MediumGray

I think this scenario highlights the difference between communists and tankies. Tankies are a subset of communists (or at least claim to be) but not all communists are tankies.

My understanding is that not saving window size and placement is a limitation of Wayland right now (for security reasons that it's trying to address rather than ignore like xorg I think?). I think it's something that's planned to be added eventually, but who knows when that might be. It is frustrating in the meantime I agree.

Take all this with a large grain of salt of course, I am by no means an expert on the matter and am just repeating what I read when I looked into it myself a year ago or so.

Yes, if taking it seriously, then those are reasonable conclusions. However, I think you're just overthinking it, in this context the scenario exists to service the joke rather than the other way around.

The comedic implication is that the giant eagles are natural predators of goblins and, more importantly, hobbits. And might be inclined to a mid-flight snack.

Well, we know that they're typically referred to as male (as far as I know at least), so perhaps they're all transmasc?

I mean, assuming the existence of a god, I don't disagree. But if you are assuming the existence of a god then you're not really atheist. This is the kind of misinterpretation that theists who can't imagine not believeing in the supernatural often make about atheists; that we're simply angry or confused rather than rejecting the paradigm altogether.

I thought that part of it at least was that much like existing life has a harder time breaking down these mirror proteins the same is true in reverse. So any life that was mirror protein based would struggle with consuming and gaining energy. As such the current protein chirality basically won by being first to market. That being said I don't see why that would hamper reverse chirality photosynthesis, and I don't really know what I'm talking about so perhaps your suggestion is more convincing after all.

It is terribly worded, so it's unnecessarily confusing and unclear, but it means 'nobody says (or does) anything', thus indicating that the second action is unprompted.

Ya, a bit, I guess. I just don't think talking down to someone is ever really a good way to communicate (unless the interaction is in fact adversarial and that's the whole point). That being said I suppose I also get that sometimes it's desirable to express exasperation, even if it's not constructive or polite.

Ok, so I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and I think your point is very valid and worth saying, but why do you feel the need to start it by being condescending? I'm honestly curious because I feel like I've been seeing this a lot on Lemmy.

Sperad