this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
3 points (57.1% liked)

Showerthoughts

38700 readers
568 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You can never really do the same thing twice. Time is always moving forward and cannot be replicated. (Barring futuristic time-travel tech.)

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dalacos@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

As an example, steel before 1940s didn't have minuscule traces of atmospheric radiation in it.

Research conducted after the atmosphere had increased radiation would be different to research conducted after, in that vein.

Scavenging WW1 wrecks for non-contaminated steel for use in things like medical equipment is still ongoing, as an example.

Time can certainly change the answer to a question without any input from the individual user.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Rivers and men, yes, but sometimes circumstances are close enough that it doesn't change the results much.

[–] Dalacos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

At -1 I feel the need to state, I am right though, no?

Much and not at all are two vastly varying definitions in science.

And in this, I am right. Downvotes or not. Hill=dying.

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago

If you die on the hill, you'll never know whether the next time is different.

The small variations might not account for a change big enough to be relevant/perceptible, but yeah, I think you're right regardless. 🤷

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Perhaps we cannot actually do the same thing twice in exactly the same way.

But we can perceive that we are doing it a second time in exactly the same way, without perceiving the differences.

So, in practice, it can be replicated within the frame of our flesh-brained awareness.

[–] Dalacos@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I am right.

"Actually in practise" isn't what this post is about.

and at -1 I'll be pedantic.

I am correct. Equivocate as you will. But I am right.

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, I see what you did there. In order to make sure you believe your answer is correct, you added additional details that weren't part of the original statement.

Cool.

[–] Dalacos@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

Buh bye. Cool.