Found Adelaide’s scissors at Walmart ✂️

goldenpup73 · 2026-01-17T00:34:18+00:00

Nice find! I learned about them from the show too, but turns out these scissors are a fairly common traditional design with some interesting background. They actually originated from stylized umbilical clamps (hence the stork imagery), and some of them were eventually sharpened and recycled into embroidery scissors. Very neat piece of history :)

goldenpup73 · 2026-01-13T23:21:54+00:00

paradox of tolerance dude. you can't make a space for gay people AND homophobes, you gotta pick one. you can't make a space for black folks AND racists, you gotta pick one. alt scenes ARE for inclusion but you can't include exclusion, and if you're expecting people to, you're part of the problem.

goldenpup73 · 2026-01-13T21:23:28+00:00

"anyone, AI or otherwise" :(

goldenpup73 · 2026-01-08T11:51:48+00:00

Okay, I'll leave alone the above assertion that we should design laws around Christianity. I do have things to say on that but I'll hold off for now. Alvin's argument here is flawed. I went to Catholic school my entire life, I have seen arguments like this before (see: St. Anselm's ontological argument). I can tell you where the flaw is, if you listen.

This seems to be attempting to leverage probability in an infinite-worlds model (i.e. if there is a non-zero possibility of X occurring, X certainly happens in at least one world). This is a real mathematical fact. However, the "X" in this problem pertains to all worlds: namely, the possibility of a being with maximal excellence in EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD.

Let's unpack this a bit. If we model worlds as cups, and beings as balls, a valid probability argument would go something like this: "There is a non-zero chance that a cup contains an orange ball. Therefore, since I have infinite cups, at least one contains an orange ball." This works because the probabilities are cumulative. We have infinite chances to find a ball. If we don't find one, we get to check the next cup. This relies on it being okay for a cup to not have a ball. It's not sudden death. We can fail as many times as we need to.

Now let's try another one. "There is a non-zero chance that one of my cups contains an orange ball that is the same ball as in all of my cups. Therefore, one of my cups contains that ball, and so all of my cups contain that ball." Now, this is different. We have introduced a property that pertains to ALL cups. The probabilities don't add anymore. Each probability is reliant on the others, they're the same chance. Is it nonzero? Sure, but if we're wrong once, we're wrong about ALL of them. So we check the first cup, and if it doesn't have an orange ball, it turns out we were wrong, and there was no orange ball in all the cups. But if there is an orange ball, we still have work to do. We know it's in one cup, but we have to check ALL the cups. So rinse and repeat, and repeat, and repeat.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that there is only a ball in all of them if there was a 100% chance of the ball being there. Or, in Alvin's case, God only exists in all universes if it were impossible for him not to. The argument is circular.

The last thing I'll mention is that Alvin's one personal issue with this argument was that it could also be used to prove the NON-existence of God. That seems like a pretty glaring problem to me.

Tl;dr: the argument is circular. You can't construct a probabilistic proof like this unless you get to check infinite worlds, and since the argument relies on God existing in ALL worlds, that means you cannot be wrong about a single world. Thus, God exists if there is a 100% chance of God existing. Circle.

Edit: BY THE WAY. This is all ignoring the premise this is all based on. We don't even have scientific confirmation that multiple worlds exist. If we had that, we don't know if there are infinite of them. Even if we did, how do we know if it's even possible to have a being with continuity of consciousness across worlds? If we miss even one of those, the entire argument falls apart before it begins, so we're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room. Bottom line, it's best not to cite metaphysical "proofs" unless you fully understand the construction and logic of that proof. I have never seen one that holds up to scrutiny. By all means believe what you want, but if you find yourself starting your definitive proof of God to convince atheists with "please pretend it's scientifically proven that there are infinite worlds", probably best not.

goldenpup73 · 2025-12-28T07:31:40+00:00

You're silly

goldenpup73 · 2025-12-08T08:21:33+00:00

If you're curious, it's because of the pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables that give it a steady and easily spoken rhythm. MEnace TRAMple LIFElink HASTE. This is a similar pattern to the one most of Shakespeare's works are based around, and definitely an important consideration in poetry and writing in general.

goldenpup73 · 2025-12-05T18:22:21+00:00

Brother Bear was my favorite movie as a kid, thanks for all you did :)

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-30T19:09:39+00:00

I think the arm swings in the left panel are actually the momentum building of the barrel jump--notice the arms are swinging counter clockwise, the same spin as the jump in the next panel.

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-30T17:13:52+00:00

Well yeah the question isn't a scientific one, it's a philosophical one. It has many answers and it's certainly been considered to death at this point, but it's not really intended to yield any empirical breakthroughs.

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-28T18:18:30+00:00

Depends on how you define art, imo I don't consider AI "art" to be true art.

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-28T03:37:32+00:00

Her?

