I’ve heard before that there is a tendency of these tests to over-report European ancestry and under-report or misidentify ethnic minorities. Something to do with the underlying datasets not being inclusive enough because those populations are smaller and don’t purchase these DNA tests at the same rate as Western Europeans.
There also seems to be a weird fetishisation of First Nations ancestry in parts of the US. I’ve also been told I have Cherokee ancestors, but it didn’t show in my dna ancestory either.
I’m up in northern Ontario in Canada and I had a French Canadian neighbor who loved watching John Wayne movies. He often told me that he had Cherokee ancestry too.
I told him a hundred times that this wasn’t Cherokee territory because I was full blooded Ojibwe Cree from this area and we had never heard of Cherokee. I kept telling him that he was probably part Ojibwe or Algonquin which is who the French mixed with in our area … but he really wanted to be a John Wayne movie Indian.
Definitely bunk because there were no Cherokee princesses. Could still have some sort of Native American ancestry but that whole Cherokee Princess thing was so overused at one point that it became a trope.
If someone in your past could get a good tan, it was common to say that they were part “< insert native american tribe from your area>” because you definitely didn’t want to be perceived as part black.
I’m sure that was a factor in many of these instances. That said in our family my impression was it was more of a “here’s something special about us” type thing, like there’s nothing otherwise noteworthy.
Only time I’ve had an issue with Firefox requiring >5 minutes of diagnosis was when a shared library was deleted during a freeware uninstall. What an odd piece of criticism.
Also, brave’s president is right wing, and I dislike that. Like “pls no step on snek” right wing.
Everybody said that soldering 5v stuff onto mains voltage could not be a wholesome experience. Apparently, they didn't tell Mehdi because he just went out and made it one.
Fun fact, even if you try to hold a breaker in the ‘on’ position, it would still trip the exact same way. Pretty smart design (to stop pretty dumb people killing themselves or others).
I could, but it wouldn’t do much of anything unless a path through my body had considerably less resistance than the water between the conductors in the duck.
Strengthen governments? Corporations have been specifically sowing distrust in government so that they can convince voters to weaken regulations and vote against their own interests. How are corporations strengthening governments when they benefit from weak government?
Corporations benefit from Capitalist governments. Larger Capitalists benefit when it is more difficult to compete, such as with strong IP laws or high startup costs, giving them free reign for monopoly.
They also love large militaries, as the MIC makes a ton of money off the suffering of people worldwide.
Regulations help to protect large corporations from competition, and then the larger the government is the more contracts it gives out. Are you saying we need a bigger stronger government?
Regulations help protect people from corporations. This libertarian take is total nonsense. What makes competition difficult for new entrants is the overwhelming size of modern day multinational corporations and the capital investment required to wage any sort of real competition which is something that is only going to be fronted by other extremely wealthy interests. So, yes, we do need bigger, stronger governments in relation to those very powerful corporations, specifically strong enough to break them up. Or ideally nationalize them entirely.
That is kind of true but it also protects corporations from small businesses. For example min wage harms small businesses much more than large corporations. You can like the “protection” but then you will get what you get with corporations and costs. If you opt for the bigger government then you will get things like unaffordable houses and inflation, so dont complain when you get what you asked for.
In fact, minimum wage earners tend to put a greater portion of their earnings back into the local economy vs. savings and increases help or at least don’t impact particularly negatively small business. Neoclassical economics is a joke.
Our current economic situation is the product of decades of regulation cutting supply side (aka neoclassical) economics championed by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan, which still dominates today. You know where housing is not unaffordable? Vienna, Austria. A place where better than half the residents live in social housing. The product of a strong government and regulation.
So your theory is that housing is so expensive because of less regulation? And if we had more regulations in how houses are built housing would be cheaper?
Yes, of course. Banning short term rentals for example is a regulation that would put downward pressure on housing prices. Banning investment companies such as Blackrock, Blackstone, etc from purchasing single family homes, duplexes, 4-plexes and the like would do the same. Whereas the lack of regulation around these things has contributed to home price inflation. The idea that people are unable to afford homes because there is too much regulation holds water like a sieve.
It’s really frustrating that you read the comment outlining the kind of regulation that would help, yet you somehow think the only kind of regulation possible is “make houses harder and more expensive to build” and dip out of the conversation with a “wow ur dumb lol”. It’s almost as if you’ve been arguing in bad faith and have no information to back up any of your takes.
