pebbles

Yo they look so lumpy. I never see fellas as lumpy as this.

I've not heard anyone ever complain about it other than in media.

Maybe you need to be more upper class to relate.

I didn't realize how skilled one could be in water coloring. Folks on that community are amazing wow. Thanks for sharing!

Yeah reasonable. I added the arms and legs cause it would make my girlfriend laugh.

Though I'll admit at time I do feel like this guy on the inside while looking like a goofy little guy on the outside.

Well they get to use my friends social inertia against me. Hard to move off of snap even if I wanted to and so they can just change the TOS and get my data.

But they don't have to do it that way.

It could be a pretty bomb model though.

Oh cool, thanks for sharing! Biofilm is exactly where I tend to find them. I think they need a decent bit of oxygen, and if there is algae then they'll eat the bacteria attracted to algae's oxygen.

My most stentor populated samples were pond samples with a good bit of dirt and leaves that I sat on a shelf for a few days.

Once they've sat you'll see a film start to form at the top that wasn't there before. For me that film was made of really long bacteria all tangled together and tons of other life attached to and living around it.

This video doesn't have stentors, but it is of my thickest biofilm, a lot of stentors were found in the same sample: https://youtu.be/T3Bbg-ObTok

Good luck microbe hunting!

I never watch Doctor Who, but I know the last human when I see them.

Man this is really getting into the weeds. I don't have those histories in my head well enough to talk about specifics like that. (Though I do appreciate all that you wrote. It is interesting to read.)

If you're an anarchist, I cannot imagine how a western religious institution propping up a fascist regime's military dicatorship over half the old nation's territory benefits you in any way.

Me either.

I'm pretty sure the main focus is just about the abstract idea of a group wanting to leave a larger group.

How on earth does this benefit any kind of anarchist cause?

Secession is anarchist in the sense that it rejects and fractures a dominant power in favor of one that better represents folks. So not full anarchist, but definitely more in that anarchist than restricting that ability.

Secession is a tool. Of course there are going to be bad examples, but that doesn't mean it's never justified and never a good way forward.

What if you had just been annexed? Not allowed to try and leave?

Update:

(I get this has gone on a while, of ya wanna stop just tell me. That way I'm not waiting on your reply.)

I lean pretty consequentialist, if that's relevant.

Yeah that's pretty helpful. It's nice to be able to look into that without taking up too much of your time.

I guess I should say I don't really believe in judging people either, per se.

Noted! This lines up with your last paragraph on not being able to use info you don't have. That sort of reasoning drives a lot of my non-judgement as well.

I wouldn't distinguish in any sense between a bad pair of shoes and a bad person.

This sort of dryness speaks to me. I disagree, but I like the energy it's putting out there. I don't put extra moral weight into humans. I'm no human exceptionalist.

So this all leads me to two questions that have a lot to do with practical application:

1. You said

Both are obstacles to the world being how I (and most people) think the world should be.

Does this imply that human consensus drives the goodness / badness of an action and therefore the goodness / badness of the actor that brought about that action?

If so, what happens when there isn't consensus? Sometimes a non-consesus still has intense emotions behind it (abortion for example). Also does that mean minority opinions are morally less good?

If not, what defines an action's good/badness?

2. What are the implications of an actor being bad? There's a reason we designated them. What for?

2/3 are not off the hook,

Off what hook? What would being on the hook be for someone?

I would toss bad shoes. But also I know shoes don't think about being tossed. I guess I could extend an earlier thought and say we do whatever the consensus is to that actor. That way we maximize goodness. Though I think leaving it at that would allow us to justify some radical things.

Really?!? Maybe you are keeping your samples healthier lol. I think they are decomposers and show up in my samples that are starting to decay lol.

I would not call splitting the baby progress.

Not when you put it like that! Lol

Vietnam, for instance, wasn't liberated through division. It had to be reunited before either half was free from civil war. Same with Germany. Or Korea, for that matter.

In those instances splitting may have been an important step forward even if it wasn't the final step. (I don't remember the context that well for those examples) (I looked it up, at least in Vietnam, idk how you expected them to go forward without splitting given all of the external pressure.)

I think the world will always be in flux. Do you think we'll eventually just have a static set of countries with static borders and all of the people will be happy? If so, I'd love to hear why. If not, then by what actions do you suppose those nations change to deal with ever evolving groups, environment, genes, etc? Why would secession be particularly worse than other options?

For example, I'm not so sure the legitimacy of North Korea is affirmed by the existence of south Korea more than it is affirmed by their allies (China, Russia, etc). Why would we focus on South Korea seceding more than other countries supporting?