I proposed to my wife at Christmas by putting the ring in a bigger box so she was surprised. It was a box for skincare product, and she was actually excited for it before she even opened it to see the ring. Obviously she was happy for the proposal, but she also seemed a little disappointed she didn’t get skincare stuff.
The following Christmas, I got her a tiny container of a skincare product she liked and put it in a ring box.
Yeah abandon FreeCAD for now. It’s a powerful FOSS option, and the new v1.0 looks promising, but I second TinkerCAD to learn. It’s intuitive, and most of the principles you learn will translate fairly easily to other CAD software. Unless you’re trying to sculpt organic shapes, I’d focus off TinkerCAD
Not really, there are lots of gods, sun gods are a specific subset. Different “sun gods” are just different names and attributions to the sun, like different languages have different names for apples.
That’s like asking someone who likes apples if they’d accept a pomme, apfel, manzana, or яблоко.
And he gets to keep the flute after!
I suggest breaking it down into sub questions based on expertise of the audience and nature of the information: technical, narrative, cultural, emotional, etc.
This is too broad. It’s like asking “what’s the best wrench to tighten nuts and bolts?” For some applications that’s a torque wrench, some it’s a box end, some it’s a socket wrench, some it’s a crescent wrench, sometimes it’s a pair of vice grips and a hammer. Anything that could properly be called a mode of communication has use cases where it’s clearer than others.
The OBD code that’s unintelligible to the lay person is the clearest way to communicate a discrete engine problem to a mechanic. A graph that plots a particular change over time might perfectly communicate the raw data, while being incapable of communicating narrative context. A meme image or referential quote might perfectly communicate a specific emotional concept to a broad group that gets the reference, while being totally opaque to those who don’t.
I don’t know of a single fruit that’s poisonous to every animal. There are fruits that are poisonous to certain animals, but that serves mostly to select for particular animals. A popular example is capsaicin, which is painful for mammals to eat but doesn’t affect birds. This suggests that these fruits do want to be eaten, they’re just selective about which animals eat them.
And even assuming the most woo-woo levels of plant consciousness, fruit farms create nowhere near the suffering of factory farms. Factory farms are a life of constant suffering, fruit farms are just plants vibing.
Again, you’re just debatelording at this point.
Because “good” and “bad” have nothing to do with my point, which is about purpose. The purpose of fruits is to be eaten, that is their explicit function. While the pigs get some benefits (in principle, in practice factory farms are horrific places which are absolutely less desirable to the pigs than the wild) they do not volunteer themselves for slaughter the way plants volunteer fruit for consumption.
Being eaten is the core benefit of fruit, and all else being equal being eaten is preferable to not. All else being equal, the pig benefits more by not being eaten, and just living peacefully on a farm.
Yes, and this is an undesirable result. You can eke out an existence with no legs, but it is not the preferred state of things. You’re just debatelording now.
Time matters because that’s how evolution cements biological distinction. Domesticated cow and pig varieties can certainly survive off of farms. There’s the famous example of the cow that escaped to live with a herd of bison, and feral pigs are a well known phenomenon. Yes they are in symbiosis, but it’s not biologically obligatory symbiosis.
Angiosperm co-evolution goes back hundreds of millions of years. Animal husbandry goes back what, 10,000? That’s an evolutionary blip. Yes, long enough to select for traits we prefer, but not long enough to develop the kind of symbiosis we see with fruits. Domestic pigs and cows do get some benefits from being kept, but we certainly aren’t necessary, except maybe some sheep.
There are a lot of ways to interpret this question, it really depends on the information and the people.
Between experts trained in the method of communication? Between experts and a general audience? One expert and one non-expert? Is it technical data? Nuanced opinion? Simple message?
Yes, that’s how agriculture works. You select the ones that are the plumpest and tastiest and breed those. Doesn’t change the origin.
Basic botany and critical thinking skills. The difference between fruit bearing plants and animals is that slaughter isn’t an intrinsic part of animal reproduction. If you can present an alternate theory that better explains why angiosperms spend the energy to encase their seeds in stuff that animals find delicious, I’m happy to concede. All the evidence suggests they co-evolved with animals to take advantage of an efficient method of seed dispersal.
You’re saying that again as if I didn’t just enumerate the several fundamental differences. I get that you made an observation that you like, but it’s not really accurate.
Doesn’t change the plant-animal arrangement from the perspective of the plant, it’s still freely given. We just hold up our end through agriculture.
It’s basically the same deal
It’s not even remotely similar.
Also, that “stinky place” to us is heaven to a plant. Kinda how the foul oxygen they excrete is life-giving air to us.
*onion window