That’s why you gotta FIFO
Turn that stack into a queue.
That’s why I always put my clothes at the bottom of a pile and then rotate in a fresh pile when the previous one is used up.
I always let the oven timer beep a few times, even if I’m standing right there, so it doesn’t feel frustrated that it’s not serving its purpose.
Nah, unnecessary noise makers can get fucked. I have a tower fan that has a mute button to prevent beeping, I love it so much i bought a second one.
One of the best things about having knowledge in component level electronics is being able to open up consumer electronics and disable unnecessary lights and speakers. Personal table top fans are a big offender here. Lots of folks use them at night, and there’s no reason they need to have 10 bright blue LEDs lit all the time the fan has power.
I’m lazy and cover bright LEDs with thick black electrical tape. Even then it sometimes takes more than one piece of tape.
That’s why I slide clean plates under the pile
Why are you putting clean plates under a pile of toilet paper?
Not trying to be rude or stupid, but is projecting emotions onto inanimate objects and being emotionally affected by imaginarily anthropomorphised circumstances a neurotypical thing? I remember in high school chemistry class when my classmates were awing and giddy over how “cute” a ~1” tall and 1/2” diameter beaker was and I just couldn’t understand.
- The way you phrased your question is neither rude, nor stupid. It’s a valid question.
- Yes, a lot of people like to humanize objects. It makes them fun and/or relatable. It’s not much different than seeing shapes in clouds.
Have you ever had any kind of emotional reaction, even a mild, one to this lamp?
I understand the purpose of anthropomorphizing for the sake of narrative storytelling. But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
(And yes, my most recent emotional reaction to that lamp was disappointment with a couple of areas of the design of its new Lego set)
But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
I don’t quite understand the distinction you’re making between the former and latter. The only difference I’m seeing is it is something you actively have to do while others can do it passively. If anything, I would think that those do it passively would have a strength.
Break down exactly what is probably happening with your beaker example:
- observation of physical traits
- pattern matching against other examples of dissimilar sizes
- analysis as to why this beaker may have an association with a found pattern match of “parent and offspring”
- offspring are often more visually pleasant versions of the grown version (puppy vs dog/kitten vs cat)
- apply ruleset of “parent and offspring” to beaker
- therefore small beaker is cute because it could be offspring of a pair of larger beakers
This demonstrates there is a willingness to accept the unknown and explore it. It applies existing knowledge to make assumptions about future status/behavior. This is a power fact finding skill. Further, your classmates demonstrated this passively meaning it look no effort to find relationships and identify matching traits. They could possibly discover many things in life simply by looking that them and applying critical thinking.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
It was this:
Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to.
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.
I feel like it’s the other way around
