Wolf314159

It's amusing to me that the very idea of leaving the house without your cellphone is seen as very dangerous. But I guess payphones and landlines at every tiny shred of civilization aren't really a thing anymore. Nobody could track me and I could get genuinely stranded occasionally for the first few decades on my life, but I never felt that lifestyle was dangerous. Just raw dogging life before it was cool I guess.

Reminds me of a sci-fi story I read. A detective (wait was this in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, maybe? I don't remember, anyway) is looking for a person and asking around. I stead of carrying around a picture of the person they are looking for, they compare the person's features to a list of celebrities and just go around asking if anyone has seen someone that looks like that celebrity. Point being lots of people have surprisingly similar features and there really are "doppelgangers" out there.

But just try explaining that to some stranger that just caught you staring off into space directly at their face because they look like a person you had a crush on in college, only you're an old fart now and they don't look like that old crush would look now, but like the memory you have of them. "You look like someone I know" always sounds like a pickup line.

It's not a completely different thing. They were both trying to fully integrate the operating system and the web browser into one monolithic and inescapable thing: Windows XP + Internet Explorer to squash competition on the desktop; Linux + Chrome to squash competition on laptops; Android + Chrome OS to squash competition in the mobile space. The money to be made on operating systems is trivial in the consumer space compared to the power of control over platforms (like web browsers) that deliver advertisements and harvest data from comsumers. M$ saw the writing on the wall way back then in their fight with Netscape Navigator. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I feel like I'm talking to an AI chatbot completely unable to reason abstractly or consider the full context of the conversation.

Why bother commenting at all if you're going to be proudly ignorant AND a jerk?

Who's talking about Windows 8 or 2012? I said 2 decades and meant it. I wasn't talking about the same time frame, just pointing out the history we are repeating. I was talking about "United States vs Microsoft Corp." (2001). That would have been regarding Windows 98 and Windows XP. ~~Internet Explorer~~Edge is still an integral and unremovable component of Microsoft's operating systems to this day and I guess everyone really has forgotten about Netscape Navigator.

Two decades ago people would remember when M$ decided to do something very similar on the desktop. Nothing has changed.

Focusing at a point behind the image is exactly what we've always done for every other magic eye poster because it only requires relaxing your eyes (staring off into the distance) for the image to pop into focus. Cross eyed viewing is damn near impossible on any screen at less than an arm's length away without significant eye strain or external devices (like the stereoscopic viewers that photogrammetrists would use to view these kinds of images without inducing a migraine) and since the dot is on top holding a finger up as a guide ends up obstructing the entire view unless your arms are growing out of your forehead. The wall eyed view has none of these issues.

I appreciate the post and your effort. But, the images themselves are frustrating and have killed my initial reaction, which was to share them further. Because I'm nearly the only person I know that wouldn't loose interest in the explanation for "correct viewing" half way through. If they were wall eyed stereoscopic images, I could just say "Magic Eye", they'd remember Mallrats, see the schooner, and go "Ooh neat."

I usually end up making this movie a double feature in my house with "Cherry 2000", "The Bad Batch", or "Tank Girl". Wasteland punk vibes.

Because stunt people never get injured right? Is that the point your trying to make?

I think most people's immediate reaction to hearing someone refer to themselves as we may be the royal we instead of simply being plural. I don't have any issue or negative reaction to the idea of a plural sense of self, but we feels pretentious for those reason. It should go without saying that you can identify however you like, I just like talking about words.

Also, it's totally outside the ethical bounds of a school counselor to affirm or deny anyone.

If we're ranking shit by smell, then carnivores are the absolute worst, omnivores are a close second, and herbivores are a distant third. Everything excreted by a big cat (Lions, Tigers, etc.) is so so smelly, and it seeps into everything. You can smell the big cat zookeepers as soon as they walked into the room.

Omnivores excrete stuff that is almost as smelly as those cats, but at least it's familiar. Maybe that makes it worse. Admit it, your own farts are never as offensive as someone else's. Raccoon poop, especially the dried out and dusty kind will straight up kill you though, so watch out for that. Primate fluids can pretty risky too because of their similarity to us.

Herbivore shit is fucking perfume compared to the others. Horse shit doesn't actually smell that bad at all unless there is something wrong. The ammonia from their piss is something fierce and awful though. Mucking horse stalls is like scooping a litter box for a cat the size of a horse, but the actual shit is the most pleasant aspect. Elephant shit is the most pleasant shit I've ever had the pleasure of shoveling. It's like wet dead grass with a hint of musk.