Luna the Great of all the Russias

It is hard for me to think of how I can return to using an internet browser without tabs.

I like soda. When I do drink it, it is usually cola. But I rarely drink it. I see it more as a way to treat myself once in a while, or I may drink it when I am with friends. On average, I think I drink soda once every couple months.

She also honours Operation Soda Steal in her own way.

Taco Bell has been oppressing the people for too long by having the monopoly on Baja Blast. The people must fight back for justice (and they did).

The way some subtitles are being used nowadays is annoying me, because I find that the way they intentionally use them in a way to get your attention to be obnoxious. The following is a rank from the best to worst type of subtitles: Conventional subtitles showing a phrase or up to two sentences worth of text -- plain and simple. Similar to above, except the word spoken is highlighted in some way at the moment of utterance -- sing-along style. The subtitles are not immediately shown, but instead is being gradually revealed word-by-word as they are spoken, and the word spoken is highlighted in some way. Only one word is shown at a time: the word spoken at that very moment.

You have simply not ascended enough. After all, you consumed sugar and cream with a drop of coffee.

The thread Communist Party in China has seized Hong Kong for promoting democracy has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread What is your opinion on gender neutral parenting? has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread Terror on the Rise has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread The Dangers Of Medications has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread Do you think the US monetized system is flawed? has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread Britain has left the EU, your thoughts? has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

The thread Microchipping humans may be one argument religious people have for pro religious movements has been moved to Twilight's Soapbox.

I would very much appreciate it if machine learning generated images did not appear when I searched for images on search engines.

But, even here we are restricting ourselves to the corporeal domain, because we are still speaking of whatever it is that happens to our physical body. The question of whether one can physically live for millions, billions or even up until the end of the universe is a question for the empirical sciences. But, immortality itself is beyond the domain of the empirical sciences, for the proper domain of empirical science is the corporeal domain, and not to domains that lie beyond it. When I speak of ideas, I am not speaking of merely people's understanding or memory of you, but rather the principle under which you happen to be a particular manifestation. The empirical science cannot prove it because it inherently cannot be proved empirically as it lies in a domain that is beyond the corporeal, but our corporeal body definitely does exist, and it is a manifestation of this higher principle. I will make clear that I am not referring to the existence of some ghostly entity called the "soul" that exists somewhere in your body. Rather, I am referring to this enduring higher principle of which your physical body just so happens to be a particular physical manifestation of it at this very moment. While this could be interpreted through the lens of religious beliefs (something akin to a language), what I am most directly trying to convey is something that concerns metaphysics. --- The reason why I mentioned mathematics in my post is because mathematics itself does not physically exist, and yet it is definitely real. Mathematics does not rely on being empirically proven; we know that it is always true that 2 + 2 = 4 without needing to do a single scientific experiment to prove it. Or, even more simply, that the number 1 is real, despite the number 1 itself not physically existing anywhere, and yet we see one of something everywhere. There is the number 1 as a principle, and, in front of me as I type this post, there is one book, there is one pencil, and there is one bookmark. The one book, the one pencil, and the one bookmark are three examples of particular manifestations of the number 1, but they themselves are not the principle of the number 1. The principle itself has no manifestation, but other things can be a manifestation of it. So, with the idea that mathematics is something that does not physically exist, and yet is very real, and that just about everything in physical reality can be seen as containing an indefinite amount of examples of mathematical principles "put into practice", I would suggest that something similar applies to your own existence: your physical existence is simply a particular manifestation of higher principles which exist in extra-corporeal domains. Given that the condition of change (hence birth and death) is inherent in corporeal domain, it strikes me that the pursuit of true immortality in this domain is a futile endeavor. With regard to immortality, I would be inclined to see that the proper study for this lies in the study of metaphysics: the study of existence itself.

The word "butter" in the American accent. You would think that having two "t"s in a row would put extra emphasis on the fact that there ought to be a strong "t" sound. But, instead, it is pronounced "budder". The pronunciation is more closely aligned to the spelling in the British accent.

