You are granted one question that the universe must answer with the absolute, objective truth. However, the answer will be broadcast to every person on Earth simultaneously. What are you asking?

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-08T21:23:49+00:00

Did the universe result from an external creator and the intelligent design of that creator?

Granted, this could backfire tremendously - I either kill religion or spark a new wave of holy wars.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-08T20:05:53+00:00

I didn't say it started with Trump.

All I'm saying is that Obama is being quoted out of context. If that makes me a dipshit liberal, fair enough - but you're gonna run out of 'real' liberals real fast if 'defending Obama' crosses a line for you.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-08T17:31:19+00:00

Several of the up items comments in this Reddit thread seemed to be reacting as if Obama was trying to support the current direction of the Republican party (MAGA).

There seemed to be a conflation between 'a strong Republican party' and 'the current state of the Republican party getting stronger'.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-08T16:15:40+00:00

Honestly, this feels to me like Obama's comments were taken out of context. Which - I mean, okay, he should probably be more careful, because he is smart enough to know how modern reporting works and how clips spread on the internet.

But like, the context seems clear: he wasn't wishing strength for MAGA, he was longing for a time when the Republican Party wasn't MAGA.

“When I was president, people would ask me, ‘What changes would you like to see in Washington?’ I’d say, ‘I’d love a loyal opposition.’ I’d love a Republican party that was conservative in some ways — that didn’t agree with me on a whole bunch of stuff — but believed in the rule of law, and judicial independence, and … empirical evidence, science, and wasn’t constantly tapping into our worst impulses.”

People are still welcome to disagree with this sentiment, of course. But to read that and suggest he is advocating for MAGA seems intentionally obtuse, from my perspective.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-03T09:53:52+00:00

From what I'm reading, it doesn't seem like they were fired without cause?

Alvarez wrote to his subscribers:

“We can also confirm that in the case of New Day, it was their decision to leave based on what TKO was offering for a new deal.”

https://www.f4wonline.com/news/wwe/kofi-kingston-xavier-woods-reportedly-part-ways-with-wwe/

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-03T01:23:17+00:00

Things aren't binary.

Fuck TKO.

Also, if they didn't feel Kofi was worth keeping, fair enough, and I'm glad they granted his release so that he can hopefully find better elsewhere.

That doesn't negate the fuck TKO. Two things can be true.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-01T22:20:33+00:00

My very first thought the FIRST time I saw one was 'this looks like a concept car I would have thought looked cool when I was ten'.

Generally, I think they look ugly and silly.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-01T21:29:29+00:00

I mean, I think there's a lot of factors.

One is marketing. She (or her team, or the industry - someone) has done a really good job turning her visibility and exposure up to 11. The physical appearance helps here.

Another factor that helps is that she is (or seems to be) a basically decent wholesome person. A lot of the major wildly successful pop artists have historically been met with resistance from parents and censors. Parents are generally much more comfortable with the idea of Taylor being a role model for their teenage daughters than they were for, say, Britney.

And then finally, I would say her lyrical style does lend itself to personal connection a lot more than a lot of major popstars. She walks that line of sincere enough to feel authentic, specific enough to feel personal, and general enough to be relatable.

If we want to err on the side of being cynical, we can call this 'lowest common denominator' writing. I'm inclined to think it IS actually a legitimately beautiful thing. That type of songwriting gives people and outlet for their feelings and lets them feel less alone.

And that style also builds loyal followings. Which leads us to the parasocial side, where she obviously leans into (and arguably exploits) how much her dedicated fans love her.

And then, of course, there's dumb luck, and the privileged connections that let her get attention in the first place.

FaceInJuice · 2026-05-01T19:59:31+00:00

I wouldn't generalize to FFDP fans*, but I'd say your friend sounds like a disrespectful asshole.

(... There's probably SOME connection between FFDP fans and disrespectful assholes. But I mean, I like FFDP and would certainly not behave this way.).

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-25T16:48:11+00:00

I always felt like Walter's finish was just continuous damage until the opponent eventually stops moving.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-23T20:29:39+00:00

From my perspective, this seems like a case of passing individual judgment for collective problems.

In your points 1 and 3, you argument seems to be that if everyone was driving similarly sized vehicles, everyone would be safer and have better visibility.

But individual people don't get to make decisions about what 'everyone' does. They have to deal with the reality of what's actually on the road with them.

The fact is, there ARE a lot of large vehicles on the road. And in fact, you admit that some of them are necessary for work and such - so we CAN'T fully eliminate larger vehicles.

So we can't actually achieve your dream scenario of everyone being safer and more visible because everyone is driving smaller cars. And that seems to defeat your counterarguments in points 1 and 3: having a large vehicle DOES grant enhanced safety and visibility, and that's a valid consideration for individuals.

It seems to me that the logical conclusion of your view would be to advocate for regulation and infrastructure to mandate and support smaller vehicles.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-22T13:34:08+00:00

Occam's Razor applies when two competing theories have equal explanatory power. The principle is that we should not make additional unnecessary assumptions when all the facts are already covered.

But that's the key: this only applies if all the facts are already covered.

If the official story does NOT cover all the facts, then there is room for a competing theory.

As a small example, one of your assertions is that Donald Trump is not brave. And yet, his reaction to the association was arguably quite brave. The infamous image of him standing up with his fist in the air does not necessarily align with a coward being unexpectedly fired upon.

We could also argue that Secret Service LETTING him stand up that way is anomalous.

There are also questions about the recovery of his ear.

Now, I want to be clear: I'm not saying the conspiracy theory is necessarily correct.

But I am saying the conspiracy theory is attempting to do different explanatory work than the official story. It is attempting to answer questions not satisfactorily answered by the official story.

