SeahorseTreble

Or is it "The monkey for whom I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

or

"The monkey, regarding whom, I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

or

"The monkey who I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

All of them sound stupid.

SPOILERS for all ahead:

Can the Joker universe (Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux) and The Batman universe (The Batman, its upcoming sequels, and The Penguin TV series) be considered the same continuity in headcanon, even if not in reality?

The way they're structured seems like they almost could be in the same universe, and many people questioned if they were at some point before it was confirmed they weren't. Joker kind of acts as an origin story for the Batman mythos and his "Rogues Gallery" generally, not for any specific version of Batman, but it seems to connect quite well with Matt Reeves' The Batman: Bruce Wayne is a child in Joker, Harvey Dent is quite young in Folie a Deux and just had his villain arc set up, and the new version of the Joker we see in Arkham at the end of the second movie was also not much older than Bruce at the time, so that they could serve as villains for him once he grew up. And we seemingly saw a version of the Joker in Arkham at the end of The Batman; maybe that's him, or yet another person who carried on the mantle of the Joker that was established in the 2 Joker films.

I want to make clear that I'm not asking if they are in the same universe, I know they're not (officially)... nor am I asking if they should cross over in some way, I don't think they should. Just whether they could be compatible in theory.

Also, I'm aware that the tone is different, though very similar. I don't think The Batman's depicition of Gotham, Arkham and society in general are quite as bleak/cynical or the people in it are quite as horrible as in Joker's version, but Joker is seemingly set a long time before The Batman so that could explain the differences there as the society progressed and became a bit less harsh by the time of The Batman. They share a gritty, slightly mature style focused on Gotham's underworld and the grounded nature of only showing criminals and people that could exist in reality.

The one continuity issue I see is regarding what happened to Bruce Wayne's parents, but if that one element was removed could they otherwise be conciliated? Also, couldn't we just argue that the criminals that killed his parents in The Batman were actually Joker's followers just presented differently (and with different actors playing his parents of course)? We didn't see much of that time period when Bruce was a kid in The Batman, so it's possible there was an Arthur Fleck that had started a riot at the time?

All of the info about why added sugar is unhealthy compared to fruits seems to be that the sugar in fruit comes with fibre and nutrients that offset the negative health impacts of sugar to a degree by delaying its absorption and preventing a blood sugar spike.

However, by this reasoning alone, wouldn't it be possible to infer that if added sugar was paired with the same amount of fibre and nutrients, its effects could be mitigated in the same way as they are in fruit?

Well I haven't found any evidence either supporting or negating this idea or anyone even talking about that question specifically aside from a few other people asking the same thing, and random people replying without citing any evidence. For example someone suggested that indeed taking this approach may work a little bit, but it still won't be as healthy as eating fruit due to the "fibre-infused food matrix" of fruit or that sugar that is found naturally in fruits is "complexed" with fiber that slows down the absorption more, whereas the added sugar is more freely available to absorb quickly because it's separate from the fibre even if eaten together with it (though the separate fibre will still do some of the same job but not as well)?

"It can slow the absorption of sugar slightly but won't make a huge difference. Sugar from wholefruit and veg will always be processed differently due to the food matrix the sugars contained in that must be vroken down resulting in a slow and gradual release, when u eat added sugar but just have some fiber all that sugar is still there readily available to absorb. Overall it would be better to just stick to fruit and eat mixed macro meals with healthy unsaturated fats and proteins"

Well if possible I would like to see some scientific evidence/studies talking specifically about the difference on the body between consuming whole fruits containing their natural sugar and fibre + nutrients, compared to consuming added sugar along with foods containing fibre and nutrients in equivalent amounts (such as bircher muesli with added palm sugar, or another example if necessary for the sake of equalizing the fibre+nutrients content), and ideally health outcome data showing there is actually a difference between these...

And just more information in general about the idea of naturally occurring sugar and fibre contained together in a single food matrix being different/more healthy than added sugar taken together with separate fibre foods.

Thanks

It's a classic techno song that might be described as euro trance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't seem to be found anywhere.

It's a classic techno song that might be described as EuroTrance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It's possible it might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't be found anywhere.

Here is the fallacy I'm describing:

Someone defends their own actions, or someone else's actions, as acceptable/justified or necessary, on the basis that those actions might be necessary or justified in certain circumstances, referencing other individuals or circumstances for which it might be necessary or justified, despite their own circumstances/the circumstances in question not having the same elements that would require it or justify it.

