Bluesky also lets you unpin your quotes from others posts so no quote dunking and they have a nuclear block. If you’re blocked, you can’t see their posts anywhere in quotes or otherwise (excepting screenshots) and that interaction is broken completely even to third parties that may have neither blocked.

Dobbs and Chevron would disagree with your claim of “irrelevant”. You might not be aware, but that’s not the same thing…

I wonder what the reward is if you get 10 recalls on your punchcard?

This is a better article with a link to the code. It has nothing to do with a software update (beyond being an unlisted feature of 18.1) and is based on an inactivity timer.

SO TRUE!

Great Point!

This!

No, the trunk will stop it.

Also, everyone knows elephants can’t shoot, so why would they need a gun. 🤔

Great idea, hey everyone, we’re going to use doingthestuffs dick to stop bullets now. That way your finger doesn’t get stuck in the barrel no matter how smooth it is.

WOOO!!! Free Malaria in Egypt!!!

Unlike a person, a horse’s hoof will totally only fit in an elephant gun or a howizer, everyone knows that the elephant gun bullets only stop if the elephant puts their trunk in the barrel and the horse would need to be on a ladder for the howitzer. Horses can’t climb ladders, silly.

Sure, but at some point you need to acknowledge that though you can lead a horse to water, you can’t stick their hoof in the barrel of a gun to stop a bullet.

99 ÷ 2 = 92 though, right?

One person even noted how kids fingers are smaller and most adult’s fingers wouldn’t fit in the barrel… lol. That’s what the pinky is for, it’s smol for a reason, duh.

Second degree‽

Those are rookie numbers. You gotta bump that up to third at least.

Have you tried taking a walk outside in the sun while eating better and getting more sleep?

Except things like law exist in a measurable state. Violating a law has a measurable outcome in the physical world. That’s the difference. If you run a stop sign in the presence of observers such as a police officer (such that it has an impact on that observer) you will be issued a citation for violating that law. We can test that hypothesis.

If something has no measurable presence under any observable state it is indistinguishable from that which does not exist. And to assume it does is tautological and a fallacy.

How would the world change if god didn’t exist the way I described, as being socially real? There’d be no churches, no religious art, no pilgrimages that attract tens of millions each year.

That is tautological and presumes the antecedent. It’s true because they have these experiences and produced these objects. It wouldn’t be true if they hadn’t done that.

I didn’t ask, how would the world would change if people did not believe that God existed. I asked how it would change if God actually did not exist whether they believed or not. 

I’m looking for the major distinguishing characteristic that would differentiate belief in something untrue versus the actual no existence in that. It’s accurate to say that if belief was none existent, those buildings, rituals, etc. would not exist, but that doesn’t distinguish between people believing it to be true yet it not actually comporting with reality.

Those things you mentioned aren’t reliant on being consistent with reality only on people believing that they experience something that is unmeasurable in any actual sense. Our history is full of times where people believed something and developed practices, rituals, stories, and structures in recognition of those beliefs and purported to experience the presence of that belief target only for later peoples to recognize that those beliefs weren’t based on any thing that comported with reality.

For in book reasons yes, for real world people not so much. That was my point. These can be logically consistent within a work of fiction but nonsensical when carried over into reality.

That’s a lot of words that don’t tell us anything other than people created art and rituals they found meaning in. People do that with books and stories that we recognize as fiction all the time without us elevating that to a religion.

Is it epistemologically consistent to say that something that cannot be measured or observed in a replicable manner exists? How would the world be conclusively different from that thing if it didn’t exist if it exhibits no measurable or replicable and observable outcome?