Looks like a Rose Chafer, Cetonia aurata. If you're not in the UK/EU it could be a similar species. Wikip. say North American rose chafer, Macrodactylus subspinosus for the US.
Redfox8
joined 2 years ago
We're only more complex in that we have language systems so can assess situations in a more detailed way. The majority of the time we have pretty much the same instincts and responses to stimuli to many other animals because, in short, it takes less energy/effort. Being able to conceive society, something canines can do, doesn't stop other natural instincts. There is a level of simplification, yes, but this is a social media post, not a scientific study so it won’t explain every minute detail!
They don't exist without them though, and it is sometimes necessary to make a point to all companies and their sentient rulers by e.g. boycotting them, forever.
What is this? A fear and loathing.. interactive recreation?? ;)
What do you do....in the bath?
So they're recycling..good on them...but there I was thinking they may be creating some Apple-PC steam punk mutant for some specialist market...
The hidden tracks were the best!
Just leave the bottle on the counter
They used Cat GPT? meow wonder its such a mess, searching out all that catnip and snoozing all day long is hard work!
That's a good point, but it also drives population growth through less famine/starvation, which creates land scarcity, which creates (more) land ownership, which limits or stops individuals being able to forrage for themselves - which is what the meme is referring to. As you say, it's complicated, but the way human society has developed has resulted in the majority of individuals not being able to feed themselves for free and, amongst other factors, now needing a credit score to survive!
Thanks for your reply, nice and clearly described for my amateur physicist brain to follow! ;p I'll reply in full when I'm less tired, but intrigued by your reply about time! In summary I think of it as a way of describing how something changes, rather than time actually existing. I.e. it's relative to the energy the object has...so is a way of describing how much energy it has. I see you talk about black holes in a reply to someone else and my first thought is - the idea that time slows as your get closer (or is that a popular misconception?) relative to my thinking is that actually the particles are loosing energy, not time actually changing - and therefore would any particles actually catch up with each other as you describe? Let alone be observable to be moving.
And thinking about your last paragraph - are you not simply describing that object A which entered the black hole before object B, is simply is closer to the centre than B at any given 'time' which err doesn't exist. And neither does space come to think of it. Space is the nothingness between something, so also just a way of describing how something changes or interacts with something else. E.g. 2 particles exert a force on each other and move closer together through an exchange of energy - space is simply part of a description of how much of the interaction has been completed, similar to time, hence why they're thought of together and also as one and the same.
The distance thing is therefore how much force, what force and how strongly a force is being exerted rather than a physical thing.
Which (now a bit of side thought I had half an hour ago!) makes me think that black holes have no centre and the singularity is rather like the surface of a sphere, at which point all matter has no energy left to move - or perhaps its better to describe it that all matter's energy is now potential energy due to the immense forces at work, a bit like a compressed spring.
Erm ok so I replied a lot in the end! I hope it makes some sense, I could probably ramble on some more but I'd better stop fir now! though I do realise there may be some concepts that I'm ignorant of that could destroy my thinking, so feel free to deconstruct!
As some others have said - try to avoid those that could clearly be problematic and I'll add that the ideal buyer has cash and no chain. Full stop. But they're a rarity!
Moving house is so stressful you want a buyer who is not going to mess about or pull out last minute, though it's very difficult to know what they will actually be like. No chain at their end always adds a little comfort in being less likely to fall through.
I couldn't care less who buys from me and you're just creating more opportunities for problems by trying to be nice or favouring someone you perceive to be 'better'. You'll never truly know them.
Do you do the same selling your car or furniture? I very much doubt it. Same thing here, and some given the money involved.
Talk factually to your viewers is my advice. Don't try to please, the facts will do the work for you. If it's not right for them they'll be more likely to pull out if you manage to twist their arm! Bear in mind, most viewers will be lead around by an estate agent most of the time so give them space and time to amble about a bit too.
As a buyer I don't care what the seller says. They'll always be trying to make it sound great, but that's not necessarily 'bad', just biased/selling talk and as a seller you'll do the same instinctively. I get a survey done and view the house with my wants and needs in mind, something the seller will largely be oblivious to, partially as viewings are more often done with an estate agent rather than owner.