|
Why do they want us to gently caress M&Ms? They're too tiny to do anything with, unless you feel like trying to shove up your urethra. At least you can gently caress a melon.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Those Devour microwave dinners don't even bother to anthropmorphize the food. Just spank a dish of mac and cheese with your fork.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
I don't think they want us to literally gently caress the M&M's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Something something eye candy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dril/status/399334112357384192
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I don't think they want us to literally gently caress the M&M's. They don't want you to literally stick your penis in an M&M, but they definitely want you to think about sex and all the common pathways that light up when you get laid or eat good food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:https://twitter.com/kthorjensen/status/787338776884289536 The fact that they gave her human skin-colored limbs is the creepiest part to me. If they were just white, like her gloves and shoe it would be like Mr. Potatohead limbs or something. But she's specifically caucasian. So like, is the chocolate just encasing a nightmarishly deformed human torso and skull?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
walrusman posted:They don't want you to literally stick your penis in an M&M, but they definitely want you to think about sex and all the common pathways that light up when you get laid or eat good food. I imagine it's also an effort to tap into the 'chocolate=sexy' that somehow persists. Additionally, if you ever see an M&M commercial, you know that the M&M personalities are meant to be more or less people-sized. So, by the low threshold set by goddamned human beings, they are 'fuckable.' It depressed me to write that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Drivers in Mexico City are being heckled by drones carrying signs advertising Uber.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The fact that they gave her human skin-colored limbs is the creepiest part to me. If they were just white, like her gloves and shoe it would be like Mr. Potatohead limbs or something. But she's specifically caucasian. So like, is the chocolate just encasing a nightmarishly deformed human torso and skull? Oh god I just realized the green thing she's holding is the green shell casing. She's holding her skin and giving you bedroom eyes. The gently caress is this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
value-brand cereal posted:Oh god I just realized the green thing she's holding is the green shell casing. She's holding her skin and giving you bedroom eyes. The gently caress is this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What is she covering up Yellow already nutted in her
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Slime posted:Organisations like Greenpeace are a Dumb Move in Marketing because the stupid poo poo they do makes me a little more against the good parts of their message because it becomes associated with that stuff. They make me want more nukes, and also to kill whales with them. Nuke the Whales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Drivers in Mexico City are being heckled by drones carrying signs advertising Uber. 2016 just gets wilder and wilder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:Greenpeace went to poo poo in the Eighties when they shifted from a purely environmental activist organization (save the whales) to more of a political one(no nukes. Ever.) Did they go bugfuck before or after the French blew up their boat and killed a dude? This is an honest question, it was before my time and it's hard to google.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
They really started getting crazy into no-nukes with rise of Reagan's bellicose poo poo after he took office, so in answer to your question, before the Rainbow Warrior got sent to Davy Jaques locker. In fact, I think the French blew it up because of Greenpeace's anti-nuke work in France around that time. Don't get me wrong, I and many other sane people weren't too wild about Reagan's nuclear policy either, but even after the fall of the Wall and the ratcheting down of the Cold War, they kept going and veered into Nutville.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Yellow already nutted in her 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Alright. Thanks, JnnyThndrs, that helps put things in context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:They really started getting crazy into no-nukes with rise of Reagan's bellicose poo poo after he took office, so in answer to your question, before the Rainbow Warrior got sent to Davy Jaques locker. In fact, I think the French blew it up because of Greenpeace's anti-nuke work in France around that time. 'No nukes ever' actually seems perfectly reasonable for an environmental organisation, or for anyone at all, really. That I don't have a problem with, though it might be a bit naive. It's their knee-jerk and even potentially harmful anti-GMO stance that I dislike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:'No nukes ever' actually seems perfectly reasonable for an environmental organisation, or for anyone at all, really. That I don't have a problem with, though it might be a bit naive. It's their knee-jerk and even potentially harmful anti-GMO stance that I dislike. At some point no nuke ever got extended into "no nuclear power ever", which is dumb and counter productive from an environmental perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:At some point no nuke ever got extended into "no nuclear power ever", which is dumb and counter productive from an environmental perspective. Chernobyl was a really dumb marketing move for nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Slime posted:Chernobyl was a really dumb marketing move for nuclear power. It got nuclear power banned from my country (Italy) by popular vote. We get around the obvious issues by doing things like operating nuclear power plants just across the border with France
