Thanks for the help!

Turns out it was a hardware issue - I eventually found that I couldn't connect to Wi-Fi in my mint live usb or Windows 10 on that computer either after a bit more testing. A full power off and unplug seems to have reset whatever was wrong with the Wi-Fi adapter and all is working again, thank goodness.

Thanks again for taking the time to help! It's what I've come to love about this community in the two months I've been in it!

I'm on Linux mint 22 and use surfshark as my VPN. It has a Killswitch to ensure that I can't be connected to the Internet when the VPN isn't active.

But, when I turned on the Killswitch, suddenly all of my Wi-Fi options disappeared completely from my network manager. I can't connect to the Internet at all - the option is completely gone.

I disabled the Killswitch and rebooted but that didn't do anything.

I used time shift to revert to a snapshot from yesterday but still no Wi-Fi options.

I tried disabling and stopping the process that turning on the Killswitch enables, but no luck there either.

Uninstalling surfshark doesn't do anything either and just requires another time shift.

At this point I'm at my wit's end. I have no idea what to do. Any help would be greatly appreciated

The TSA allows food though?

I've always been a fan of tyromancy.

Yup that's exactly what pissed off Houdini so much that he ended his friendship with Arthur Conan Doyle.

Linguists are still divided on this topic, called the "Critical Period" hypothesis - the question of whether there is a "Critical Period" during childhood when children naturally acquire language better than adults.

The data in favor cited in pop articles often comes from "feral children" like Genie, but as Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world mentioned, how much of this inability is due to natural brain development and how much is due to years of unimaginable trauma is hard to know.

Other research has cited brain plasticity differences and brain matter changes that occur during puberty that seems like it may be linked to language acquisition.

Again, however, the counterpoint of "It takes ten-ish years of pure immersion for children to learn a language, and how many adults actually do that" is pretty frequent.

I'm still undecided about what I think - maybe something in the middle, like "humans do lose some neuroplasticity during puberty that may inhibit language acquisition a bit, but adults acquiring native-like fluency is still possible with enough immersion".

They need to hurry up and tow that windmill outside of the environment.

I switched my four home computers to Linux Mint this week. Windows is just more trouble than it's worth nowadays.

It's on purpose to force you to use their shitty app.

The worst part of this comic is that philosophy bro is clearly not even very good at his field, since there's a much better Cartesian parallel to be made here (and I'm not even a philosopher).

"I think, therefore I am" is actually leaving out (imo) the most important part of Descartes's argument. He was trying to find literally anything that he could know without a doubt was true. The problem is, that's really hard, as our existence-troubled shopper has discovered. Descartes could doubt the existence of God, he could doubt the existence of goodness, of truth. All of these things might not actually exist. Descartes could even doubt his own existence.

In fact, literally the only thing Descartes could conclude without a doubt was true was the fact that he was doubting at all. So, since that's the only thing he could be sure of, that's what he built his argument for rationalism upon.

This perfectly mirrors the existential crisis the so-called philosopher comes upon, but instead of starting the shopper right where Descartes started, he instead just provides what must seem like almost a non sequitur in context, since if the man is currently doubting his existence, he can also doubt that he's thinking. What he cannot doubt, is that he is in fact doubting.

"I doubt. Therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am."

So "'s" is what's called a "clitic". It's a tiny little piece of meaning that can't stand by itself and has to "lean" on a neighboring thing to be grammatical.

The interesting thing is that their distribution is syntactic, not morphological. So, instead of attaching to a word, like affixes do, "'s" instead attaches to entire noun phrases. This includes all adjectives, prepositional phrases, and even subordinate clauses, as long as they're part of the possessor noun phrase.

So, "the dude's car"? Perfectly fine, and it even looks like an affix here. "The dude over there's car"? Perfectly fine. "The dude I went to school with but who forgot that he ate a capybara yesterday's car"? Perfectly grammatical in English thanks to the power of clitics.

Bonus fun fact: "'s" used to actually be a suffix, but somehow became separated over time, and it's a big deal in diachronic syntactic theory, because things are only ever supposed to evolve toward being a suffix, but "'s" is one of the few things that seems like it evolved the other way, which throws a wrench into how we usually view the process (called "grammaticalization").

In short, Anon's sentence is a perfectly cromulent use of the English language.