Though it is conceivable to extend our lifespan indefinitely with sufficiently advanced technology, as more time pass, it becomes inevitable that something will eventually kill you, as Fluttershutter noted. If an indefinite extension of your life is what you seek, then your answer lies within the domain of the empirical sciences. But indefinite is not the same as infinite. Ultimately, attempting to achieve immortality in the corporeal domain is futile, as everything that exists within it are contingent; the very fact that we exist in a domain of becoming, of change, death is inevitable. Even as biological entities, we already face the matter of the Ship of Theseus, as the cells in our body gets replaced very regularly. I forgot what the length is, but after an interval of some timespan, every cell in your body gets replaced; strictly physically, you may be a completely different person from when you were born. However, it would be erroneous to say that the you of today and the you from when you were born are disconnected entities; you are definitely a continuation of the you from when you were an infant. But while I consider the pursuit of immortality to be futile in the physical domain, it is a very different matter when one considers the metaphysical domain; to achieve true immortality, we must fundamentally transcend the realm of the corporeal domain. We, in the corporeal domain, are manifestations of higher principles. Here is a question. Consider the idea of the number "7", and consider a set of seven items. Is either one more real than the other? ... Perhaps if one is strictly concerned with the corporeal domain, the set of seven items may be considered more real with the idea of the number 7, because the former physically exists, whereas the latter is just an idea that has no physical properties. But, I think the idea of the number 7 is more real than the set of seven items, because the latter as a coherent whole is contingent on the idea of the number 7; put in another way, without the idea of the number 7, we would not even recognize the set of seven items as being united by the concept of 7 in the first place -- they would simply be seen as some random collection of items. So, while the idea of the number 7 itself does not physically exist, it is the principle by which all other set of seven physical items exists; while any set of seven physical items physically exists, they do not derive their source of reality (specifically as a set of seven items) from themselves, but from a higher principle (i.e. the idea of the number 7). And so, I think that the idea of Iforgotmybrain, so to speak, is more real than the particular corporeal manifestation of Iforgotmybrain as a flesh and blood human being; no matter how the physical person of Iforgotmybrain may change through the course of his life, he is still recognized as Iforgotmybrain instead of some random aggregation of cells, because the idea of Iforgotmybrain has many contingent manifestations. To avoid potential misunderstanding, while I say that, for example, the idea of Iforgotmybrain is more real than the corporeal manifestation of Iforgotmybrain, this does not imply that the real Iforgotmybrain as a whole is him as an idea, and that his corporeal manifestation is somehow "fake". Wholistically, Iforgotmybrain is both the idea and the corporeal manifestation; Iforgotmybrain exists simultaneously in multiple levels of reality, of which corporeal reality is the lowest level, and is the one in which we obviously can most readily sense. To return to the question of immortality, we see here that there is relatively greater stability of the idea of Iforgotmybrain compared to Iforgotmybrain as a corporeal manifestation; the latter may go through many changes throughout time, but are all united by the idea of Iforgotmybrain which is fixed. This may be speaking roughly, but because the idea of Iforgotmybrain is not subject to change, hence not confined to the domain of becoming, it does not die (for dying is a type of change or becoming), and so it is immortal. And, because the idea of you is you who exist in a higher domain, that is where the source of your immortality lies (and in a domain where change does not happen, time does not exist as a limiting condition -- it is beyond time). I could have spoke more precisely, but I hope I have sufficiently conveyed what I intended to convey. I say "idea", but, really, to say "essence", "soul" or "principle" would be more appropriate. Such things in themselves do not have physical manifestations much like the idea of the number 7. But, that does not mean that they do not exist; they do exist, but in higher domains that inherently cannot be sensed empirically, but can be understood (at least to an extent) intellectually. While we can talk about extending the life of your corporeal body indefinitely with the use of science, immortality itself would require you to look beyond the preservation of your physical body.

What are some things that you hated in the past, but have come to appreciate over time? One thing that comes to mind is this song (and others by 009 Sound System): It was one widely hated (2009 to early 2010s) because any video that was struck down for copyright with their audio was often automatically replaced by this song, or other songs by 009 Sound System. The prevalence of the song and how it made the affected video worse made it widely disliked at the time. But as years passed, the songs have become rather nostalgic, reminding of this era of Youtube, and the quality of the songs themselves were actually good -- what was annoying at the time was the context in which they were played.

Potential points for discussion: How different would your life be if you never accessed the internet? Do you think your personality would be significantly different if you never accessed the internet? If you were now transported to an alternate universe where the technology level is similar except that the internet never arose, how much would you struggle to adjust to this world? Any other thoughts come to mind in relation to this topic?