>>325738
>Salient events are an attentional mechanism by which organisms learn and survive; those organisms can focus their limited perceptual and cognitive resources on the pertinent (that is, salient) subset of the sensory data available to them.
i saw someone describe schizos as having deep plunges of information that they can't pull their brains out of fast enough, almost like cliffs that their consciousness dives into & gets caught. whereas normal people have plunges that they don't get stuck inside of. i think it was shown to me in a kind of graph demonstration, and i don't know if it was even close to an accurate elucidation, but interesting nonetheless, and this made me think of that. overvaluing signals against their will. must be torture

>>325734
I have an excel spreadsheet full of hundreds of words I read that I didn't know or that I think sound nice. Recent additions:

Rankle
Sodality
Élan
Diffidence
Tawdry

>>325735
I find it's easier to remember if you think about their etymology. E.g. undulate has "und—" as the root, which means wave iirc. It's related to words like inundate and, more obviously, undulant. Not related to ululate at all, but looks similar.

Riverine and forestine, both adjectives for river and forest respectively incase it wasn't obvious

Americans think living in a socialist police state is normal, but freedom is not some textbook theory.

There are still some Americans alive today who will tell you that freedom is better.

>>325776
But you know what is a textbook theory?
"Fabula and syuzhet". Per wikipedia:
>In narratology, fabula refers to the chronological sequence of events within the world of a narrative and syuzhet equates to the sequence of events as they are presented to the reader. Vladimir Propp and Viktor Shklovsky originated the terminology as part of the Russian Formalism movement in the early 20th century. Narratologists have described fabula as "the raw material of a story", and syuzhet as "the way a story is organized.
The see-also section gave me another new word, "lisible".
>Lisible is a word from the French for 'legible' used to denote a text that requires no true participation from its audience. It was coined by the French literary critic Roland Barthes in his book S/Z and expanded from his essay "The Death of the Author". Barthes contrasts texte lisible, denoting a closed work, with texte scriptible, a text open to interpretation. In Barthes's opinion, lisible works provide no challenge to the reader's preconceived notions and thus are inferior to scriptible works, exemplified by modernist literature. Barthes contends that lisible works still emphasize the importance of the author, whereas for scriptible texts "the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination

>>325635
I'm not I just thought those two posts were funny

Alright, I found a gardening thread on /diy/. Some of these people use electronics for their potted plants, which I find interesting!
I wish it had an elaborate op faq like the electronics general. Maybe if I get really bored one day I could try making one.

I also randomly kinda thought, didn't people settle by the rivers for the purposes of irrigation. What if I connected pots to like a 3rd long pot filled with water. How would this work.

>>325119
>>325020
So yuge now. By the way there was one more saple separated from the rest but it’s gone now for some reason
Etc etc

Also they are crowded as fuck which I'm not sure what to do about yet. I'm afraid of trying to transplant them, but I will have to wait another month if I want to cut them and replant. I'll think about it.

>>325773
The plant goddess has returned. Praise be! Greens looking INCREDIBLE, Queen!

Preaching to the choir, anon.

people care too much about the rights and dignity of male offenders, that's why. the article you included says
>The surgery is irreversible, disfiguring, and can cause feelings of humiliation and a lack of dignity. These harms arguably make it cruel and unusual punishment.
you know what's humiliating and un-dignifying? sexual abuse & harassment. cruel? objectification & degradation through a provocative/sexual context. but the mere THOUGHT that male offenders would be punished duly for it is what gets people squirming. the world truly isn't ready to care about women enough, not at all

but from a different perspective, breeding is integral to a lot of people's inherent sense of purpose, so permanently removing someone's ability to have children; even consensually, forever; is too far when the alternative chemical castration exists. if having kids wasn't so precious to people, even going so far as to let severely disabled people reproduce and torture their children with a painful existence, then we'd maybe have a shot.

