asmoranomar

Only if it's a present the size of a car in the garage and you invite everyone over to witness him unwrap it.

They missed their chance to go 'HBO NOW GO MAX'

Oh that one is a good one, it's very busy. Using the first method the trees are on the 'bottom' and everything progressively pops out with the fish/turtle on 'top'.

The other way is reverse, the trees are on the 'top' and the fish are on the 'bottom' (like I'm looking in that 'box'). It's also really hard to see the whole picture this way, but that's just me.

Also, 'In a Box' might not be the best analogy, you can make one that intentionally feels like you're looking inside something -- it's just that most of these are made to pop out at you.

The way this works is that the image is designed to appear 'beyond' the surface it is printed on. It's much easier to relax your eyes and pretend you're looking at what's 'behind' the paper. Kind of like 3d chalk art on the road in a way.

The other way of crossing your eyes works because you're swapping the left and right eye, which gives a different, inverted appearance. Instead of a foreground image popping out of the background, it looks like the other way. Like looking in a box, kinda.

I can do both, but the latter is more difficult, sometimes requires a specific distance, and can be painful if you force it. If the image is too big, you may only be able to see a part of it. I think the first method is easier to do and to learn/train. Either way, you aren't looking at what's 'on the surface'.

...

The best way I can explain is: pretend you're sitting on the toilet, really tired and you have nothing to look at so you just lose focus and gaze at random stuff. When the tiles or cracks start to make pictures that aren't there, that's kind of the effect you want.

Bernie: uses bullshit numbers that only applies to the incredibly wealthy

You: uses bullshit numbers that apply to nobody Bernie mentioned

Nobody is buying 500k houses and cashing in on 20m of gains in 10 years. Even if it was, you'd need to do that a few hundred times to be on Bernie's radar.

Effectively, your message is we can't tax only the wealthy because if they did it, everyone else would be destute.

Weird how not taxing the wealthy hasn't made everyone rich.

Are we all just going to gloss over the fact that you're not supposed to stick your duck in that?

It's all good man, those chemicals are also present in living organisms too, I guess... /s

Vampires drink blood, not water...

Listen up MARINES. This was targeted. They know how disciplined and trained you are. That's why it requires 7 immigration officers to detain one MARINE.

This. At some point, everything just happened to be 'AI'. It's stupid.

To put it in perspective, I just watched a YouTube video where someone claimed that they wrote a program to win at minesweeper using AI. All of it was handwritten conditional checks and there was no training element to it. It plays the same way every time, but since minesweeper is random by nature it 'appears' to be doing something different. Worse, to 'win' is just to beat a level under a certain time, not to improve upon that time or improve win rates.

The sad thing is that various levels of AI are/were defined, but marketing is doing a successful job at drowning out fact checkers. Lots of things that weren't considered AI now are. You have media claiming Minecraft is AI because it makes use of procedural generation -- Let's forget the fact that Diablo came out years earlier and also uses it.... No the important thing is that the foundation for neural networks were being laid as early as the 1940's and big projects over the years using supercomputers like DeepBlue, Summit, and others are completely ignored.

AI has been around, it's been defined, and it's not here yet. We have glorified auto-complete bots that happen to be wrong to a tolerable point so businesses have an excuse to layoff people. While there are some amazing things it can do sometimes, the AI I envisioned as a child doesn't exist quite yet.

I feel that a lot of discussion is by people who have never taken ozempic or have and are successful with its treatment. For what it's worth, I'd like to give some insight to my own experience with it and why I'm not on it.

I won't talk about all my medical issues, but to make it very broad - I have type 2 and a genetic disorder regarding my ability to metabolize. I was put on a trial of ozempic because of its apparent effectiveness.

While on it, one of the first things I noticed that no one seems to talk about (so I don't know if it's just me or not): the feeling of being sated and hungry are two different feelings. It was weird being hungry and full all the time. A bit torturous, but something I felt was manageable.

Unfortunately, even on the lowest dosage, the sated feeling was so strong I felt nauseous all the time. It eventually became a problem when I started becoming dehydrated because I couldn't even keep a glass of water down.

I was removed from the medication and I had persistent side-effects afterwards. It's been years now and while the side effects have diminished, I still get random bouts of nausea for no apparent reason. It's unrelated to when I eat or drink, but it's something I've never experienced prior to being on ozempic.

As weird as it sounds, there are some days I wish I could go back on ozempic. It is effective, but now doctors know I retained some side effects, they won't let me try it ever again.

And I guess that's it. Nothing too horrible I guess, but even miracle drugs have side effects. Everyone is built differently, so there will always be outliers.

Whenever you feel like things are unfair, remember that Laura Croft's entire life has been in ruins.