Deme
How is that a strawman? Sure life could be worse as you said, but life could also be a lot better. The meme takes no shots at the former claim, instead making fun of people who fail to imagine the latter. Talking about how we already live in relative luxury is also a very common deflection from arguments for why we should improve society, without actually countering said arguments.
I am not a slave or a starving medieval peasant, therefore I should be happy to waste my life in an office generating shareholder value. Got it.
I was thinking AI. The road markings and the patch of grass make no sense and the background is very nondescript.
Maybe they snipped some off of the sheeps every night and sewed it together. I'd be more concerned about the ears.
Impulse is the integral of force over time, but I get what you're after.
When pecking at a tree, the maximum force exerted is what pushes the wood beyond its breaking point. That maximum force can be increased by increasing the impact energy as a whole (wasteful and costly) or shortening the impulse. A woodpecker isn't trying to do soft blows to shake some branches, it's trying to shatter a small portion of the trunk, much like someone looking to shatter their opponents nose would choose bare fists over boxing gloves.
IIRC this theory was debunked some time ago by a study. If you think about it, any dampening within the skull would lessen the force of the pecking and the bird would have to hammer away harder.
Edit: Link to a study
I remember seeing some posts by that user. Genuine schizoposting.
Ai slop
... becoming even more detached from reality? There really is no good solution, is there? Well, apart from the one.
Don't know if this is only taught here, or if you just forgot it:
Fourth one is to always know the state of any gun you're handling (Loaded or not, safety on or off and so on).
And the fifth rule: Always have fun! /s
I don't agree with the conclusion that Mickey makes. Yes, our senses can't be fully trusted, but they are the only way we will ever get any empirical information. Arguing against a materialist worldview by noting that our senses can't fully be trusted implies that the materialist worldview is flawed. My issue here is that any alternative has even more dubious foundations. (this is why I raised Occam's razor in my original comment). Would any inherent cosmic meaning even be relevant if we can't ever know about it? I doubt that Donald here would be reassured about the theoretical possibility of meaning existing somewhere beyond our senses. I am not.
The allegory of the cave, as I'm sure you know, came about in the context of Platonic idealism. That's how I've been talking about here as well. The allegory becomes moot if the objects casting the shadows and the shadows themselves are essentially the same thing. You need a dichotomy between two completely different things for it to be relevant. If it's matter casting metaphysical shadows which we perceve as matter, then Mickey has no argument and it's just accurate observations with extra steps.