It's kind of like death penalty, the verdict may not necessarily be correct but by then the changes are irreversible.
Not saying whether this should or should not be implemented but this would be one of the counter arguments.

offer a reward, ez

>>325762
What kind of reward? What if he thought my friend would not give it to him afterwards

>>325763
she should know her nigel well enough to concoct a personalised and effective bribe

>>325753
I don't understand this video and post. How do you get your boyfriend to wear an outfit you like, well why not just ask him? Is there like a punchline or some other meaningful subtext in the video or is that literally just it?

>>221872
that’s just tone policing

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

i'm a meat-eater thanks to cognitive dissonance and a lack of self control

>>325759
try psychedelics

>>325764
which

>>325766
DMT

If you want a legal one https://karmaiq.com/

Studies show it boosts empathy long term

>>325755
Can you imagine spending so much time out of your life stressing over weight? What a sad existence

once, it was harder to gain weight, so it was seen as desirable. now, it's easier to gain weight because intensive workout routines require time, a good diet which can be expensive, and the right circumstances overall with work + other life commitments. nit-picking your body to achieve all of the listed things is a much more accessible fixation for women with money, intensified by access to a surgeon and liposuction. so, it's rarer. it becomes in fashion, because having a good enough situation to workout and eat well is a sign of wealth. the rich like to do anything that makes them distinct from the poor. that's why "homely" women, lower class, are depicted as fatter and less refined in film stereotypes, more sunken in. wider, larger tits. excessive, like they have no finetuning or self control. curvy women are associated with being bangmaids too.
it's a general lack of proper appreciation for the real female form basically. people want "better" versions, not real life

Does anyone get the feeling that the Uniparty has been bought off by the elites?

>>325489
yaoi paws

Just heard something interesting from my nurse moid acquaintance who's staunchly against ssri's. (but is pro maoi's)
>Someone asked here why women tolerate SSRI's way better. This is thanks to estrogen. Higher serotonin transporter availability + estrogen downregulates 5ht1a autoreceptors and upregulates 5ht2a, thus accelerating postsynaptic transmission and causing less harm

Which explains quite a bit, like why men tend to be more anti-psychiatry and tend to make fun of women for often being on ssri's, even though they're not necessarily as bad for women. But this needs fact checking.

>>325733
>While women achieve better therapeutic outcomes, they are 50–75% more likely to experience adverse side effects, such as sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and nausea
this might have something to do with their mockery, on top of their self-centredness

Guy makes a semiconductor lab in a shed and makes a RAM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfSO-LCKmrA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GWikWlAQA
Okay I thought this was one of those funny haha gimmick videos at first, but the more I watched the more impressive it became. Hell I haven't heard this many new terms in a year. This guy (or a group of them) built a lab for semiconductors. Let's pretend we want to replicate this process and thus we need to extract as much info as possible. Not only he needed the knowledge for electronics, but also dyi building, airflow engineering, prob chemistry, engineering the actual equipment…

First, build the environment.
The shed is separated into the gowning area and the cleanroom area. It is imperative that the cleanroom stays as clean as possible, as single speck of dust can ruin a chip.
1) The shed is insulated (there's a lot of information on cleanroom insulation online),
2) some framing is added so we can set a cleanroom grade HEPA filter with an air intake filter just under the roof. I cannot tell which filters he got from the video.
3) A dedicated electrical circuit is installed. No information in the video on the specifics.
4) Heating and cooling with a mini split. (Would be nice to specify which role heating and cooling plays)
5) The room is divided and now every space has to be sealed. (?) Instead of using expensive plastic, he uses flame-resistant drywall with a water-based epoxy to create a smooth particle-free surface. The attic space above is also sealed and controlled for airflow.
Now, the airflow part is very important (1st pic) the cleanroom is also kept at a positive pressure (how?) to keep the contamination from coming in. Massive HEPA filter scrubs the air and recycles it a few hundreds per hour. (because the room volume is small)

After all's said and done, a particle counter is brought to the cleanroom for testing. It shows 40 particles/40ft^3 in the middle, and sub-100 at the edge of the room. This makes it a class 100 cleanroom, which OP claims is on the level of Samsung, Intel, TSMC.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

If liberty will continue to exist, it's up to us to spread freedom.

