Mesa

I'm fairly certain dumbass rhetorical questions can qualify as shower thoughts.

Whether it's worth posting is a different question.

If this happened near or post-interplanetary colonization, I'm reasonably confident that they'd be named after or by whichever corporation buys and takes the largest influence over the planet.

We all know Elon wants to name Mars Planet X, so let's agree now to blow it up as soon as that happens.

Earth's name would probably be left alone. I'd imagine Google going after Saturn and maybe preserving the name too, maybe giving it a little name if they hadn't blown every word in the English language on dead projects.

Microsoft, in their lack of vision, would name Mercury Microsoft (if they're still around by this point).

I remember there being something misleading about the "temperature" in pV=nRT, but yeah, I think I was getting confused because I was thinking about it purely formulaicly.

But if the pressure drops and the volume of the gas increases, in order for it to cool, that would mean the drop in pressure is much less significant than the rise in volume?

But yeah, I should've remembered that expanding gasses cool, because I know how aerosol cans work. It's time to touch up on this stuff lol.

This is my high school chemistry talking here, but don't expanding gasses heat up? Ideal gas law and everything? Is there something weird happening like the CO2 instantaneously pressurizing or something right before expanding?

And to think all those times I cursed CORS under my breath. Doing God's work.

Same (I wouldn't have paid Reddit, but I did donate to boost), but this comment was funny because "The Big R" is what my friend and I call Roblox.

The board lacks general scalability.

The entire shower thought already accepts the premise of Christianity. Otherwise there's no conversation here. I already said that I'm not religious. I just know enough about the Christian faith and theology to entertain an argument under that premise.

There's no way to rebut the argument you're trying to rebut without circular logic of "the bible is true because the bible says it's true".

Also, yes. That's not a flaw of the argument—that's pretty much the fundamental idea of God as Logos. Look into it if you want to, but I'm not here to force anyone into any belief. I just encourage people to understand things before they criticize them.

Additionally, I'd suggest that you look into the idea of God as Logos. Your idea of omnipotency has been criticized before, mathematically.

I feel like I have to put the disclaimer that, although I am spiritual, I'm not religious. Anyway:

then Jesus dying wasn't the only way.

Correct. I don't think many people, Christian or otherwise, really disagree with you here. I chose to drive 20 minutes to eat ramen today. Was that the only way? Well, only way to what, exactly? To feed myself? No—there are plenty of closer options with which I could've sustained myself, but in my picking the ramen, I now have satisfied that craving which I've had for a few weeks. Even though I won't still taste the ramen two days from now, I'll still be satisfied that I had some today.

In the case that you are trying to make a legitimate criticism of the story rather than the vapid "Christianity is stupid" posts that dominate this platform, I'd prompt you to be much more specific in what you mean by "way." The only way to what? What specifically are you positing was God's goal in allowing the crucifixion of Jesus?

Personally, I take the Bible as almost entirely allegorical. So if you want my subjective take on this post, it's about as good as asking why Superman has to be weak to kryptonite.

I presume "vibe coder" stands for Visual Besic?

The Legend of Korra spoilers:

It's been a while, and I've lost some of my steam over this. But yeah, that's the only one I've got the energy to type out right now.