Wait until a fantasy author gets hold of your name and has a very successful 4 series before it turns into miserable dross. Not so unique any more are ya, Khalesi?

Is it worth reading? I’ve played Witcher 3 and saw the first (sometimes good, sometimes shit) series of the show, but never read any…

What bit did you worry I hadn’t read? Was it an answer you posted in another thread, perhaps, that you’re talking about? I don’t believe there was anything in my reply that suggested I hadn’t comprehended anything relevant up to that point…

It’s not really that straightforward though, is it? Firstly is it a mean or a median average? What counts as an empire? When do we date the rise and fall of specific empires? These are not questions with straightforwards answers. Would Hitler’s Germany count as an empire? How many Roman empires were there?

I nearly dismissed your review until you qualified your assessment of onion rings. I have transposed the order on those first two myself

Onion rings top, then tots, then everything else

Gotta get Jill of the Jungle on that bad boy

Are you not entertained?

There’s a difference between an advance that repudiates prior understanding and one that doesn’t. You can, in maths - and I assume this is the point - know that you are right, in a way that you can’t with a more… epistemological science. Of course it’s more complex than that, and a lot of maths is pretty sciency, like deriving approximate solutions for PDEs is more experimental than you might imagine, but even though we might make improvements there, we’ll never go ‘oh actually those error bounds are wrong’. They might be non optimal but they’ll never be wrong

I always maintain that Aristotle’s notions of how to test theories of ‘natural philosophy’ are a reasonable starting point for ‘science’

deleted by creator

Alas

No

There’s a study on this… I o py remember it pretty vaguely, but the tl;dr was that if people win at gambling it doesn’t hold much appeal – the initial drive to continue gambling only comes after losses. Something about ‘making up for’ anything you lost drives the addiction behaviour far more. This struck me initially as kinda counter-intuitive (you’d think that people were more motivated by behaviours with positive outcomes, right?) so it always stuck in my head…

You say ‘dumbing things down’ I say ‘that’s kinda condescending talk that implies that anything else isn’t shut when it clearly is’

Deodorant and I have never really spent much time together - perhaps because I live in a mild climate and don’t do much sports - but god damn do I love a hot shower.

What if I’m competing with them from a company based (not entirely for tax reasons) on Mercury?

You ever been through an airport before and after? That shit alone was so different between, say, 1999 and 2003. The othering certainly took place across a fairly broad swathe of the Western world, and the post-millennium paranoia never let up. 1999 was an amazing year to be alive. There really did seem to be a boundless optimism that, God, if you could’ve bottle it it’d sell like hotcakes

No we didn’t light it, but we tried to fight it…

Did we fuck

Sometimes you leme when you should not. We’ve all been there. The bravery to leave up your idiocies is appreciated