I understand your frustration but what am I supposed to say to someone that just repeats and believes ANY propaganda that their side tells them? What he said is so so far off from what reality is, its literally turned into a cult at this point.
Wait, so this entire conversation you didn’t make a single, tangible point or statement, just sarcastically asked questions doubting the possibility of their being another opinion besides your own, and when they answer all of these questions with sources and examples you run away because they’re the ones repeating what their side tells them…? And accuse them of being in the cult…
ZING!!! The difference is that I know exactly why all the thing that are listed is mere propaganda, I have heard and seen the same bullshit talking points over and over. If you guys want to just do what your team says, that fine, just dont think you are are actually thinking for yourself.
The difference is that I know exactly why all the thing that are listed is mere propaganda
Think about this outside the context of this conversation. Do you understand how this is cyclical thinking? “I don’t have to look at the other side’s sources or perspective because I already know they’re wrong and I’m right.” This is the EXACT logic you used with your statement of, “can you convince an NPC of anything?” No, when they think like you, you absolutely cannot, because as you’ve just stated, you are not receptive to actual discussion, you think you know everything there is to know about both sides of the debate, and you’re not willing to engage in anything that you don’t already agree with.
You are so blatantly displaying all of the one sided brainwashed traits you think you’re so far above, in the same comments you accuse others of being one sided in. God help us.
Edit: also lol at the “if you just want to do what your side says then fine”. My guy showed examples of the regulations he’s talking about actually working and said, “here’s some sources of this working, we could do something similar”. Assumedly without reading anything, you blindly said it wouldn’t work and hur dur ur dumb lol. Which person is just doing what their side says again? Yeesh.
One big thing you are missing is that I think the other side you are talking about is wrong also.
I dont have a side here, I literally do housing, and I fully understand every aspect of why its expensive. I dont care about narratives, I care about actual facts about why housing is not getting built. You guys are just repeating propaganda that falls apart under the most basic scrutiny. The problem is that if you are not able or willing to do that scrutiny then I am not going to help you, you have made your decision.
If I’m understanding you correctly, when you say you do housing, you mean that you work on the construction side of things, either literally physically building homes or working with companies that do so.
How does this directly relate to, say, regulation on how many vacant homes a rental company can own? Or regulation on zoning / type of housing able to be built in certain areas?
“Housing not getting built” is not the only issue that needs to be addressed, and seeing as it’s the only issue you’ve given any insight on, it’s hard to believe that you, a single person in a country full of people trying to figure it out, “fully understand every aspect of why it’s expensive.” It doesn’t matter to the average homebuyer how much a house costs to build, if the company that paid to have it built is selling it for 3x that price, or they’re only renting, or they just want to let the house sit to drive supply lower.
There are reasons that houses are expensive to build, and there’s reason that houses are expensive to buy. There’s obviously a lot of overlap but they are not the same lists. There is regulation that exists that can mitigate the latter without exacerbating the former. You are simply refusing to look at examples.
I will give you the long and short of it; you guys are looking at the insignificant things that account for just a small amount of the problem (cue you googling and finding an alarmist article), the big problem is that its too expensive and hard to build. The reason it is too hard to build is 99% due to what the government does. More regulations will just make it worse.
Ok but without regulation you get poverty wages, 12 hour shifts, 6 day work weeks, and food with no nutrition unless you think lead is a vital mineral.
Just among so many other things, like the lead poisoned baby food from March this year, you clown, the FDA was established in 1906, and Republicans are, right now, trying to abolish child labor laws and hiring 12 year olds in meat packing plants.
People who say stuff like this have never tried. You’ll never hear a person who actually starts a business say anything of the sort. Usually insane tax rates is their gripe.
Ikr. I think were now supposed to say something about how this kind of interaction is so reddit. Loudly enough that we can ignore that it’s just how people behave in general.
Cause I promise if I talked like that in real life I’d get eye rolls and wouldn’t be invited out anymore. It’s a great example of “theory is fine but you need to interact with others.”
I know a few people who use it/its pronouns. While I agree that treating animals with respect is a good thing, it pronouns are not necessarily a sign of disrespect or objectification.
Well in that case that is different but usually when we say “it” that is used to refer to physical objects like book or treat. Animals being seen as property harms them.
No, because people can be respectful of animals while using the word “it”.
You’re asserting all this extra stuff that the word does not convey, because you’ve unconsciously decided that is the only way to use the word.