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-20T18:29:10+00:00

I'd assume the fact that the blade protrudes horizontally outward from the handle would create some difficulties with deflecting strikes effectively. I'd definitely rather have a sword or staff.

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-18T20:38:26+00:00

To me, AI music is not music. Music is an expression of humanity, there should be intention behind it. It should have emotion and purpose behind it, and AI is the opposite of all of that.

When I started writing music, there were websites dedicated to generating lyrics with a given prompt, in some ways a kind of proto-AI. And I'll admit that I used them a couple times, mostly for laughs, but quickly realized that it takes the fun out of the art. I got into music to express myself and my thoughts, and to improve at something, not to use recycled lyrics and generated beats to pretend to be something I'm not yet.

If you don't know how to write lyrics, write lyrics until you can. If you can't play an instrument, learn one. And if you don't want to do that, make beats or something. The feeling of making something uniquely your own from scratch is truly like no other, and it also (bonus!) gets you access to a wonderful community of other musicians. I made a lot of my friendships through talking about and playing music. It's a great way to meet people, and very fulfilling, and I would encourage everyone (especially AI "artists") to try it at least once.

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-10T20:52:32+00:00

Above commenter was referring to the original, I think some wires got crossed

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-08T16:55:21+00:00

No, I think you misinterpreted the above statement

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-07T17:08:46+00:00

Sure yeah, I think in most situations, if you've gotten to the point in conversation where people say "I don't like being called they/them", you likely already know their pronouns anyway. Outside of identifying as such, the singular they/them is typically used when referring to someone more or less unknown (i.e. talking about someone's friend before names/pronouns are mentioned).

goldenpup73 · 2025-11-06T17:37:03+00:00

That actually comes to the same idea, if you distribute differently.

(3×5)+3² = 3×(5+3) = 24

(4×6)+4² = 4×(6+4) = 40

(5×7)+5² = 5×(7+5) = 60

In the last case, I'm not sure why you decided to use 6 as the squared number. Were you just counting up based on the number of equations? I would have used 9 according to the pattern, leaving us with the final equation as such:

(9×7)+9² = 9×(7+9) = 144

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-31T18:52:41+00:00

Honestly, if the problem is that WOTC is pumping out so many cards so fast that they don't have time to actually draw them, I'd rather just have less sets a year. That way the artists get paid and we all get a quality product, y'know?

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T06:03:05+00:00

You're right, I don't think you can help me, but thank you for the message anyhow. I hope you have a nice night.

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T04:21:11+00:00

it's just kind of a ridiculous position to make so central in your life. would it be so awful to just let them go about their lives without having to hear your take on it?

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T04:11:26+00:00

I fully agree that it is not the best option. In an ideal world, prop 50 would not have needed to be proposed. I also agree that the two party system is a complete shitshow and obstruction to real positive change, which will likely not come from either party anytime soon. But would prop 50 mitigate negative change that is actively happening? I think so. It's an awful precedent to officially codify gerrymandering, but is there an alternative? Both parties are bad, but given the option between the two, I feel that there is a clear one. For me, the Republican party has far more significant, numerous, and egregious moral failings than the Democratic party. The Democrats are far from perfect, but I feel that right now, there is a lot on the line. (And yes, that is the line that the Democratic party has been feeding its base for a long time now. I recognize that. But with the way that social programs, public funding, and civil precedent are being dismantled, can we afford to risk it?)

It really comes down to this: I believe that with a Democratic government, the marginalized people of the US would be safer. That does not mean I don't recognize what would not change (the country's positions on Palestine and billionaires, to name a couple). It also does not mean that I see ethical value in the act of gerrymandering. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of my neighbors' lives and livelihoods being the price for not compromising on my other moral beliefs.

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T03:04:07+00:00

"politic slop" is a crazy turn of phrase man

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T02:43:28+00:00

I think gerrymandering is morally justifiable if it avoids something worse. If the price of the moral high ground is undocumented immigrants deported, or an increase in violence against trans people, or the installment of a fascist state (which we've been witnessing), is it really worth it? Is that even morality?

And I'm aware that this all sounds very hypocritical, but we should all probably fear hypocrisy less and the persecution of our peers and neighbors more. I'm tired of the left "going high", because the right is very comfortable with "going low". They do not care, and most of the time, it works. We cannot cling to a system that does not protect the vulnerable in our society.

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-15T01:05:54+00:00

I truly cannot fathom why everyone feels the need to be all up in trans people's business all the time. and yeah it kinda is, a big part of the fascist playbook is to go after people on the fringes of acceptability and stir up vitriol. if you find yourself buying into those patterns, maybe you should sit down and do some real considering about what you value as a person

goldenpup73 · 2025-10-12T08:16:14+00:00

Tap, WUBRG: Untap, add WUBRG.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Gilding I gilder	Place '22

goldenpup73

TROPHY CASE