It was a joke. 😋

Yes, that’s how it’s pronounced after you drink it.

Snaps is something you drink.
AFAIK only users who have it shoved down their throat by Ubuntu use snap packages.

Almost exactly what I came to say, in Chess you lose fair and square based on how well you play.
And Chess always has the enjoyment of trying to figuring out the puzzle.
Games that have an element of chance, you can lose to the statistically improbable, despite being the better player.

In pure chance based games, it doesn’t really matter IMO, because it’s purely chance.

Spot on how I’d react too.

Seems to me language has been hit with serious devaluation, and we now have runaway inflation.

There is no other option than to simply tear down the whole house and build a new one.

This one is a meta study based on other studies, so I guess that’s to be expected.
Everything is a fucking meta study today, and IMO they are too often shit, because they generally try to account for variables that the original studies weren’t made for.
Ah well, it’s probably going to get worse, because now we will be overwhelmed by meta studies that are made by AI.

Does it really matter if she likes you because she is genetically or socially preconditioned to think you’re handsome?
Or she is randomly attracted to your pheromones?
Or you randomly share an interest?
Or whatever other random thing causes it?

Or that she likes you because you want her to?
Provided she still is allowed to decide for herself whether she wants to be with you.
Because people can like each other, without wanting to be together for other reasons.

Emotionally I agree that yes it matters, but I find it less easy to argue the point rationally.

Personally I prefer rolling releases, because apart from being generally more up to date having all the newest features, I also like to generally only have to fix 1 problem at a time. Where a dist-upgrade for a non rolling release sometimes have more problems at once.
I feel like I have fewer problems on average with rolling releases.

Very nice explanation. One minor detail though:

Endeavour doesn’t market itself as stable

Endeavour OS is per normal Linux developer definition unstable.
But that doesn’t mean what some people think it means. It only means it’s not feature freezed because it’s a rolling distro.
It doesn’t mean that it has more bugs, it can in theory have fewer bugs, because bug fixes are part of newer versions, and because it runs on newer versions of software.

What it means is that some features may change, and that can cause problems in a production environment. So often professionals prefer stable especially to avoid changes that may cause breakage of their routines, because features are frozen and do not change, which guarantees that production is not affected by changes that were not prepared for.

Many people believe stable means more reliable and fewer bugs, but that is not always the case. In my experience Arch derivatives are often more “reliable” and have fewer bugs than a “stable” OS like Ubuntu.

I haven’t tried Endeavour, but I used the older Antergos that Endeavour replaces, and Antergos was amazing IMO.

One thing in particular that makes a rolling release sometimes more reliable, is that it has newer drivers, and newer drivers often have bug fixes.
Especially for games newer graphics drivers are less likely to lack features a game may need.

The limit of speed of light is a property of space-time, not a property of light.
Another way to understand it is that it is the maximum speed of causality. The limit doesn’t go only for light, but for instance also for gravity, which AFAIK is also proven by the measurement of gravitational waves.
The reason only light can achieve this speed is that it is massless. Because if light had mass, it would have infinite energy, and take infinite energy to achieve the speed of light.
There are numerous explanations for how 2 objects moving at the speed of light still only approach each other at the speed of light.
Take a look at Youtube, there are many good videos explaining relativity in general and speed of light in particular.

As Einstein said, time is relative. But that only means it is relative to different circumstances.
Moving at light speed time stands still, and the theory is that inside a black hole time also stands still.
So being at a stationary position in non gravity space is the fastest time will go.
But lets make it simple, and consider weather time is a constant on earth, at least within a margin we are not able to perceive.
And to that question the answer is that yes time is constants, because changes in the speed of time are universal and affect everything equally.
Meaning that the relative time we perceive is constant.

BUT on the other hand, time is different to a satellite that orbits the earth, because the faster movement slows down time, but the lower gravity accelerates it. Which makes it necessary for GPS satellites to compensate for that to make accurate positions possible.
Anecdotally the GPS system was originally financed and implemented by the US military. And the generals did not believe this, so they claimed the system to compensate was unnecessary, which of course it turned out the scientists were right, so they had implemented the system to compensate anyway, and could turn it on, when they had proved to the generals that it indeed was necessary.

https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/

The net effect: A GPS satellite clock will gain about 38 microseconds per day over a clock at rest at mean sea level.