For example, someone defends the actions of someone who murdered another person unnecessarily because they disliked them (e.g.), using the argument that there might be people who need to kill in self-defense or in a survival situation for whom it might be justified, despite that not applying to the situation in question.

I'll attempt to write the form of the fallacy here:

X is justified in Y case.

Someone does X in Z case.

X is justified in Z case because X would be justified in Y case.

It's a fallacy because:

What is true of Y case doesn't necessarily apply to Z case; the elements/circumstances of Y case that would make X justified may not be present in Z case, and therefore even if X is justified in Y case it wouldn't automatically be justified in Z case as a consequence.

I'm of the view that this is a semantic question where we have a word, "pile", that describes a general amount but doesn't have a specified quantity to it, and so the only way we can determine the amount of units required to constitute a pile at the bare minimum, is through public consensus on the most commonly shared idea we generally have when we think of a pile.

I also think it's possible for there to be a "range of graduation" between a non-pile and a pile, so for example "a non-pile becomes a pile somewhere between x grains and x grains" (depending on what most people think this range is), and if a given number of grains falls below this range, it would necessarily be only a minority of people that would still accept it to be a pile.

So I plan to count the answers here and see if we can come to some kind of consensus or at least most common or average opinion. For sake of not skewing the results, I won't suggest my opinion on what I think the number or range of grains is upon which a non-pile becomes a pile. What do you think it is?

Someone told me Thoth was a messenger god but I and everyone else are too dumb to understand what his message was.

For example, if you said that someone had been fooled by something, would they take offense and think you're calling them a fool or foolish?

What if you say someone's been "played for a fool"?

I feel like often people ask me "Oh yea? Name some examples." and the burden is on me to prove something by providing representative examples. But often it's so overwhelming how many examples there are for something that I feel obligated then to either list everything, or try extra hard to find good examples, and even then I feel like I could be misrepresenting the case by not providing enough examples. Basically I feel like I would have to give many, many examples, or none at all, otherwise anything in the middle could be non-representative of the true trend.

Ironically, now you will want me to give examples of situations that I'm talking about. But for this I will provide 2 examples and rest on good faith that you will believe me (given the context of this post) that this happens much more often than I care to provide examples for.

So one example is when you are attempting to prove to someone that a certain thing is scientifically proven or is agreed upon as scientific consensus. You can look to the generally agreed hierarchy of evidence and provide what it considers to be high-quality evidence, such as meta analyses and systematic reviews, but even then there can be disagreement between specific reports, and there can be outliers that disagree with the overall most common trends or findings. So the only way to really prove something is to provide many, many different instances of scientific evidence to the point where the other person would be unable to find the same level or amount of evidence to the contrary by virtue of the fact that it doesn't exist to the same overwhelming degree, essentially proving the scientific fact. But again, this takes either an enormous amount of high quality evidence from various different sources, or nothing at all and simply an assertion that something is in fact scientifically proven or agreed upon as scientific consensus, because anything else in the middle could misrepresent the case and make it seem less substantiated than it actually is. It's either "all or nothing".

And now I'll provide a specific anecdote about someone who argued that there are no decent stories with a female main protagonist. I am so sure and believe it to be so obvious that there is an extensive history of great female main protagonists and female-driven stories, in all forms of storytelling, that I found this an overwhelming task to attempt to prove when the person asked for specific examples. How can I make the case of the wealth of good stories with female main characters without providing an exhaustive (or highly numerous) list? Even if I pick a few great examples, the person can always make the objection that "Those are an exception, and they don't represent the overall trend." and I risk misrepresenting that trend if the examples chosen aren't the best ones available, too. How can you possibly prove something like that without a very long and well-thought out and extensively researched list? Again, it seems like it's either attempt such a daunting task, or don't engage with the request for examples at all and just assert the claim that there are many examples, without specifying any to avoid the risk of taking on the burden of proving it and possibly misrepresenting the trend.

I hope this made any sense at all.

Extras/other people in the background are acceptable to meet the criteria but ideally with no human/entity on the screen at all that isn't played by the same actor.

Movies like 'Men', 'Moon' or 'The Nutty Professor' don't meet this criteria for example, due to the exceptions of characters played by other actors.

And it has to be somewhat mainstream and not a low budget student film or something.

Edit: I also meant that they play multiple characters...