Active users in the last six months. It will drop off when the usage peak is no longer included in the six-month period.

Better to brush after getting up to remove any bacteria and plaque buildup. And then right before bed, floss+brush.

Yes you can, with one caveat.

According to Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis, compelling, comprehensible input is sufficient to acquire a language. That means input that you find interesting and that keeps you engaged, and which you can understand at least in part. That evolving sweet spot can indeed take you from complete newbie to fluency without ever speaking.

In my experience, though, being able to speak with other native speakers is a huge source of motivation and creates its own compelling input. So I wouldn’t discount that.

I personally know someone who went from no English to being able to converse just by watching The Simpsons.

deleted by creator

I think generalizing the good of human beings to all sentient beings is a great example of how a rigorous ethical discourse can expand traditional morality. The idea of giving rights to great apes is a wonderful example and I hope we can get there soon.

And likewise, a lot of traditionally “wrong” behaviors can be argued to be morally neutral if they don’t really diminish the well-being of human beings. Sex work is another example.

I think simply put:

Morality is an inherent classification of right and wrong behaviors, often the result of tradition, upbringing, and/or society.

Ethics is a moral system at which one may arrive through philosophy and rational thought.

Ethics tends to define right and wrong in terms of its impact on human well-being, and not just as a inherent sense of right and wrong. As such, it may arrive at conclusions that feel “morally wrong” but actually perpetuate a greater well-being. (One example being utilitarianism.) This is also its danger, as one may argue oneself into a behavior which is rationally ethical but inherently harmful (e.g. eugenics).

The power of ethics is that it can be used to derive moral guidelines for new circumstances, such as AI or global ecological considerations. Such considerations can be derived from morality, but they have a tendency to not truly appreciate new variables and instead attempt to reduce new systems to familiar circumstances, thus often missing nuance.

I’d argue that ultimately, a sound ethical system must be derived from rational ethical thought, gently guided by sound morality as a safeguard against dangerous fallacies.

My spouse and I lived in a bunch of countries over the years. We speak Quebec French, English, and Spanish, as well as a smattering of Chinese, Bulgarian, Korean, and a few odds and ends here and there.

We basically speak whatever we think people around us won’t understand. Very colloquial Quebec French in non-French-speaking countries, Chinese around white people, Bulgarian around non-white people, or even a cryptic mix of everything when we’re not completely sure.

We figure anyone who understands is probably someone we want to know… Hasn’t happened very often, but it does happen. So far we weren’t saying anything overly embarrassing when we got caught, but we sure as hell have no filter between us because of this!

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Agreed, which is why I spoke about the chaos and uncertainty of travel. If you’re traveling as part of an organized trip, whether it’s business or a travel package to a resort, you’re basically isolated from this aspect of travel.

I’ve traveled to 50 countries and lived in 7.

I don’t think being well traveled is about distance or number of countries visited… For me, it’s more about whether you’ve traveled independently and built some skills of adaptability and resilience to deal with new situations. That can happen with as little as one new foreign country.

For me, a well-traveled person is someone who can deal with all the stress, uncertainty, and chaos of travel. That can be as simple as ordering food in a language you don’t speak, or deciphering an alphabet you’re not familiar with to get on the right bus. Heck, it can happen in your own country, some times.

But once you’ve done something like that, the kind of travel skill you develop is pretty universal. Not to say no place in the world will ever throw you a curve ball, but once you accept not everything works like it does in your country and you learn to stay cool under pressure when nothing makes sense, you’re well on your way to being able to thrive anywhere you go.

They’re calling it Snyder’s Star Wars, but I’m getting more Battlefield Earth vibes.

Yes, exactly! Or, “Ya été bercé trop proche du mur.”

In Quebec French, people sometimes say of someone who’s not particularly bright:

“His mom rocked him/her too close to the wall.”

It’s just so… vivid and random.

I kinda think Voyager failing the test despite Janeway is still a symptom of a representation issue. The test was designed because there are plenty of fully fleshed out female characters in fiction, but usually they exist as exceptions in a man’s world and creators still feel too awkward writing women to have two or more of them having meaningful exchanges.

I’d say that despite Voyager being a trailblazer for representation with Janeway, it still had these exact issues. At least until Seven of Nine came along.

It’s still important to note that the test is in no way a formal analysis, and not even its creator claims this.

I’m amused at Voyager not hitting close to 100% for every season with Janeway in the lead. Like, season 3 only has ~65%?!

deleted by creator

I personally make sure I stay in a good neighborhood and check Wikivoyage for details like transportation and safety, but that’s pretty much it. If I land in a good neighborhood (not touristy, lots of amenities and restaurants around, easy connection on foot or by public transport to the major areas), then I’m pretty much golden.

It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but I think not enough research is much better than too much. Any tourist information will draw you to overpriced and/or overhyped places. The desire, say, to “eat the best X” or “visit the most famous Y” is making your travels crappier.

Instead, I recommend cultivating normalcy. Visit your neighborhood by foot, and take chances on unknown places. You can check Google Maps to get the sense of a place, but if the reviews are good and they’re mostly local reviewers, and the place is crowded, you’re in good hands. Check out what other people are eating and order that. (Just point if needed.)

My partner and I have what we call our “grounding ritual.” We set out by foot in our neighborhood and spot what we’ll need: a convenience store for late-night snack runs, a supermarket or fresh market for food, etc. We check out public transportation options nearby. Then we find a nice, no-frills local restaurant and have a meal there. If the place is good, we make a point of returning there over the next few days. Doesn’t matter if we’re there for a weekend.

We just returned from a few days in Warsaw, a city I had never been before. Besides the Old Town, none of the places we visited were stuff I had read about online. We just let our feet, eyes, and noses lead us to interesting places.

I’ve dabbled in crypto and I use Revolut extensively when traveling. When I saw Revolut was starting to push crypto, I got really nervous about their legitimacy as a financial institution.

I’m glad they’re getting out.