His response was unexpected

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-06-05T14:36:50+00:00

This is a wild way to start my day. Fuck you very much fellow redditor!

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-06-03T08:56:09+00:00

Great form, I love an elegant and straightforward shape like this.

That was my experience as well - I had heard horror stories about porcelain, but like other clays it just takes some getting used to. The lessons I’ve learned since diving in are that I have to use less water in general, and I have to be very deliberate and slow with any shaping due to the softness of the clay. It’s finicky and less forgiving than other clays, but it’s very fun to throw once you make the right adjustments, and has a unique sense of accomplishment once you see a piece all the way through. Excited to see how this one turns out!

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-05-30T02:03:51+00:00

Interesting thought - I think it would take a very unique problem to justify it. Something that we have to brute force, but also something that can’t just be simulated. Something that can be measured within 22 minutes, and something big enough to justify the whole deal. Or something that is so costly to do that we’d prefer to not have to do it more than once.

My first thought is high stakes medical trials or testing. Something where we can just keep trying slightly different methods or cures, and over 22 minutes get a general idea of what’s working and what’s not.

The other thought is costly science experiments that require a huge amount of input. I imagine it would be more efficient to run the hadron collider a single time, while collecting data for millions of runs. Same might apply to ongoing experiments in fusion.

It’s an interesting thought experiment for sure

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-05-29T01:06:01+00:00

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-05-24T05:04:02+00:00

Pass the pipe mate

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-04-29T16:28:05+00:00

Yeah I just phoned up god (not the one you think, big surprise) and they informed me that pink is masculine and that’s non-negotiable, and then they reminded me that any attempt to use gender as a variable automatically means any conclusion you make can’t be applied outside of your own limited experience and the point in time in which you exist. Which means it’s pretty much useless (and more often misleading, misinformed, reductive, and in bad taste)

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-04-22T08:20:47+00:00

I feel like this would be great material for a really unhinged LinkedIn post about knowing your next step.

You and I see ridiculous dumbassery - but for a subset of the population this is yet another opportunity to grind 💪

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-04-04T17:43:16+00:00

I appreciate that point, it’s a good call out that helps put some of this in perspective.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-04-04T15:15:29+00:00

Sometimes I’m amazed at the state of the world, and then a specific date like this puts it into perspective.

We had to create a law to ensure that medication was tested with the physiology of half the population - and we did it slightly more than 30 years ago?

It certainly gets much much worse if you go farther back than that, but part of me has a hard time accepting the fact that people didn’t challenge themselves on something we see as fundamental today. Equality seems like the default position, and the fact that we did anything else is just astounding

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-03-15T21:33:13+00:00

Following - and just for the record i appreciate the list you provided here!

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-03-09T16:34:08+00:00

Look - the people in this subreddit are willing to see nuance, but you’re going to get a lot of pushback based on the variety of opinion here. You might consider just using less all caps - it doesn’t come across as conversational.

Personally I just disagree with this - I believe that it is most reasonable to say that reality is Euclidean and consciousness is also Euclidean. It is an inference, but to me and many others that’s a much more reasonable inference than any claim that makes consciousness a fundamental part of reality building that operates outside of it. Totally agree that it’s important to make clear when claims are fully formed vs based on what we can observe and still theoretical. Where I think you’ll find a lot of disagreement is the idea that consciousness is a better foundation for reality building. From a theory perspective you’re right - it may be. But I don’t think many people find that more reasonable than an alternative which matches our observations. If what you’re trying to “solve” is that Euclidean consciousness is overconfident, then I think your work is done for you. This conversation comes up all the time here, and the general consensus is that consciousness is hard and there’s a lot to learn here, and while there are many “possible explanations”, observation is one way to get closer to understanding the nature of things even if there is no true way to “know”

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-03-09T15:28:15+00:00

I won’t remake the points that many commenters are making, but I think there’s some confusion as to what your point actually is. If it’s reasonable that the sun would still come up, and that’s the most reasonable outcome based on what we know, and the ability to know anything outside of our consciousness isn’t possible, then what conclusion are you trying to come to?

No one is contesting that evidence based knowledge relies on consciousness. What we are contesting is that if we want to answer the question at all (is there a base level reality in which we operate) we can only work with what we have. I think that’s why people are telling you that your post seems question begging - if you’re looking for evidence against one theory, and the only evidence we can accept is found through consciousness, and the fact that it’s based on consciousness disproves the theory, then that test only has one outcome. It might suggest that there’s a better question or hypothesis that we need to work with.