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:It got nuclear power banned from my country (Italy) by popular vote. We get around the obvious issues by doing things like operating nuclear power plants just across the border with France I really wonder sometimes how you guys managed to have a functional empire for so long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:'No nukes ever' actually seems perfectly reasonable for an environmental organisation, or for anyone at all, really. That I don't have a problem with, though it might be a bit naive. It's their knee-jerk and even potentially harmful anti-GMO stance that I dislike. It's already been said, but their 'no nukes ever' stance extends to nuclear electric power plants, which, if you're not the beneficiary of a massive land mass pounded by sunlight or a mountainous rainy country with much opportunity for hydro power, is pretty much the only way to generate electric power without releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The thing that irritates me, is that the Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island disasters were all because the plants were ancient, first-gen designs and unbelievable poorly regulated at that. It's pretty much the same as banning automobiles today because people were getting killed in Model T Fords in huge numbers. Even things as simple as dams killed huge numbers of people until we got the engineering down, the first generations of everything is always pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:It's already been said, but their 'no nukes ever' stance extends to nuclear electric power plants, which, if you're not the beneficiary of a massive land mass pounded by sunlight or a mountainous rainy country with much opportunity for hydro power, is pretty much the only way to generate electric power without releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Hardcore environmentalist folks just hate every form of electricity generation because none of them are perfect. All they look at is a few meltdowns which like you said can't really happen like that anymore or the nuclear waste. Ignoring that it produces relatively little of it and there are ways to make the storage totally safe. Lead, concrete,bury it deep, we're good. But we can't use hydro because it fucks up rivers. Can't use wind because it harms birds. Can't use fossil fuels because they're dirty. Can't use solar because producing the panels is dirty and they take up too much space at scale and animals need that land. Can't use tidal power because it fucks up the ocean. Can't burn garbage because it releases carbon. So what the hell do you do? Not have electricity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:It's already been said, but their 'no nukes ever' stance extends to nuclear electric power plants, which, if you're not the beneficiary of a massive land mass pounded by sunlight or a mountainous rainy country with much opportunity for hydro power, is pretty much the only way to generate electric power without releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. And Fukushima actually failed pretty well considering just how hard it was hit. A coal power plant would have polluted the absolute poo poo out of the ocean, in addition to all the radiation those things already put out. Oh yeah, a coal power plant puts out more radiation than a modern nuclear power plant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Hanging out with a peruvian family, I heard yelling abou Greenpeace for almost an entire year Wow I'm not for killing protesters but on the other hand the lines are far more valuable than those morons. It would be like saving Syrian ruins 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Slime posted:And Fukushima actually failed pretty well considering just how hard it was hit. A coal power plant would have polluted the absolute poo poo out of the ocean, in addition to all the radiation those things already put out. All three mentioned accidents were completely avoidable and caused by people doing things they weren't supposed to. Three Mile Island was caused by someone misreading a gauge and dumping all the water out of the reactor. Chernobyl was caused by the operators playing chicken with the reactor, trying to see if they could run the circulation pumps off of waste heat for long enough to backups to come online if the mains went out. Fukushima was caused by TEPCO putting their backup generators in the basement of the power plant instead of up on a hill outside of the projected reach of a tsunami. I watch a lot of NHK World news, and people from Fukushima, and the entire Tohoku region, still refuse to return. Even though the government did a very thorough cleanup and the radiation levels everywhere but in the immediate vicinity of the plant are no higher than background levels. The government is about to stop paying rent to people who temporarily relocated after the earthquake, since it's been over 5 years and all, and people are pissed they're being "forced" to go back. Public opinion on nuclear energy has done a 180 and they actually shut down all their nuclear power plants for a couple years; they just recently brought two back online. Meanwhile, they're depending on burning coal and oil to generate power - because that's working so well for China right now...
