Despite the Capitol’s riot, a survey showed 1/3 of Americans thought Biden’s presidency was illegitimate. The conservatives see the lawsuits as political prosecutions.
I’d say unless the non-trump voters come out to vote in a historical number like the last election, he stands a good chance of becoming a president again. And a number of states have passed laws that would make it harder for some subsets of voters to vote.
Between All Your Base Are Belong To Us and Peanut Butter Jelly Time, you guys are giving me a trip down memory lane! Or down CanIHazCheezburger and Shoop Da Whoops (although those are more recent, I believe)
The suggested use for anyone not bothering to look this up is to deodorize gas and stool but it’s suggested use is for people with colostomy or exposed stomas where smelly gas and stool is a constantly expelled or people with chronic gas and liquid stool.
I wouldn’t want to stick any drug in my body just to stop farting in social situations. Every drug has or could have side effects even Tylenol or aspirin.
Paracetamol often gets touted as being dangerous as it’s the commonest drug used in intentional overdoses, however its LD50 is around 2g/kg, meaning that a 70kg human would usually need to take about 140g to end their life. Paracetamol is usually sold in 250mg tablets, so this translates to around 560 individual tablets. Toxicity occurs at much lower levels, but this very rarely results in death.
A bigger issue is chronic paracetamol toxicity, which is caused by taking very large amounts daily for an extended period of time. This has significant detrimental effects to the liver and kidneys.
In general though, and certainly by comparison to many other drugs that are prescription-only, it’s quite a safe drug. Death only occurs in roughly 0.1% of all cases of paracetamol toxicity, there is no known risk of addiction, there are very low rates of allergic reactions, and allergic reactions that occur are only very rarely anaphylactic.
Setting aside how needlessly passive-aggressive your comment is– most people don’t care about the world at large. They care about their family, their social circle, their tribe/in-group, but not the world at large. Otherwise climate change wouldn’t be as big of an issue in the first place.
If you look at the reply from the person I was actually talking to, you will see that they do not care for the world as a whole. I was not making the point in the comment you are referring to, I was just replying to that person.
This would only make sense if morality, or caring for others was somehow genetic AND unalterable. My parents aren’t bad, per se, but most of my moral and philosophical growth came from other people. Be it teachers, random people, philosophers, or Breadtube.
Of course it is not entirely certain that offspring will have the same ideals as their parents, but it’s clear to see that younger generations are moving in the right direction whereas older generations find it harder to change their behaviour and values.
The point is that climate change is bigger than one or two people, it’s about changing our entire societies so that we all agree that reversing the affects of climate change is the ultimate goal and work together to do something about it. Sure adding people into the mix is not ideal, but without more people with the right mindset we will never achieve the change that is needed.
Let’s not leave the world to the people that couldn’t care less and will continue to ravage it for all they can until it is a desolate wasteland.
Counter opinion… Given the terrible trajectory of our world and society as a whole. Plus how every living generation has failed to do even the bear minimum to solve it… You’re kind of a shitty human being by condemning your children to suffer our mistakes.
Not to mention, you’re not that awesome and ultimately part of the problem, so maybe we don’t need more of you (or me for that matter).
I agree with everything you said. The path to a brighter future is not more humans, its fewer. The idea that thoughtful, intelligent people should feel obligated to reproduce for the benefit of humanity is ridiculous.
I mean, that instance had open registrations with no checks (meaning no email required, no manual approvement, no captcha). Not surprising people were misusing it - you can just automatically create hundreds of accounts in a few seconds.
I have noticed that working remotely really opened up the job market for me. Instead of being limited to where public transportation can bring me within 45 minutes, I can work for any company within Europe from the comfort of my home office. It makes switching jobs so much easier and I am willing to tolerate much less shit before I quit. That degree of freedom might scare companies. They can’t trap me anymore with the costs of uprooting my life for a better job.
I’ve never worked from home, but it seems to me that even if everything else were kept equal, you just saved an hour and a half commute plus the cost of doing so, every day! When you add in the lower cost of food and healthier diet eating at home and a whole host of other advantages. It’s a huge win! Congrats.
I worked from home for ~6 months full time, my experience was that I will never do it full time again. For me, it was waking up, watch the same four walls for 8 hours, eat dinner, sleep, repeat. Perhaps my office could have been better but because I was working with support and had to be available on the phone, I could not really leave my computer for an extended period of time (except for lunch break).
