No I don’t think people who use the word “digger” are specifically and purposefully altering the N word and directly referencing it.

By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a “cat” and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a “dog” which is… Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they’re running “dog software”, heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running “human software”? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren’t the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren’t extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate “hardware vs software” stereotypes.

Foxes don’t share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don’t know why people always say this.

What would the D even stand for? 🤔

Those were not the only original definitions of giving by a long shot. Another original definition was to provide, offer, impart, communicate, or pass on something, (hence the phrase “giving off” which has been around for a long time, example: it’s giving off radiation), etc. It’s not gen Z’s fault you don’t know all the definitions of giving.

If it’s a spot the difference style thing then the art won’t be dramatically different and you still get to have the box art at least.

This just provides a small added challenge, I don’t really see an issue . If you want an easier jigsaw they might sell them at a toy store.

I mean, they’re technically calling black people the N word by proxy (it’s meant to essentially be white + N word to refer to a white guy pretending to be/acting black). So it seems like a case of “if you’re not black you probably shouldn’t say it”.

They didn’t redefine giving, it’s literally being used for its original definition. Just add “energy” or “vibes” at the end of the sentence and it clarifies exactly how it’s used. If someone sees your outfit and says “It’s giving Beyoncé” -> “it’s giving Beyoncé energy”, your outfit is reminding them of Beyoncé. As in it is providing/offering said Beyoncé-like energy, aka one of the original definitions of giving something.

I agree, though I also think there’s a discussion to be had about society’s obsession with punishment over anything else, and how sometimes it’s okay to let go of the past and appreciate that someone has become a better person and is working to attone for that they did and do good things from that point onwards, which is overall better for the world as a whole than them being forced to suffer endlessly for their past actions for the sake of vindication or revenge. If you’re going to take the stance that someone can have a moral debt they must be forced to pay, then you have to likewise acknowledge that there must be a point at which it can be paid. If you try to claim that some things can never be made up for and thus some moral debts can never be repaid, then that only highlights the problem with that sort of reasoning. Because if someone takes a life then saves a life, and you claim that one is not enough to make up for the other, then you’re essentially treating life 1 as more valuable than life 2. And what if they take 100 lives but save 1000? Can human lives even be stacked up against each other like that to say which group has more “value” than the other? That’s the paradox of a moral debt, something can not simultaneously be priceless and yet also not hold enough value to balance the scale against itself at the same time.

In real life this can be complicated further because it can be hard to judge whether someone has truly learned from their mistakes and genuinely changed their ways, but in a fictional story you often get to see for sure that the character truly is sincere. So to tie that in to what you said, just because a viewer/reader is capable of accepting a character’s redemption in a fictional setting, where they are 100% certain that the former villain has had a change of heart and feels bad and will continue to do good things into the future, that doesn’t mean it’s a moral failing on the audience’s part. But it’s also worth noting that being willing to give someone a chance to improve themselves and grow as a person instead of demanding their eternal damnation and punishment isn’t a moral failing either even outside of fiction.

I mean if the villain’s redemption is well written then typically the guilt from their past actions is the punishment for said actions, and their current actions are largely focused on atonement and reparation. That sort of thing often makes them even more relatable because while not everyone has killed another person, everyone in the world has hurt someone else at some point, maybe unintentionally, maybe unknowingly, maybe due to extenuating circumstances or their own trauma, or maybe because they were just a worse person at the time. Does that mean they are never allowed to be a better person and must eternally suffer for all the wrongs they’ve committed? Is it not better to encourage their goodness in the present than to forcibly drag them back to when they were bad over and over again for the sake of vindication? Does society really benefit from that sort of thing? And what if they end up saving more lives than they’ve taken? Something to think about.

I mean being obese will result in a hard time growing up no matter what your name is let’s be honest.

If I had been named Triniteigh I would have legally changed my name as soon as I was old enough. That’s an atrocity of a name. Some are so funny they circle back around to something that would at least be interesting to have as a name (Raddix Zephyr is dumb but in more of a fun way, and I would genuinely not mind being named Leviathan), but Triniteigh is just so, so bad.

Pretty sure it’s the fault of the scary awful side for being scary and awful.

Just got my certificate for first aid training and this is not true. It has changed a few times but atm mouth to mouth IS recommended. But if you can only do one then stick to compressions.

In sync you can choose to have either!

That’s unfortunate. It makes it harder to find the original when too many unsourced copies get reposted elsewhere, and then the original creator doesn’t get the credit they deserve. An easy way to keep track of image sources is to add source info into the file save name such as the OP’s name and the site it was saved from.

I took some time to find the original, looks like the OP was nshnv on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/12riaq6/itap_of_tokyo_during_the_rain/

So what’s the source then if this isn’t OC?

Edit with source for those interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/12riaq6/itap_of_tokyo_during_the_rain/

That’s because “I’m sorry” is essentially short for “I feel sorrow”. What it means specifically can differ depending on the context. We have lots of examples of phrases that work like this, for example: if you end a relationship with someone you call it “breaking up” with them. If you pass through a tunnel during a phone call and can’t hear the other person very well or the call drops, they’re “breaking up”. That’s because something “breaking up” can refer to it falling apart or being severed. When you apologize, you feel sorrow over your own actions and/or the hurt they have caused. When you console someone grieving, you feel sorrow for their loss. This, like puns, is not in any way exclusive to the English language.

The punch line is that “son” and “sun” sound the same. “my kid” isn’t a reuse of the punchline any more than “my boy” is, but it reads less awkwardly.