Patriots must be absolutely obsessive about telling people about freedom now.

The globalists want to kill you.

>>324272
why is the witch so ugly

>>324832
I got lazy by the end of it

Americans say that concentration camps could never possibly exist in the future because concentration camps never existed in the past.

I checked out lainchan this morning, I used to avoid it because of how troony the name felt to me, but its actually got some quality discussion. They also have a gardening general on /diy/! I should pay a visit sometime soon.

>>317992
I have been reading internet pages since about 2006 when Wikipedia was the big novelty and most chans were in their developmental stage
There was some seriously funny and seriously screwed up stuff altogether
Those strange memes, Advice Animals, Tubgirl, 2 girls 1 cup, Mr. Hands, all that sexually offensive stuff, creepy stuff, copypastas
A serious case of a stalker in California who was causing pretty serious trouble to various women and who got arrested various times
Another guy in California who got arrested after making threats to an online dictionary website
Underage stuff appreciators who had their own wiki and chat rooms
The whole 5 guys burger and fries thing with the Gamergate
The Nungesser-Sulkowicz story
Strange times
You could argue about the enshittification of the internet but overall I think things have improved, even if they're more boring now

Back in the day we used to post desu habeeb it

>>318011
Foul Bachelorette Frog

>>317992
Social media used to be just who you followed and that's it. Maybe you'd be suggested friends of friends but generally you only saw what you subscribed to. Uploading photos was already slow, not to mention videos, so people expressed themselves differently and having a lot of photos of yourself on your profile was weird. Nowadays seeing people upload videos about random topics and inserting their faces at any cost is so strange to me. Even on youtube you couldn't upload videos longer than a few minutes. So the content was overall more light-hearted and random.
Prior to social media, people just had their own websites and you had to manually visit them one by one and leave comments in a guest book. So basically the concept of virality was not really there. If you had a few thousand followers that was already a LOT.

The internet was a specific place you went to and left. A lot of people just had 1 family computer they shared and took turns using and in my early days you even had to pay per minute of internet access. Without smartphone internet, it was much easier to leave the internet behind and do other stuff and it was harder to get addicted. People couldn't take photos of you at school or in the street because rarely did anyone bring a digital camera with them. Editing photos was hard and required special software and skills so the photos you saw were either way more authentic or they were shooped to such hilarious degrees you could tell from a mile away. Automatic filters or even video filters did simply not exist. Privacy was a much bigger concern, I already mentioned that people had much fewer photos of themselves online, but before Facebook it was unimaginable to put your full government name on the internet. So you'd have your nickname and an avatar and the large-scale exposure and harassment that's normal now was basically impossible.

i find myself questioning what it's like for other people to inhabit their own heads, sometimes. not even the brain, not primarily, but the head. the feeling of focusing attention inside of it. because i don't really feel "in" my brain, but it's the only spot i can approximate myself being. i feel this somethingness, but this nothingness
how does life happen and come into other people? as in how it's processed. i'm nosey to know how far people go with integrating information into themselves, too, because nothing seems to permeate throughout me as it comes in. i rarely feel "one with" my crying, for example. i assume i'm indifferent overall
do people sense their head area as fuzzy? vague, foggy, rounded? or sharp, driven by clarity, jumpy, loud, listening? my head seems casual, low
i'm spitting nonsense atp but, i want to keep going. how many people have their attention, themselves, mostly in their hands? i think i'm somewhere at the crown of my skull, then i sense just above my glabella and onto my forehead. around that area
is existing inside ones own body vastly different for everyone, or generally similar? you'd imagine most people are in the top of their body, but what if someone's in their chest