hurpaDurpa
Meanwhile the interrobang (‽) would really be an Easter egg.
(alert(null) ‽ console.log(error));
(x === null ? console.log(error) : alert(x));
extinct and unGoogleable Christmas Tree Birds
I get that invasive species can stress their environment until it collapses and ruins even their own capacity to thrive or even survive, but sometimes I get the sense that asian carp are denegrated because they annoy humans by jumping out and slamming into people on boats. Are asian carp really a threat to their surroundings, or simply inconvenient from a human perspective?
Of course, this may not bе actualized until many years in
the future, but consider the many spectacular physical
phenomena that are believed to bе true at this early point
in the 21st century.
Consider that dark energy isn't even an assuredly verifiable phenomenon. Dark energy is a place holder in equations with a theoretical gap in understanding for the fundamental mechanisms driving the behavior of observable systems. We can't explain certain noticeable details, but, the difference between conflicting concepts that do explain disparate observations, is where the assumption of a hypothetical dark energy to bridge the difference, as an idea to help resolve conflicting observations, comes into play. On paper.
A thousand years ago, we did not know that microbial life was responsible for fermenting food, but we weren't ready to tackle that gap in awareness, until the microscope was invented. Prior to the invention of the microscope, ideas like spontaneous generation were still plausible. Without the proper equipment to declare dark energy or extra dimensions or worm holes as tangible, grounded facts founded in direct evidence, these ideas themselves are simply grasping at straw to reconcile known truths.
Given that these concepts deal in cosmological theory, there isn't even a lab to test or prove facts in. Such ideas are based on connecting the dots between imagery gathered from telescopes, for the purpose of studying astronomy. We probably wouldn't be able to construct a laboratory, until we graduate to a space-faring civilization and succeed at it for a couple of generations.
Cluster A (paranoia): https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/dsm-5-the-ten-personalit...
Cluster B (drama): https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/dsm-5-the-ten-personalit...
Clister C (anxiety): https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/dsm-5-the-ten-personalit...
Take either culture's description, and stack it next to the other, and the incompatible resolution or reconcilliation between the two certainly sounds like it could add up to any of those disorders.
When you listen to the sort of discomfort and culture shock that seems implicit in these stories of adaptation, to the wrong set of ears, this all might sound like mental illness.
Growing up in one place, and then living in another, only to feel the longing pangs of nostalia and familiarity for what your childhood instict defines or recognizes as normal, clash with the reality of a world turned upsidedown, feels like a recipe for being plied with medication, if you tell the wrong person.
It feels like this process scaled up to millions of people, is exactly the sort of thing that drives conflict around the world.
There's an alternative reality, known to anyone who has made art for art's sake though, and especially if you've spent years making purposeless art with no consequence in the outcome of whether a work declared as "finished" actually needs to be "good."
When you sit around all day, pouring and extruding your unfiltered stream of consciousness into realized tangible forms that you can pick up and hold, or record and play back, you're left with this huge backlog of scrap left on the cutting room floor. Taken out of context, some of it is artful, and "good enough" to stand on it's own, but doesn't belong in the "finished" piece.
But when you find a couple of rhyming chunks, you can take that leftover flotsam and fold it into a subsequent piece, recycling throwaway outtakes as part of some other whole, to enrich it.
In that sense, those kinds of matching details aren't actually planned. It's just opportunistic reuse of leftovers to enrich and go along with something that was planned.
Example: sometimes you're forced to produce "things," and so due to external expectations you make a bunch of "stuff" but because you weren't motivated, 90% of it is trash. But you don't throw it away, because it still possesses recognizable style. So you throw it in a box and let it collect dust. Then weeks or months or years later, when you need filler, you dig some matching trash out of the dustbin, and cobble together some cruft to patch some holes and gaps, where the daylight is peaking through on your finished piece. Now, that illusory facade enriches your intended work all the more.
This is a technique common in "art" that impresses people who've never had a chance to make a thing for it's own sake, without said thing having to require practical utility or actually "work" in any appreciable way.
It's the art student's corollary to the academic version having to write 1000 words for a grade, and 900 of those words are rambling drivel, or having to publish N research papers a year, so you throw together a backlog of p-value hacks that seem interesting but prove nothing and indulge in pointless, speculative editorialization as science.
At the core of all the work, you either like the sum total of everything, or you don't, and in general, you're picking up what that guy is putting down overall.
But as with all disciplines, in every field, people have to make frankenstein monsters out of filler bunny all the time. Any artist worth their salt is always trying to operate from the space where they can unspool as much of their style as possible, with total freedom and unlimited resources, because they know that even on the days when they aren't hot, some of the junk they make, can still serve as decorative paper mache fodder.
Photos, and by corollary video, haven't been incontrovertible for at least two decades, and Hollywood movies are a clear demonstration of that fact.
We won't really be able to rely on pictures as proof, at some point in the immediate future.
Unfortunately, in an ever-more terrifying far-flung future, where eye surgery becomes sufficiently advanced, we won't even be able to trust our eyes. After that, I think it's probably just game over.
I really just don't have a strategy to countermand that one.