A lot of people make it out to be heaven, working from home. I really missed having people to talk to. I believe that it would have been a much better experience if I could have worked from home 0-5 days per week as I saw fit. Bad morning? Work from home. Waking up fresh? Go to work. I’m assuming that you can walk or bike to work. Few things are worse than being stuck in traffic or being on a crowed bus/train, or missing the bus with 1 min, having to wait 15 min for the next one, when with the bike I can leave whenever I want.
I think it’s very situational. I’m already a big shut-in. Working full time at home might not be great for my mental health. It’s sad to admit I use work for social contact, but it’s true. If you have good social connections outside of work, great.
All that said, this whole debate is very classist. There are loads of jobs, including mine incidentally, that require physically being there. I mostly haven’t paid attention to this debate because it doesn’t apply to me or the people I know, and probably never will.
Conversely, I found out just how many spoons I was using to function interacting with folks on a daily basis and that the strains my extroverted colleagues were talking about without having people were things I’d just lived with and normalized for my entire life because our society forced you to be around people all of the time.
Give me my four walls, pls. I spend every waking hour on a computer anyway, either working or personal, so it’s going to be four walls one way or another.
What’s wrong that is for that bot to exist, the platform must explicitly allow other bots to also exist for fairness sake, it’s a bot floodgate. I think the floodgate should be vehemently shut latched and bolted down sooner than later, and I already think it’s too late.
the platform must explicitly allow other bots to also exist for fairness sake
With platform, you mean instance or community? They can have arbitrary rules and don’t have to be fair. One could say only this specific bot is allowed which we currently use, another could disallow bots unless whitelisted by the mods, or whatever.
Unless this becomes a standard for the fediverse. I’m going to opt-out of fediverse social media altogether. Bots have no place in human based social media : full-stop.
I understood this is the opinion and the request, but still don’t know what harm would be caused by a bot that posts sports team scores to a sports community? Assumed unwanted further bot influx is prevented. The ‘why’ is unclear for me in this case.
The API access for bots allows for other people to access that API and make bots that do other things. You are opening the floodgates to other bots because there isn’t quite the ability to say “only sports bots who post legitmate scores at times when there are real games occurring can post automatically” you see, that is not going to happen, thereby opening the floodgates to all other bots with no recourse.
Why allow bots, marketing assholes, and spammers the platform to post and spam to the fediverse? Why? IT really achieves nothing of value and literally just dilutes real, original user activity and discussion.
Then set up your own instance with no bots, and defederate with any instance that uses bots.
It appears that most people here don’t agree. I have the one repost bot blocked because it was just filling up TIL, but otherwise I don’t personally care as long ad they’re not intrusive.
People like you are why any place of cultural import becomes less and less interesting as you inhabit and deteriorate the standards which used to be upheld from within. You are the ultimate consumer. “I don’t care” is not a position on any philosophical debate, why should it stand here?
Actually, the answer turns out to be pretty interesting.
The short version is that what colors are considered "distinct" are heavily influenced by culture and Newton, from whom we get ROYGBIV, came from a culture which valued the dye called "indego."
Edit: It also seems Newton thought the number 7 had cosmic significance and thought there ought to be 7 colors.
The history of Orange is fascinating. In English it wasn’t really considered a major colour but referred to as a shade of red (as in red deer), yellow (sometimes red-saffron). It was the introduction of Oranges that led to things being called Orange coloured.
There’s a similar lack of distinction between Green/Blue in the ancient world.
Orange the fruit comes from the Sanskrit name naranga through other languages. Along the way it lost the N (well technically the n moved to the a, so we have an orange 🙂)
There’s a similar lack of distinction between Green/Blue in the ancient world.
How would that arise? There’s blues in the sky that are very distinct from the greens of plants. Or are the blue detecting rods (or is it the cones that detect colour?) that new that we can perceive blue more than they could in early recorded history?
They were simply considered shades of the same colour, that’s all. The light spectrum is continuous our breakdown of the continuity into discrete colours is purely arbitrary.
The colour we call sky-blue is considered a separate colour altogether in Japan (Misu)
Pink is named after the flowers Pinks and is called Rose in some languages but we use Rose for a different colour which is more magenta.
