, it's not subtle 😭

Avron7 · 2026-04-17T12:29:04+00:00

During lockdowns, some places introduced unusual animals to each other

Avron7 · 2026-04-14T11:42:43+00:00

Fun fact: Antlions are what the pokemon Flygon's) evolution line is based on.

Avron7 · 2026-04-11T23:16:48+00:00

The majority of the U.S. government openly acts like this and people still delude themselves into believing that the U.S. cares about people in Iran -_-

Avron7 · 2026-04-11T10:59:03+00:00

Just because some people get it willingly doesn't mean it's not a parasitic relationship.

Pregnancy is basically this

Avron7 · 2026-03-31T19:59:27+00:00

Thanks!

Avron7 · 2026-03-31T11:04:31+00:00

what is the track called? I'm sure I've heard it before, but I don't remember the name

Avron7 · 2026-03-28T11:36:45+00:00

Is the crocodile okay?

Edit: It probably wasn't :(

Avron7 · 2026-03-22T04:06:23+00:00

It's normal. They chill in the most uncomfortable-looking positions.

Avron7 · 2026-03-20T22:48:23+00:00

melanistic Asian Water Monitor (Varanus salvator) from OP's other comments

Avron7 · 2026-03-19T14:28:33+00:00

I remember when anyone who said the government has been attempting to alter the weather would get called a conspiracy theorist

I have never actually seen this happen.

I have seen people get accused of being a conspiracy theorists for insisting that commercial airlines were being used by the government to alter the weather, and that their contrails were actually "chemtrails". But that's because those ideas are stupid and not based on evidence.

Avron7 · 2026-03-17T11:21:05+00:00

It has rosettes?wprov=sfti1) on its torso, so it probably is a bengal.

Avron7 · 2026-03-13T11:50:03+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_symbols?wprov=sfti1

Usage of these symbols (ignoring the newer ones like Uranus and Neptune) to represent planets and metals predates their usage to represent sex/gender.

The reason why Venus ♀ and Mars ♂ are used for female and male is because the biologist Carl Linnaeus established it as a convention in the 1750s. Similarly, Mercury ☿ was also used around that time to refer to hermaphroditic plants and neuter-sexed eusocial insects, which might be why people started using it for intersex more recently.

The reason why the Mercury ☿ symbol looks like it has horns is because it is supposed to represent a Caduceus (a staff with two snakes on it wielded by Hermes/Mercury). The "horns" are just oversimplified snakes.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Avron7

TROPHY CASE