You don’t actually spoon the whole way, just up to the waist, leaving a bit of a gap between your chest and partner’s shoulders.
Upper arm goes round partner as normal, lower arm rests elbow on mattress, forearm vertical across their back, hand holds their upper shoulder.
Plenty of contact still, but your arm doesn’t die, you don’t get their hair tickling your face all night and you get to use your own pillow.
I don’t drive, but as a pedestrian:
USE YOUR GODDAMN TURN SIGNAL
Anything that needs an unconfirmed signup, I’ve always used Don B. Sonozi - [email protected]
I figure that one day a spammer will learn regret.
A bunch of Americans pronounce it sen-tar for some reason that I’ve never understood.
sen-tor
As in taurus, which rhymes with torus.
Most of them are very conventionally-boring though.
Hear me out: pretty much all the goblin chicks from BG3.
Slimy, yet satisfying.
how slow acting? As in months, or as in time to get the fuck outta dodge?
Ricin will kill you in a couple of days, was first extracted in 1888, and the plant grows in the mediterranean.
Individual oxygen atoms are very very grabby; they’re stage-5 clingers on PCP. They’re straight-up homewreckers, and they cannot and fucking will not be alone. They need a friend or two, and they will go and rip molecules apart to take them because fuck you.
Now, if there’s nothing else available, they’ll pair up with another oxygen atom, and form O2, what people normally call oxygen; the stuff you find in the air.
But it’s an uneasy alliance, and the bond angles are all wrong so it’s kind of spring-loaded.
And the same goes for lots of other molecules - carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds ferinstance are also kind of tense and uncomfortable; it takes a surprising amount of energy to snap them into place, like building a tower of interlocking mousetraps.
So smack an O2 at reasonably high speed (or in other words, at a high temperature) at big structure of carbons and hydrogens, and it’s fucking chaos.
The oxygen-oxygen bond splits, and the two halves grab the other atoms, ripping the structure apart and releasing all the energy that went into spring-loading those bonds.
The main byproducts are CO2 (a carbon with two oxygens) and H2O (an oxygen with two hydrogens), both of which are very low-energy, strong bonds.
They’re both gases, and all that energy leftover is released as heat, which does two things:
So you get plumes of glowing hot gas-and-particles streaming off the stuff that’s burning - and hot air rises, so the plumes point upwards.
But they also cool down quickly in the air, below the glowing-hot point, and that’s why flame has a shape: the boundary is how far as they get while still hot enough to glow.
Of course, hydrocarbons and carbohydrates aren’t the only things that burn, there’s lots of other molecules you can do this to, and the same principle applies. It’s just that carbony things tend to burn easily and well, and we’re surrounded by the stuff because that’s what living things are made of, so that’s what you tend to see being on fire the most.
I’m a sysadmin, so non-game stuff is my entire day job.
When I use my PC at home, it’s a variable split between internet, media and gaming, depending what I damn well feel like at the time :D
I think you’ve drawn the wrong borders around concepts, and are getting tangled as a result.
Regardless of how we’d like things to be, morality is just plausibly-generalised threat perception.
If people habitually went around doing that kind of thing, would you feel threatened by that?
If so, then you will feel the emotion of outrage, and you will consider the act to be Wrong.
Killing people and taking their stuff? But I’m a people, and I like stuff - I don’t want that to happen! That’s Bad and Wrong!
And that’s the reason dehumanising the outgroup (or drawing a hard distinction of kind) is the first tactic used by oppressors: Oh goodness no, we aren’t killing people and taking their stuff; that would be awful! Nonono, we’re killing :demographic: and taking their stuff; that’s completely different and can never come back to bite you or yours, so relax, it’s fine.
And of course, sometimes all your choices suck, thus the whole concept of trolley problems. Which threat makes my world less safe: a cold-blooded one-guy killer, or a useless five-guy allower-to-die standing there with his hands in his pockets? Are me-and-mine more likely to be in the big group of victims or the little one?
The choice you consider ‘best’ depends on these kinds of questions.
Threat perception is the engine that drives your moral framework. You can go and try to build a system out of words that will predict its moves, but that system is always going to be a crude imitation of the real thing, and there will always be edge-cases that throw up conflicts.
Framing things in terms of how it affects categories-you’re-in can be a bit unflattering, so most people try to bury it in their system of words.
When you do get that cognitive-dissonance feeling where your gut and your brain disagree on what’s right, it’s generally because your words are too specific, narrowing in on little details instead of the bigger picture.
It’s definitely good to pause at this point, unpick the conflict and try to derive a wider principle that gives better answers - though you could fairly argue that this isn’t really moral flexibility, just getting better at describing the morals you do have.
Real moral flexibility would be reassessing threats in their various contexts, and examining which categories of threat go where in the likelihood/severity matrix, and letting that inform your emotional responses. And yes, that’s a very good thing.
I stand by my assertion that personal discretion is the only approach that can’t be gamed.
Trust the mods with the banhammer, and if they do a bad job, replace them outright.
This still leaves you vulnerable to shitty admins, but you would be in any case.
There’s basically three problems:
1: Tyrannical powermods can make shitty communities.
2: Trolls and bad actors and generally-sociopathic cunts can be toxic and disruptive by sealioning, rules-lawyering and ‘just asking questions’ (aka JAQing off)
3: There’s no fixed set of rules that reliably walks a middle path between the two.
If you have no control over how mods mod, you can end up with nasty little tetanus-wound shitholes - imagine ferinstance if corpo shills took over all the news and politics subs, and banned anyone critical of Elon Musk or Israel.
If you don’t let mods mod, then for instance every support / activism community would be under constant siege from concern trolls and smug bigots with a new little talking point they want to ‘debate’ every single damn day, and we don’t need any more trans kids driven to suicide please and thankyou.
The admins decided that the former was worse than the latter, and said no, you can’t just kick out troublemakers so long as they use pretty language instead of hurling abuse; you have to humour them and allow some of their shit.
see also: the Nazi bar problem
This was a terrible and shitty approach to take, and I am (provisionally) glad it’s been suspended pending further review.
Though in this age of enshittification, I have little confidence that the next iteration won’t actually be worse.
You have to allow a little raw chicken in the mayo now.
So now people are to be allowed to sealion and troll and JAQ off in your community, so long as they do it respectfully.
Or else.
Imagine running, say, a community for vulnerable trans kids, and being forced to allow a constant influx of ‘helpful suggestions’, just so long as they’re phrased in pretty language.
Probably they’d rather drink a dogshit milkshake every single morning than use fucking JIRA, and they’re hoping you die of natural causes before you get a chance to force it on them.
First thing, I’m buying the finest fineliner I can, go for 4-6 columns on the page.
Then I’m writing in billionaires, one a week, after making them cosign a suicide note that the deaths will stop once wealth distribution flattens the fuck out, there’s a full UBI everywhere and fossil fuels are history.
Goldrush and Badwater
I’m atheist, and my partner was Muslim when I first knew her.
People say it doesn’t mater - but honestly it really fucking does.
Imagine being in relationship with someone who never really left North Korea, deep down. There’s so much fear, so much fear-driven obedience, and so much fear-driven defense of the indefensible.
I never really understood the concept of freedom of conscience until I was arguing with one of her friends about Amina Lawal, the Nigerian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery - with her sentence delayed until her baby was weaned. Despite being really very progressive at heart, my partner ended up arguing in favour of it - and then later on was seriously pissed off at me for making her defend that.
She ended up deconverting several years later (certainly not at my behest), and things got immeasurably better from then on.
But that’s not a possibility I’d recommend banking on. My honest advice is just don’t go there, it’s far more stressful than you think it is.