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Chernobyl was also a incredibly unsafe reactor design compared to Fukushima and TMI. Basically a warehouse with a big pit in the ground housing the reactor. Absolutely no containment at all, because that would have made it harder to get the plutonium out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Slime posted:And Fukushima actually failed pretty well considering just how hard it was hit. A coal power plant would have polluted the absolute poo poo out of the ocean, in addition to all the radiation those things already put out. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ quote:...ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage. Technically yes, but America has been terrible at properly disposing nuclear wastes. Just look at St. Louis, they have an active, subterranean garbage fire releasing radioactive and carcinogenic materials that were illegally dumped into a regular landfill. That same fire is slowly burning its way towards the leftover materials from the Manhattan Project that were kind of properly buried in a nearby landfill. There's also tons of weird bone, thyroid, and appendicular cancers in the area around Coldwater Creek, which is supposed to be fed by run off in the area surrounding the Manhattan Project landfill. And it's also the 20th largest population center in America, with nearly 3 million people in the metropolitan area If the EPA had anything resembling teeth, I would be 100% for nuclear energy, but American regulations on the issue are depressing. I like windfarms, they're eerily quiet, but very pretty to watch in motion
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
I got real lit and watched "Event Horizon" for the first time last month and the thread title is really weirding me out, someone please say something funny again asap so it's replaced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ Windfarms kinda suck because they murder the poo poo out of bats and aren't cost-efficient at all. Solar and Hydro seem like the best choices for renewable power these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Windfarms kinda suck because they murder the poo poo out of bats and aren't cost-efficient at all. Solar and Hydro seem like the best choices for renewable power these days.  I thought it was just migratory birds that had the problem, like geese. North American bats have enough problems with White Nose Syndrome, I only saw 4 bats all summer and I used to see them ever other night
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:
Bugs like the white paint a whole lot, which attracts bats. Bats are tiny and the negative air pressure from the blades explodes their lungs. It really really sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Windfarms kinda suck because they murder the poo poo out of bats and aren't cost-efficient at all. Solar and Hydro seem like the best choices for renewable power these days. It all depends on geography, I think. Renewables are great but you kinda have to pick by region. Most of Australia's perfect for solar, because a really strong solar plant requires a ton of free flat land that gets a lot of clear sun. And that describes about 90% of Australia's landmass. Something a little weird about nuclear down here, and more on a marketing subject, is that the Australian Greens get a ton of poo poo from some (arguably nominally) progressive voters for not supporting nuclear power. Literally nobody in Australian politics supports nuclear power, but the Greens are the only ones that get attacked for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I really want solar road technology to work out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
pienipple posted:I really want solar road technology to work out. Those are somewhere between a success and a failure because on the one hand they've gotten a ton of money and on the other they're complete unworkable bullshit that is a waste of time and money for anyone involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZdshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZBrHqTJk4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ZSXB3KDF0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjbKYNcmFUwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S6kowyvreY
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Good marketing done for evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Bugs like the white paint a whole lot, which attracts bats. Bats are tiny and the negative air pressure from the blades explodes their lungs. It really really sucks. Aww poor bats! I wonder if there would be a safe and financially feasible way to keep extra bugs from being attracted to the paint. I remember making a long drive past some wind farms in Indiana or Illinois (can't recall which) and they were amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Those are somewhere between a success and a failure because on the one hand they've gotten a ton of money and on the other they're complete unworkable bullshit that is a waste of time and money for anyone involved.  I really want a driveway that never needs shoveling
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:33
|
|