If time was faster or slower, you wouldn’t notice anything. Because time is an expression of causality, and if causality is either faster or slower, it would go for everything, including you, your phone, your watch and everything else.
If time was slower or faster, there would be no way to detect it.

But we do have an inner clock, and that clock slows down as we age, making things feel/seem faster.
Many animals have way more accurate inner clocks than humans, for instance cats can tell the time of day very accurately, and are known to have daily routines on the clock, also disregarding sunlight and owner behavior.
Most animals also have a way more accurate perception of speed of events, and will often seem to react only in the last second, but will very rarely fail. This can be seen with for instance pigeons in traffic. That will only move at the last moment when cars or scooters or bicycles approach.

So whatever number of seconds it takes a person to count Mississippis or run 100 meter, is purely subjective, and in no way a reliable measure of time.

I specifically remember counting chunks of time as long as 15 minutes and not being off by a minute.

I can almost guarantee that memory is not accurate. the human inner watch is simply not that accurate, even with tricks to aid it.
I personally have a somewhat similar memory, of being able to tell the clock very accurately by the position of the sun. But the truth is I probably tricked myself, and when I got it wrong I discarded it, and only remembered the accurate ones. Classic confirmation bias, that we should all be aware of that we are all victims to now and then.

How long could Huey, Dewey and Louie remain children in real life?

To bad smoking isn’t allowed, I could find good use for a cigarette there.

I believe there are some issues for people with mental health concerns due to the reward pathway fuckery,

It appears that people with mental health issues have way more problems to quit smoking than people on average.
The burning of tobacco makes the nicotine combine with other compounds in the tobacco to form MAO inhibitor effect. Which people with mental problems become way more dependent on than other people.

For these people e-cigs have been shown to help a lot, despite they don’t have the MAO effect, they help by limiting the abstinence of not smoking by providing nicotine, and probably by providing a reasonably strong placebo effect from “feeling” like smoking in many ways.

For some people with mental problems, smoking can often be seen as an attempt of self treatment.

Good point, motivation is of course always a major factor.

Congratulations, that’s a very difficult thing to do if you are a heavy smoker, and usually requires several attempts.

I have seen many studies that show e-cig has higher success rate than anything else, both short and long term.
One of the reasons is that smoking is not just an addiction it is also a habit.
With e-cig you can break the addiction, while still performing the habitual behavior, and that has been shown to help ease the cravings. No fiddling with your hands when the cravings come, and you even have the calming pleasure of the vapor cloud that mimic smoke visually.

The bases of e-cig like vegetable glycerine and propylene glycol, even have the advantage of helping to clean out the lungs from smoking, so your lungs recover faster, while still being considered extremely safe to inhale after more than 70 years of research.

Also using the e-cig as a 2 step solution has higher success rate than anything else, again because you can keep performing the habitual ritual, while stepping down the nicotine. So you are free of any dependency on either the e-cig or other nicotine products or medicine.

e-cig is one of the cheapest yet most effective options, and finally e-cig is the least stressful and among the safest options.

Champix may be among the better options, but it is a way more serious change of the brain chemistry than e-cigs, and may have mood altering effects and cause depression and/or aggression. These are symptoms can also occur when going cold turkey, problem is that Champix does not help against it as effectively as e-cigs do. Champix helps with the cravings, but not other side effects of quitting.

It is also curious how Champix is taken for 3 months, when that is one of the major crisis points for smokers to revert. This is a clear recipe for making people revert after having used Champix, which my tinfoil hat tells me is so they have higher chance of selling the same “cure” multiple times to the same person.

Disclaimer:
I am not a professional, but I have studied these issues very thoroughly, and learned how to read scientific papers to a reasonable degree, to investigate and better understand the issue at the scientific source and better understand criticism of some research papers, rather than just sensationalist journalistic interpretation. The above are all points I have learned through those studies. Except of course the suspicion of Champix treatment ending just a little bit to soon to sell the treatment multiple times.