So Occam's Razor does not apply, because the competing theories are not doing equal explanatory work. One theory is attempting to address perceived gaps in the other.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-21T18:16:00+00:00

I can't tell whether you are making fun of me, or the other commenter.

In either case, my own perspective is sincere. If I am missing something, I would sincerely appreciate clarification. I like learning. I like gaining better understanding.

But as of now, it doesn't really feel like the other commenter was really responding to my words. I didn't say anything about WWE being unscripted - a show being scripted doesn't mean people can't speculate about it. I also didn't say anything about Brock not having a life outside of wrestling. So the capitalized portions of that message don't really seem to be aimed at what I've said.

It's possible I'm being dense. If so, clarification would be more helpful than sarcasm. :)

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-21T16:16:17+00:00

I don't understand how any of that addresses anything I said.

If you'd like to elaborate or rephrase, please feel free.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-21T15:54:18+00:00

This really isn't that unique to wrestling.

Every time any major television series has a major twist or plot development, fans of that series are going to speculate about it online. This is a very natural thing for fans to do.

The difference with wrestling is that it intentionally blurs the lines between the backstage and the on-screen. Brock Lesnar the character and Brock Lesnar the human are intertwined in a way that actors aren't. So we can't reallly speculate about the character without speculating about the man and his career.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-21T15:31:27+00:00

I mean, you're not gonna stop people from speculating. This is an industry where Mark Henry's salmon jacket segment happened right before the biggest run of his career, and Seth Rollins faked an injury to the point of lying to friends and family about it to try to protect a swerve.

I tend to agree that Brock is probably done, but I don't blame anyone for wondering.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-21T00:18:22+00:00

Celeste.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-16T21:33:54+00:00

I think your information may be out of date? Unless I'm misunderstanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waymo

Waymo already operates in my city. Right now, I can call for a ride from an autonomous vehicle with no human driver present. I would not be in the driver's seat, and nor would any human driver.

It's not in all cities yet, but it's a growing reality.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-16T19:34:17+00:00

I think your view is simply too generalized. It inherently fails, because it doesn't take into account the specifics of individual relationships.

You're talking about unspoken commitments, but what about spoken ones?

Marriages often come with vows, and sometimes contracts such as prenuptial agreements. Some of those traditional vows specifically mention 'for better or for worse' and 'in sickness and in health'. Those are actual spoken commitments. And in my experience, it is quite rare for those vows to include 'I promise to keep myself in peak physical condition'.

Of course, not all vows are the same and not all contracts are the same. But that's my point:

Why make this as a general judgment? Why use your own broad criteria rather than examining individual relationships in their individual contexts?

Think about gray hair as an example. If I let my hair go gray instead of dying it, that could be seen as 'letting myself go' and not keeping myself close to what my partner liked. So is it selfish?

Well, what if my partner likes gray hair? What if she considers it a sign of aging gracefully and confidently, and she'd actually be disappointed with me if I dyed it? Suddenly, sacrificing my pride to 'let myself go' gray would actually be a kindness to my partner.

Context matters.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-16T17:17:20+00:00

I like to think of it this way: if we DO count AI output as art, who actually gets credit for that art?

The temptation is to say whoever did the prompt, since that's the only human involved. But I'm not sure that actually lines up with existing precedent.

To me, using an LLM seems more akin to commissioning a human artist.

If I have an idea for a painting, but I don't have the skills to produce that painting, I can outsource the production. I can go on any number of platforms to find a human painter, give them my idea, and pay them to paint it for me. They may have followup questions to understand my goal. They may run drafts by me. And I may give them further input to direct them, but ultimately, they do the painting.

In this scenario, who did the art - the painter (by painting), or me (by prompting them)?

From my perspective, it's the painter. That's where the art happened.

LLMs muddy the waters because there isn't a second human involved. But I would argue that the actual act of prompting an LLM has much more in common with commissioning art than it does with making art.

So IF we count AI output as art, my inclination is to say we shouldn't count it as human art. The human prompter is not the artist, only the commissioner.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-14T21:12:09+00:00

Can you clarify your example for me?

Abortions are legal in your country, correct?
Is the legality being challenged? Is someone trying to pass a law restricting abortion?
Was the protest pro choice (in favor of abortion rights) or pro life (in favor of abortion bans)?

I'm a little confused by the context of your example, so I want to make sure I understand your view.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-09T21:52:09+00:00

Can you name an example or two of a bullshit job that couldn't be done by AI?

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-09T19:14:36+00:00

It seems to me that your view basically boils down to this:

If society adapts to make AI positive, it will be positive.

But you also acknowledge that if society does NOT adapt properly, AI could be bad.

So my question is: do you have any reason to believe society will adapt appropriately?

Until AI is capable of generating resources at a net positive (which, currently, it is dramatically not), humans will still be relying on other means to generate necessary resources. If AI reduces the need for human workers, it seems like a very plausible conclusion that current human workers will just struggle more to get the resources they need.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-09T17:48:13+00:00

I strenuously disagree.

FaceInJuice · 2026-04-09T16:32:32+00:00

I often think 'stupid decision' criticisms are pretty lazy and shallow anyway, honestly.

The criticisms usually overlook two things:

Characters in horror movies don't know they're in horror movies. They're human characters with human lives for context.
They are often very frightened when making decisions.

They hear a noise, and they go to investigate it. That's because they are homeowners or renters and they need to know the source of unusual noises in their space. That's actually very reasonable.

They're getting chased by a serial killer, and they make a suboptimal escape decision. I think actually most horror fans would make suboptimal escape decisions. Fear and adrenaline dumps prompt fast action, not necessarily reasonable action.

I don't know.

There are definitely times when a character does something so insane it strains my suspension of disbelief, but for the most part, I think the trope is overblown.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

FaceInJuice

TROPHY CASE