The misgendering, and the fact that it was accidental, is the point of the post. If anything OP is sharing her correct gender with “even more people”, and creating a discussion where we can think about how to stop this happening in future both to this individual, and on Lemmy in general. Why would you want to shut that down?

most pussy games can be recreated as home versions without buying the experience.

Tell that to my local sex worker, amirite.

(I’m guessing typo?)

I googled your comment and found the game Monikers which I’d never heard of. I honestly think the DIY version must be better, since there’s always someone who’s responsible for the name. That makes it so much better as a bonding experience! It’s also good across cultures because the people from culture a will know the answers from culture a and the same for culture b, c etc. and it then becomes a natural exchange

Times up!

Needs at least 4 people, a pen and paper and a bowl/hat. And a stopwatch.
Tear the paper so you have about 25-35 pieces of similar size, then give these out to the players. Everyone writes down a famou name on each of their pieces of paper. Shuffle them up in the bowl. Divide into teams. Set stopwatch for 1 minute.
Round 1: one member of the first team describes the name on the paper without using any of the words written on the paper. The team gets to keep the paper if it’s correctly guessed. After a minute, play passes to the next team with a reduced number of papers in the bowl. This continues until all names have been guessed. Count the number of pieces of paper kept by each team and make a note. Return the papers to the bowl.
Round 2: same as round one, but the describer can now only use one word. No miming, no eye signals, one. Word.
Round 3: same as the previous rounds but the describer must stay absolutely silent and can only mime. The team that scored the most over 3 rounds wins.

I’ve played this with strangers and with friends and family alike and it’s always fun.

Yeah, same old. You?

Yes. I should imagine I would be quite happy that you were gone by then.

A clockwise rotation turns a car to the right (in forward gear) and tightens a nut (right hand threaded). But this is not a rotation to the right. It’s a clockwise rotation. You can’t rotate “to the right”. That’s the point.

Yes, and I would be devastated to see you go.

If you’re gripping the bottom of the wheel you move your hands left to make the car turn right. Which is kind of the whole problem here. Rotation around a centre doesn’t happen right or left. That’s the whole reason why the words “clockwise” and “anticlockwise” exist. Translation = right, left, up, down, forward, back. Rotation = clockwise, anticlockwise.

It’s called paisley. Originated in Persia, but named after a town in Scotland.

You’re denying the moon landing happened although the moon landing definitely, demonstrably happened. You’re getting downvoted for peddling batshit.

My training is in applied mathematics, so I’m only conceptually aware of strange attractors. It’s my understanding that they are chaotic systems that tend towards a stable state. As such I’m a little skeptical of the claim that the universe itself is a strange attractor, since it is broadly predictable and hence not chaotic, and it’s expanding and thus not tending towards stability!

What caused the initial imbalance, and what prevents it from happening again?

Now you’re talking about some of the biggest unsolved problems in physics :)

I don’t know if it necessitates a creation myth, though. The big bang theory doesn’t imply a creator, but also doesn’t require a steady state.

What’s this about a strange loop? I don’t know if I’ve heard of this before.

I suppose that’s fair, since “looks the same in every direction” is a bit of an oversimplification. The principle is an assumption, rather, that we are not privileged observers, and therefore the universe should look the same in every direction. It then follows that we should be very interested to understand why when it doesn’t.

I can’t agree with you that the assumption of universal entropy increase is at all unreasonable. The laws of thermodynamics appear to hold everywhere, therefore entropy must be increasing everywhere. England’s extrapolation to presume that life is an expression of this law might be tenuous, but the law is pretty much ironclad. That’s not to say that structure can’t arise; it clearly can because: hello. But the tendency of the universe as a closed system with a one directional arrow of time is heat death. That’s just a result of thermodynamics. Eventually.

Jeremy England proposed a while back that life is just an expression of entropy increase. Interestingly, if this could be verified (I don’t think it can) it would point to life being universally abundant.

That we’re not special is one of the founding foundational principles of astrophysics, the Copernican Principle. It goes that we aren’t special, we don’t have a privileged viewpoint, and therefore the universe should look the same in every direction. It does get applied in other fields of science in one form or another, since it’s more a way of thinking than a theory as such. Again, it’s not falsifiable but it does seem reasonable.

This is a valid reading of the Fermi paradox. But just for balance I’m going to devil’s advocate all over it.

The chances of life to occur are small enough,

Not known. At the moment the data set is one habitable planet = one occurrence of life, so the odds might be very high indeed, even approaching 1:1

The chances of evolution to pass through multiple extinction events and producing a being capable of higher intelligence is even smaller,

They are smaller, but how much smaller is impossible to tell. What if extinction events are less frequent than they are here? What if 100% extinction events are as rare as they are here? What if intelligence is a natural point of evolution everywhere?

The chances they have done this faster than humans is smaller still,

This one’s not true. The earth is relatively young at 4 billion years compared to 15 billion for the universe. A billion year headstart is completely plausible

The chances they have evolved close enough to us to have visited is near impossible.

Agreed that the earth’s position in the milky way is a bit of a galactic backwater. At 25000 light years from the centre, stars are more sparse here than they are at the centre. But our nearest star is 4ly away. We could have a probe there within half a century with our current technology if we wanted to. So I disagree on the “near impossible” part.

The universe is huge, there’s almost certainly life elsewhere - but to ask whether they visited earth is like speculating on whether ghosts exist.

Can’t really argue with that. Until we see some evidence, ghosts and galactic visitors are in the ‘conspiracy nut’ bin. But it doesn’t mean life on other planets doesn’t exist. There are many theories why we wouldn’t have seen or met alien life if it does exist. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Also the universe is expanding at such a fast rate that unless we develop faster-than-light tech, we will never reach another solar system.

Hubble expansion isn’t a big factor at the galactic level. Galaxies are traveling away from other galaxies at relative speeds faster than light, but for stars within the galaxy, the scale is infinitely smaller and the expansion is so small it’s difficult to even measure.

Open ear bone conduction headphones. Light, affordable, waterproof and safe to bike with. Also good in the office as you can still hear what’s going on whilst listening. Only drawback is they’re pretty quiet and easily defeated by heavy traffic/loud kids etc.

Also not recent but as someone who suffers from tinnitus, a Bluetooth audio sleep mask has improved my quality of life more than any other minor purchase I’ve ever made.