By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a “cat” and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a “dog” which is… Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they’re running “dog software”, heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running “human software”? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren’t the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren’t extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate “hardware vs software” stereotypes.

Mainly birds of prey I imagine.

Foxes don’t share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don’t know why people always say this.

What would the D even stand for? 🤔

Those were not the only original definitions of giving by a long shot. Another original definition was to provide, offer, impart, communicate, or pass on something, (hence the phrase “giving off” which has been around for a long time, example: it’s giving off radiation), etc. It’s not gen Z’s fault you don’t know all the definitions of giving.

If it’s a spot the difference style thing then the art won’t be dramatically different and you still get to have the box art at least.

This just provides a small added challenge, I don’t really see an issue . If you want an easier jigsaw they might sell them at a toy store.

I mean, they’re technically calling black people the N word by proxy (it’s meant to essentially be white + N word to refer to a white guy pretending to be/acting black). So it seems like a case of “if you’re not black you probably shouldn’t say it”.

They didn’t redefine giving, it’s literally being used for its original definition. Just add “energy” or “vibes” at the end of the sentence and it clarifies exactly how it’s used. If someone sees your outfit and says “It’s giving Beyoncé” -> “it’s giving Beyoncé energy”, your outfit is reminding them of Beyoncé. As in it is providing/offering said Beyoncé-like energy, aka one of the original definitions of giving something.

I mean being obese will result in a hard time growing up no matter what your name is let’s be honest.

I mean people who identify as agnostic generally choose to do so specifically because they don’t see themselves as atheist. I’m agnostic myself and I definitely don’t consider myself to be atheistic any more than I consider myself to be religious.

I think “good person” is a nebulous and generally subjective term. If some people need an external factor to hold themselves accountable then as long as they willingly seek out that accountability then that’s all that matters to me ultimately, I’m not going to try and micromanage how other people reconcile with their own morality in a large uncaring universe, or act like I’m an authority on how people are supposed to be “good”, all I care about is how they treat other people at the end of the day. But a lot people use religion not as a way to hold themselves personally accountable for their actions, but rather as an excuse to get away with doing bad things and dictating how other people can live their lives without having to suffer consequences. They use it to ESCAPE accountability, and that’s when I take issue with it.

If I had been named Triniteigh I would have legally changed my name as soon as I was old enough. That’s an atrocity of a name. Some are so funny they circle back around to something that would at least be interesting to have as a name (Raddix Zephyr is dumb but in more of a fun way), but Triniteigh is just so, so bad.

We need change period, we can’t afford to be picky about what kind.

Uteran immigrant.

You would think that conservatives would realize that this is a boulder that they can’t keep trying to roll uphill forever, but I suppose they’re not exactly known for their forward thinking.

If you can get away with dropping a couple of classes and still have enough credits then try to do that to lessen your workload. You can also potentially reduce it further if you request accommodations.

That depends on the culture and the method of distribution, many cultures that practice oral history did have widespread interest and access to it and an understanding of how their culture fit into the broader scope of the world to some degree, though the way they understood or related to it might differ from culture to culture (some cultures tie their history to places, or names, or events, or people or seasons, etc). As another example, the Romans are well known for their prolific historiography and many of their surviving texts are still referenced to this day. Look up Pliny the Elder and Pliny the Younger, who were just as well known and respected as historians at the time as they are now. While written works such as the Encyclopedia Natural History (written by Pliny the Elder and believed to be the first encyclopedia) would often be released to the public to be copied and spread, they would also often recite written works orally so illiteracy wasn’t as much of a barrier as you’d think. Oral history is a lot more important in providing a record of a culture’s history as well as making that history accessible to others than a lot of people think. It was important in ancient Greece as well, and is a huge part of many other cultures around the world including many indigenous ones. It’s also not as inaccurate or unreliable as some people might think, as there were many methods these cultures used and still use to preserve the accuracy of their oral history as it was passed down from generation to generation.

Now in terms of awareness, obviously there was propaganda and rewritten history going on back then just as there is now, but it’s not as if none of the citizens would have been aware of that. One of the papers I wrote for a class about the importance of comparing primary sources featured 3 different accounts of what Athens was like and the views people there held at a certain point in history from 3 different people of varying social and financial status, and there was absolutely awareness of that sort of dissonance between what their government claimed and what the reality was even among the more common folk. So I would say they did certainly have a significant understanding of how their culture fit into the broader scope of human history.

At this point that’s the equivalent of complaining about people calling gun violence a problem because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. If you hand the public easy access to a dangerous tool then of course they’re going to use it to do dangerous things. It’s important to recognize the inherent danger of said tool.

As someone with an academic background in history, historical record keeping both written and oral existed long before the printing press.