Seneca Smith

Liqueed (like liquid but weed)?

It's where they like to be!

The top of column N is a wildly understated version of a few possible events.

It appears so!

This isn't the clearest source, but citing Wiki seems appropriate here:

en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etym...

Makes me wonder if sap in English and saft in German are connected. Imma Google it, but I wanted to register the guess here first :p

I wish I could show up to events and say "Sorry I'm late, someone was wrong on the internet."

I can't explain it, but it feels like writing 2026 will be the weirdest transition for me yet, and that's from nearly half a year out...

It's July and I *still* keep thinking that 2025 is gonna be an interesting year.

I really wish directors would stop forcing their values down audiences' throats. I don't need to know that a character is straight to enjoy the plot, and knowing that kind of ruins it. Focus on the impossible mission or whatever. Skip the wedding scenes or heterosexual households. Story > politics!

That just sounds like environmental humanism with extra steps.

Kind of like how you might say "statute of limitations" to refer to a crime that's beyond a prosecution deadline, because just saying "statute" is very broad. I think we'll collectively lose some tech literacy if we let "algorithm" get pigeon-holed into one specific use case (content recommenders).

I'm not disputing how that works at all. You know better than I do. It's just that the word algorithm itself doesn't refer to choosing what to show people. An algorithm is behind liking or sharing a post, and an algorithm says to deny access for a wrong password. Most websites have many algorithms..

Can I be forgiven a small clarification? I'm trying to resist the distortion of "algorithm" to mean "content recommender algorithm". It does have an algorithm even if the steps are "show random posts". Algorithms are any series of computer instructions, and I hate to see that lost in Internet lingo.

LinkedIn is a crazy model because if you never get a job, you know it probably isn't working for you, but if you do get a job, there's a good chance you'll never actually know if LinkedIn was involved. It's like crystals, in that way.

"No no, I can do it, I can do it! Hold my beer."

Condensed:

Person A: "Here's Charizard".
Person B: "This is bouba. Make this kiki."

Person A: "Done. All Char[*] are now kiki, and we ship tomorrow."

Person B: "Oh that's tomorrow?! I need another dragon for this other evo line!

Person A: "Can I interest you in... 😏"

That's the thread.

This theory is also largely Dratini-lore-agnostic, since even if there's some internal or referential lore reason for dratini's final stage to be that similar, it feels weird that the requirement would force it so close to the Charizard design elements. They would've been able to change one. ...

Quick epistemology note: I literally haven't googled this. Maybe the creators have directly confirmed or denied it. Feel free to tell me, I'd love to know the truth, but the beauty of headcanon is that I can still believe it on the inside - like an AU, but of real life. (This AU has no Nazis.)...

The changes back-propagate down the evo line: Char[*] all end up with a signature flame tail and a slightly darker colour. But the old colour was pretty sweet, so let's maybe keep it *as a shiny version?* We don't really even need to see OG Charmeleon for this to work, imo. ...

If they started with Charmander roughly as it is now, they could absolutely have ended up at Dragonite's design. Then all they had to do is say "let's actually make the end stage more aggressive." We get more angular features, a forward-leaning stance, and a flame on its tail...

My headcanon is that Dragonite was an earlier discarded draft for what became Charizard, later repurposed by adding it to the Dratini line. Follow me on this journey:

I think they tried two different immersion strategies that don't work well together. Detailed character design is immersive because of the feeling of ownership and investment, but locking the point of view is immersion as well... They probably went too far with one of them at the cost of the other.

Sometimes growing up means realising that "A girl has no name..." is just anti-legal, anti-social sovereign citizen bullshit _but make it fantasy_.

I guess the upside to using a camera lens as a paperweight is that there's a good chance you'll end the day with a new paperweight. 😭

Deepest sympathies for that terrible choice I mean loss. 😢

Well, the nearest one*, at least. I don't have all of them here with me.

😂 I have several in my camera roll as well! It's unlikely that I'm more than 30ft from an Anolis extremus right now. 🦎 👀

I don't know how much actual success they achieve, but I am inclined to give a nod to whoever created the mobile game ad strategy best described as "No, OBVIOUSLY that's not how you solve that puzzle. Here, let me download it and prove how easy it is." You might even catch me slipping one day.

Right, I got you, that's the disconnect I had. Thanks for the reminder, it's been a while since I walked through the math.

Wald says "straightest possible line", which I guess leaves the door open for general extremity...

I'm definitely willing to consider that my GR experience has faded a bit, so I grabbed a couple books off the shelf (Lindesay and Ryden) who agreed. So does a regular internet search, so far. Can you cite something or explain the reasoning?