Notice how we don’t have words for some colours so use adjectives (bluey -green) There are some languages that don’t use or have any words for colours but alsways describe them. For example “bright fire like”
You know how some people can tell you the exact shade of two colors that you consider identical? Turns out that giving colors distinct names in our mind makes us way better at seeing the difference and that is how we chop up the color spectrum from an infinite number of colors to seven. You think blue is completely different because you went to school and being able to tell the difference between blue and green was a requirement for you. If the school told you that the sky is a light shade of green and the forest is a dark shade of green you would adjust your brain accordingly.
I guess my point is that all colors are made up by the state and we indoctrinate our children into the government sanctioned system at an early age.
There’s a great Radiolab about this, highly recommend a listen.
MAY 21, 2012
Why Isn’t the Sky Blue?
What is the color of honey, and “faces pale with fear”? If you’re Homer–one of the most influential poets in human history–that color is green. And the sea is “wine-dark,” just like oxen…though sheep are violet. Which all sounds…well, really off. Producer Tim Howard introduces us to linguist Guy Deutscher, and the story of William Gladstone (a British Prime Minister back in the 1800s, and a huge Homer-ophile). Gladstone conducted an exhaustive study of every color reference in The Odyssey and The Iliad. And he found something startling: No blue! Tim pays a visit to the New York Public Library, where a book of German philosophy from the late 19th Century helps reveal a pattern: across all cultures, words for colors appear in stages. And blue always comes last. Jules Davidoff, professor of neuropsychology at the University of London, helps us make sense of the way different people see different colors in the same place. Then Guy Deutscher tells us how he experimented on his daughter Alma when she was just starting to learn the colors of the world around, and above, her.
You can actually see it in modern times. The Himba tribe in Africa doesn’t have a concept of the colour blue. There’s not even a word for it, as far as they’re concerned blue is just a shade of green. To us it seems obvious, the sky is blue and the plants are green but to them it’s all different shades of green. It’s not a genetic thing, they’re seeing the exact same colours as anybody else, their culture just doesn’t distinguish between the two colours.
Well it was the 1600s and he was a natural philosopher. Back in those days, all sorts of weird stuff ended up in the books because it fit a certain philosophy. Our modern understanding of empirical science is a relatively new idea.
You’re not selling your account so they can datamine reddit. You’re selling it so that they can put ads on Reddit that look like a user commenting. Which is also a thing Reddit does.
I would be inclined to agree with you, but shoulder dislocation during a punch is not uncommon in boxing. There was a viral video regarding this where the boxer dislocated his arm due to the sheer force of his punch (missed the opponent), the coach put it back in, and then went on fighting in the same round.
I think if my opponent removed the head of their last challenger and still had an arm left, I’d back out of that fight. I imagine next in line would too
A local park ranger I know likes to remark that our state tree is a grass. (I’m in Florida.)
But I’d say that’s also inaccurate. IMO, grasses are in the family Poaceae, and palms are in the family Arecaceae. I guess one could remark that our state tree is a commelinid…but I don’t think tourists would get as much of a kick out of that.
Typical trees belong to a group of plants called dicots
Whaaaat? Swiftly ignoring all gymnosperms? The temperate zones are full of trees that aren’t dicots, or even angiosperms! Focusing on some biological traits that aren’t crucial to the definition of a tree sounds like the author already likes their neat categories and wants to retroactively justify them…
Indeed, it simply is not a phylogenetic categorization but a physio-ecological one. Tree, like shrub, liana, herbaceous, woody/non-woody are all terms solely used to place plants into functional groups based on how they grow. None of these has to do with their taxonomy.
So the question is, what is a tree and is having secondary growth necessary to be one? Because monocots, like palms are, don’t have secondary growth, they use some workarounds. But why should that matter in the definition of a tree? I don’t know. So yeah, a coconut palm should be considered a tree. But it hasn’t got to do with phylogenetics (like explained in the article you linked).
Also, millennia ago there have been vast forests of lycopods!! Just imagine huge trees that are actually spikemosses. So why shouldn’t a palm not be a tree?
my definition of a tree is basically “a plant consisting of a single pillar-like robust trunk”.
most plants can be trees, especially ones that generally grow as bushes, if they are prodded into doing so by pruning and whatever other pressures, and there are some plants that seem to flip a coin to decide whether they grow into bushes or trees.
I would love doing this. Just imagine pointing at a painting or model of two dinosaurs fighting and yelling ‘MAH GAWD HES KILLING HIM! HE BROKE HIS BACK!!!’
“And as we can see from this computer model of continental drift in the late Triassic era… AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, THE SUPERCONTINENT OF PANGAEA IS BROKEN IN HALF!”
kbin.life
Top