fedaykin reepicheep

The funniest story was how the creators originally conceived of She-Hulk as a case of the week type lawyer show but then they got to the writer's room and they all said they don't know how to do that as if it was lost knowledge like the Roman aqueducts

Dungeon Crawler Carl is just ACOTAR for guys

i think its wonderful that we have people admitting that the hard takeoff is basically here but its silly that they're also pretending the biggest impact on humans is "costs go to $0" i promise that the impact of humans, and the entire regime of earth-life, is bigger than that

rationalists: "von neumann was the smartest man of ALL TIME! THE GOAT!" von neumann:

Scott Alexander on why AI progress should make you update toward the universe being a simulation

thinking of this heartbreaking essay written by a mathematician last week, before this most recent news dropped

JUST IN: NYC Mayor Mamdani reveals ID will be required at city-owned grocery stores to prevent non-residents from accessing discounted food.

Natalie Nakase references her ethnicity in her defense of trans athletes. She is a third-generation Japanese-American. “Sports is about belonging... I’m big on that just because I have been criticized for my height, for my ethnicity."

Action star Jackie Chan tells the media that his new action-comedy film “Nosebleed,” which is about a window washer at the World Trade Center who stops a terrorist attack, is set to begin filming on location on Tuesday, September 11.

Texas just made weed a felony after over 70% of voters voted to legalize it. Is this what we call a democracy when the representatives of a state will openly defy the will of voters because incarceration rates went down so much and prisons lost money? Texas is a fucking republican-ran hellhole.

I apologise for the distasteful subject, yet it presents a serious problem in moral philosophy, & one that admit of no easy answer for those who judge everything by the category of the deed rather than the virtue & intention of the individual performing it. Suppose you & your best friend inhabit an unusually barbarous country. Wrongly convicted of stealing a spoon, both of you have your arms amputated & are condemned to spend the next twenty years together in a prison cell. Your friend is then bitten on the testicles by an exceedingly rare pider whose self-replicating venom attaches itself to his spermatozoa. By a fortunate coincidence, you happen to a medical toxicologist, and are therefore perfectly aware that the only antidote in such cases consists of the repeated administration of the urine obtained from an individual who has previously ingested semen contaminated by the active venom. The regimen admits of no interruption; it must be administered faithfully thrice daily, without omission, for ten consecutive years, at the conclusion of which the patient is permanently cured. Missing even a single day's treatment, however, results in the most excruciating death ever recorded in the history of medicine. No other physicians are available. No pharmacies. No women. Your friend, having no hands, is unable to administer the treatment himself. The only means of saving his life is for you to perform fellatio on him thrice daily, swallow the infected semen, urinate into a cup, & have him drink it throughout each day for the next decade. The question is entirely serious. Have you committed a homosexual act? Have you acted immorally? Or would the moral course be to refuse to save your best friend, & insead allow him to die in the most excruciating possilbe way? More generally, is the moral character of an act determined principally by its outward form, or by the virtue of the performer, and the intention with which it is performed?

Maybe this is a stupid question but how do we know that these “solutions” are actually correct