And that psychological toll can also lead to suicide. So “survivor” can be taken literally.

deleted by creator

I think US popularity is collapsing in the US as well. I know I’m starting to hate it here.

Yup. That was exactly it. I was thinking “I know how to do these” and not even paying attention to the instructions at the bottom.

Why live? What’s the meaning of life? What’s the purpose of life? I hope I don’t have to explain that people have been asking this question since we first were able to form words and start thinking. You’re going to get as many different opinions to answer this question as there are people to write a response. You could spend a lifetime studying philosophy and not find a definitive answer. And in the end you just have to decide for yourself which answer most speaks to you. Are you atheist, materialist, spiritual, philosophical? Take your pick.

Personally, I like Buddhist philosophy for these kinds of questions. And I suspect the Buddha would say that we are here because of craving for sense pleasures, craving for existence, and ignorance of our true nature and the true nature of reality. We live because we want to exist, we want to have experiences and feel the things that are available to us as living beings. Whether it’s food or sex or money or adventure or admiration or love we feel like getting the things we want will make us happy. The flip side of craving is aversion, where we feel like achieving separation from those things that are unpleasant will make us happy.

Volumes have been written about this and it’s impossible to summarize well in a single post. But if it speaks to you there’s a lot more to say about it.

Why do all of these look inverted to me? Like, what should be a mountain is a deep hole in the ground.

I don’t remember navigating menus being particularly onerous.

Getting around is tedious at first, but soon you get vehicles, and, even better, this zipline thing that you can put anywhere. Those are fun to build and navigate.

The only recommended combat is tying your enemies up with ropes, or later, with a rope gun. (I wonder if Kojima is into bondage) I mean, you can kill the enemy couriers, but it’s not a good idea.

Industria. It was free on Epic, I think. Took me a while to figure out the boxes said “supplies” and were meant to be broken open to get ammo. Till then it was kind of frustrating running out of ammo over and over. Gameplay and environments kind of remind me of the half life franchise in a way.

Ahh, yes. Now it makes sense.

Every time something hopeful like this appears I start wondering if it’s safe to imagine that maybe things could get better here in the US. But so far I’ve been disappointed over and over. Part of me wants to just skip over the “maybe something good will happen” part and get right to the “oh, well, looks like he was assassinated by a blackwater hit squad” part. Money is power. The donor class gets what they want. And I have no faith that working within the electoral system will fix that.

I literally just prompted it with “Please finish this essay” and then typed in what justqueenthoughts had posted. And yeah, I think it followed along in the style of the prompt reasonably well, but didn’t really add anything interesting. Which is no surprise, that’s what LLMs do. Point it in a direction and it will supply an approximation of the mean in the training data that applies.

I have to admit, though, I hadn’t heard of the “Two Cultures” debate, popularized by C.P. Snow.

The House bill would remove silencers — called “suppressors” by the gun industry

How to tell me you know nothing about firearms. They’re called suppressors because they aren’t silencers. Firing a pistol with a suppressor is far from silent. It won’t damage your hearing, but it’s only on TV and video games that a pistol with a suppressor is impossible to hear.

Replying to my own comment, I think the best tell that this is AI generated is the — character. There’s not even a key on the keyboard for that. Alt-0151 (on the keypad) is the only way I know how to get it. Aside from that, I pity the teacher who has to grade this type of slop. But then, I guess grading high-school essays has never been a highlight of the job.

(A thousand apologies for bringing Chat GPT into this assignment, but, well, I couldn’t help myself.)

In this essay I will explore how the artificial divide between Arts and STEM disciplines has been perpetuated, the consequences of this separation, and the immense potential that lies in their collaboration. Using the example of Queen—a band whose members’ diverse academic backgrounds fueled their creative genius—I will argue that the intersection of artistic imagination and scientific rigor is not only possible, but essential for innovation and progress. Furthermore, I will examine the role that societal structures, particularly those influenced by business interests, have played in maintaining this divide, and how overcoming it could empower individuals and communities alike.

First, let us consider the origins of this divide. Historically, the “Two Cultures” debate, popularized by C.P. Snow in the mid-20th century, framed the arts and sciences as fundamentally incompatible. This narrative has been reinforced by educational systems that require students to choose between creative and analytical paths early in their academic careers. As a result, students often internalize the belief that they must be either “artistic” or “scientific,” rarely both. This false dichotomy not only limits personal growth but also stifles the kind of interdisciplinary thinking that leads to groundbreaking achievements.

Queen’s story challenges this narrative. Brian May’s background in astrophysics, Roger Taylor’s training in dentistry, Freddie Mercury’s art school experience, and John Deacon’s expertise in electronics all contributed to the band’s unique sound and stage presence. Their music is a testament to the power of combining technical skill with artistic vision—an approach that has resonated with millions and stood the test of time.

But why does this divide persist? Here, I return to the business major, a metaphor for the systems and structures that benefit from keeping Arts and STEM apart. In a world where creativity and technical knowledge are siloed, those who control the means of production and distribution—often with business backgrounds—can more easily exploit both groups. By fostering competition rather than collaboration, they ensure that neither side realizes its full potential, maintaining the status quo and their own position of power.

The consequences of this separation are profound. When artists and scientists work in isolation, society misses out on innovations that require both creative insight and technical expertise. From medical breakthroughs inspired by artistic anatomy studies to technological advances driven by aesthetic design, history is full of examples where collaboration has led to extraordinary results.

In conclusion, the supposed rift between Arts and STEM is not a natural divide, but a constructed barrier that serves the interests of a select few. By recognizing our shared potential and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, we can unlock new possibilities and create a more vibrant, innovative, and equitable society. Just as Queen’s members combined their diverse talents to create music that transcends genres, so too can we bridge the gap between art and science to achieve greatness together.