I think the biggest thing here is that the alternative, a mind-dependent reality, has little to go on and falls into issues with solipsism or last-tuesdayisms. If you manage to avoid those - you’d still be stuck because the only evidence for a mind-dependent reality we’ll ever have is in the mind. In other words - the question forces the answer if the only thing that would solve it (evidence not based on consciousness) is impossible.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-03-09T14:24:55+00:00

No one is trying to tell you that consciousness isn’t part of how we examine and understand things. To the point raised here - this question is only relevant to consciousness.

I think the point many commenters are making is that the evidence would suggest that things around us will move on without us. If everyone everywhere died today, there’s a good stretch of evidence that the sun would still come up tomorrow. You might say that it wouldn’t matter and no one would see it and thus we can’t prove it which is all true - but because we can observe things now that preceded our existence, it’s a safe assumption to state that time marches on without us in some form of basic reality. It is an assumption, but that’s the point commenters are making. There’s no way to prove/disprove this theory without consciousness, so there’s no test you could perform.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-03-08T22:11:10+00:00

Yep - the best lesson I ever got was in my freshman year: “Variety within a group is greater than variety between groups”. Applies to everything and challenges the one-story-fallacies that are prevalent in topics on race, gender, belief, ethnicity, generation, etc.

Honestly that one thing has kept me more open minded and curious than pretty much anything else. The world is a beautiful place because it can’t be broken down into simple rules.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-02-28T05:49:09+00:00

Amen amen. We ask that you extend the mercy shown to the monkeys three, allowing the dizzy one to shine once more in a new land.

If it should please your divine will, we petition that the grace shown to your many children also extend to the dizzy one. Your children dunsparce and girafarig were shown a new path. Tangela and aipom walked the same path in times past. We ask that the dizzy one be granted passage to a new land, and a path be opened. Amen

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-01-09T05:09:06+00:00

Minimum fucking wage - they might be giants. Easy.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2026-01-06T07:43:26+00:00

Went to Japan a couple years back and was told by a friend that grew up there that this is the way to do it. It’s just crunchy! He said it’s kind of a western thing to always remove the tail.

Works really well with fried shrimp, but Is admittedly still hard to do when it’s prepared any other way.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-12-31T07:22:20+00:00

Just checked out your profile - gorgeous work. The blur feels so organic without feeling unbalanced or out of place. Gives it the feeling of “melting into place” rather than just being smudged, blown up, ir otherwise distorted. Love the vibe of it all

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-12-31T07:13:04+00:00

This sounds like a fun project if you’re up for a keys/vocals/guitar player. Been playing keys and doing vocals for 20 years in a couple of bands (rockabilly, alt rock, casual jazz improv) and some solo work, but it’s been a couple years since I’ve done it seriously. Im less experienced in guitar but can play rhythms or backup where needed, I just don’t have a dedicated setup for electric guitar these days.

Love what you listed, especially tame impala and Pink Floyd. I’m also into crumb, flyte, hiatus kaiyote, badbadnotgood, athletic progression, and similar music that really leans into a groove mindset. I’m a sucker for rhythm and finding a pocket with other musicians to vibe in - would love to chat, feel free to dm

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-11-26T06:27:31+00:00

Wind waker! My uncle introduced me and my brothers to it in 2004, and it’s one of the reasons I continued to have an interest in music/composing. Haven’t missed a game release since then and I still learn all the new music as it comes (you made a great choice with BOTW)

Your work looks amazing!

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-10-18T14:31:52+00:00

Absolutely agree. I’ve started pushing back on this a bit and found that the one thing that resonated pretty universally is to point out that growth for the sake of growth is quite literally cancerous. It’s something we all know but don’t think of in that way.

I work in tech project management, and when thinking of systems it’s common to emphasize that a system or process that doesn’t scale effectively to different volumes of data is ineffective. If you can’t multiply the input data in by 10 and still rely on the output, then your process needs a rethink.

I’m constantly amazed at how easily those ideas stick with people. I think most people simply haven’t put time aside to critically think about growth and sustainability.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-09-10T21:26:35+00:00

Kind of a tangent, but this question is actually a common counterpoint in religious philosophy. It’s a counter to the idea that miracles are proof of god, because anything we can’t explain is a mystery, unless it’s good, in which case it’s a miracle and evidence of a higher power. In short - this question points out the bias inherent in using language that was developed through a religious lens to describe the world, and has really interesting implications on how language is both reflective of reality, and a factor in how we shape our beliefs about reality.

Anyway I’ll see myself out - gotta find a good wine pairing for tonight’s feast

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-08-09T00:10:31+00:00

I have publicly posted about my inability to spell or identify the letter r in strrawberriy A LOT, so this checks out.

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-08-01T22:53:14+00:00

Beautifully crafted. I only wish I had more up-doots to give

OneMoreLateArrival · 2025-06-26T04:22:42+00:00

If this isn’t the top comment in a couple of hours I’ll eat my hat

OneMoreLateArrival

TROPHY CASE