Jeremy Ward38 said:I wouldn't go as far as saying it tastes like a Nestlé King. To be honest, Nestlé is a hundred times better.
Well, look at that—even a pricier placebo works better than the cheap stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/he...cebo.html?_r=1
So, how can we act surprised when an expensive branded ice cream actually tastes better? 😁
But here's the reality: over in Germany, they have Consumer Reports to test food quality and everything else, and their private labels from Aldi and Lidl often score higher than the big brands. The rest is just marketing—something people swallow whole, especially in places like America, where people would probably even buy premium branded trash bags just so the neighbors could see them.
Andrew Booth29 said:If it looks like King and tastes like King, then there’s a very high probability it actually *is* King. I mean, would Nestlé really be foolish enough to discount their own branded product like that? It happens all the time—manufacturers selling the exact same product under a different label just to undercut the price. Though, usually, they try to mask it a little bit more than this...
Lidl ice creams have nothing to do with Nestlé; they're just private labels used across all of Europe, mostly produced in Germany. The quality is pretty much on par with Nestlé, but the price is about a third of what you'd pay otherwise.
Honestly, why would anyone pay a premium just for a "brand" when you can just buy the local stuff...
hollowtrucker77 said:So, if that’s the case, then what exactly qualifies as a trivial answer? So, are we actually going to sit here and debate whether an apple tossed into the air is always going to be dragged back down by gravity, or are we just going to pretend that physics is optional today? You could probably spin the exact same story eighteen different ways if you felt like wasting the breath, but at the end of the day, it’s still the same damn thing—well-known, measured, documented, and theorized to death.
A trivial answer would just be saying, "it happens because of the law of conservation of momentum." But once you explain that law using a deeper principle—like the one mentioned above—it stops being trivial.
Besides, Emmy Noether didn't become famous for some trivial result—not in an era before affirmative action and gender quotas were even a thing. 🙂
hollowtrucker77 said:Given how this whole topic was framed, the answer is honestly pretty trivial: it’s just the energy conservation law. If you actually want a deep dive or some serious analysis, you really need to put forward a specific thesis and give us enough substance to actually debate.
You have to realize that you're the only one who actually knows what you're thinking; everyone else is just reading what's on the screen. So, if you want this thread to head in a productive direction—and avoid ending up like what Joseph Watson3 wrote, where everything just devolves into aimless philosophy—you need to set some actual parameters. As for whether a thread stays up or gets tossed out, that's entirely up to the subforum moderators.
Actually, we’re talking about the conservation of momentum here, not energy—because a body can come to a halt or speed up while its total energy stays exactly the same. The law of conservation of momentum is really just a consequence of the homogeneity of space, which... So, we’re back to Emmy Noether’s theorem.
So, momentum is conserved because the laws of physics don't change depending on where you are in space—basically, thanks to spatial homogeneity. That theorem is one of the heavy hitters in classical physics, so no, the answer isn't exactly trivijalan.
Look, the answer to the question in this thread isn't exactly trivial. There’s actually a logical point here—a clear principle that explains it all. Besides, if we opened this up, the whole thread would just devolve into a bunch of armchair philosophers trying to out-intellectualize each other, and honestly? You could find the answer online in about five seconds anyway...
I think the Alternative subforum is perfectly fine just the way it is—no need to mess with it.
Every forum needs a dedicated corner where ego-maniacs of all stripes (the ones who claim to be wiser than mainstream doctors or more expert than actual scientists, etc.) can coddle their own mental excretions like they’re cradling a newborn—one, naturally, birthed solely by the grace of their "open minds" (tm).
Honestly, it’s great for the hygiene of the rest of the site. The moderators should just let them be, letting them admire their precious little brown babies in peace while proudly showing them off to the audience. From what I can tell, the Alternative section is moderated by the perfect people for the job—folks who clearly understand that kind of maternal love on a personal level.
The thing is, I don't get this concept of partial banning from the Alternative section. If we're doing this, wouldn't it make more sense to partially ban deserving forum members from every single subforum except Alternative, rather than doing it this way?
Peter Stewart6 said:Yeah, it's definitely visible. As for who actually caught it or missed it, I couldn't say—but I certainly did. So, your "I bet nobody noticed" part doesn't really hold up. 🙂
Thanks for the info, I'll go let the sysadmins know. 🙂
No worries at all. Honestly, what I read just left me feeling pretty grossed out. 🤦
This is an absolute scandal!
I am utterly appalled!!
I demand to be deregistered and have every single one of my posts deleted!!!
It shouldn't really impact the server performance much—since the video is hosted elsewhere, it's mostly just hitting the user's bandwidth and (usually) YouTube's servers. That said, I don't think it's a great move; we've already got way too many unnecessary YouTube links cluttering things up as it is.