But as others are telling you, and is true, it is common in English to use “it” for animals. Despite what your lit teacher told you, that does not create disrespect for the animals. People have been caring for animals, people with hearts, people who don’t treat animals the way they would a book, while using the word “it”, for as long as the English language had existed.
That thing where you can’t have empathy for an “it”, that a rule in your head.
People have been caring for animals, people with hearts, people who don’t treat animals the way they would a book, while using the word “it”, for as long as the English language had existed.
I doubt that when factory farms exist.
Humanity kills more than 80 billion land animals and trillions of aquatic animals ever year.
As someone who has been vegan for 25 years, I really appreciate your choices and empathize with your motivations. If, however, your goal is to make a difference, you might want to avoid alienating your audience before you’ve even said anything.
Using “it” for an animal is perfectly reasonable. An argument can be made for using they instead but we even use it for humans occasionally (e.g. Jack checked on the baby, it was sleeping peacefully).
When pedophiles try and use logic, it’s ALWAYS going to be a bad faith comparison that illustrates themselves as the virtuous knight in shining armor to women with zero agency.
Well, it’s too late now, but if you ever see eye protection that says “NASA approved“ it’s definitely lying (NASA doesn’t certify commercial items) and probably not protective.
I wouldn’t say so. They are inexperienced. They don’t know where the bottleneck of most of the modern software is (it’s io in 80-90% of cases) and how to optimize software without rewriting it to C++
How are they ignorant? It’s a known fact that java is slow, at least slower than some others. Sure, it’s still fast enough for 95% of use cases, but most code will run faster if written in, say, C. Will have 10x the amount of code and twice as many bugs though.
the jvm brings enough bugs to outweigh any benefits there…
it is relatively fast, but it’s slow in that it takes up a bunch of resources that could be doing other things…
i decline your invite to debate the merits of java and jvm… i will instead walk my dog through this beautiful park here…
but, it’s all been said on top level comments on this post.
it’s trash, and honestly, even if it was perfect, sun microsystems has ruined any potential benefits.
Java is indeed slower than C, Rust, in some cases than Go.
But that doesn’t mean that
code will run faster if written in, say, C
Again, like 80-90% of production code are bounded by disk/network io operations. You will gain performance from using C in embedded systems and in heavy calculations (games, trading, simulations) only.
Which is exaxtly what I said, that it’s fast enough for most use cases.
In theory though, you will “gain performance” by rewriting it (well) in C for literally anything. Even if it’s disk/io, the actual time spent in your code will be lower, while the time spent in kernel mode will be just as long.
For example, you are running a server which reads files and returns data based on said files. The act of reading the file won’t be much faster, but if written in C, your parsers and actual logic behind what to do with the file will be.
But it’s as you said, this actual tiny performance gain isn’t worth it over development/resource cost most of the time.
My favourite is “all the boilerplate” then they come up with go’s error checking where you repeat the same three lines after every function call so that 60% of your code is the same lines orlf error checking over and over
When you handle all your errs the same way, I’d say you’re doing something wrong. You can build some pretty strong err trace wrapping errs. I also think it’s more readable than the average try catch block.
Yeah, that’s the other thing - it does become easier to accidentally fail to deal with errors and the go adherents say they do all of that verbose BS to make error handling more robust. I actually like go, but there’s so much BS with ignoring the pain points in the language.
My dad asked me if I could build a site for him. I tried, but ultimately didn’t have the chops (I can customize Wordpress, but this was supposed to be from scratch and I didn’t keep up when things like CSS came into being; old). I sent him to hire an outside party.
Here’s the thing: he wanted his menus vertical on the left side. I told him that’s not how it should be done; they should be at the top. But he was adamant. Later, he told me that his web consultant shop had also said the same. It’s the only time he ever said, “you were right,” about anything like in my entire life. Not that he was an asshole (though he really was when I was growing up). It’s just not something he said. And no one can take that from me. I even called my mom and told her.
Still, happy for you that your dad could humble himself to you. That’s really hard for some people, even when they’d like to, it’s like your brain just won’t compute how to say it without coming out wrong so you never say it.
I’m looking at a page right now that has some buttons for “Subscribe, Create a post, Block community” on the side. But I guess it’s on the right side and maybe since they’re buttons it doesn’t count as a menu.
We have only 1080px in vertical, part of which is also used for Taskbars, titlebars and toolbars in most cases. Then there is this trend of sites not using most of the horizontal space for main body text.
So, what reason do we have to not use the wasted side-space and instead congest the already low vertical space?
I would understand if it were a mobile-only site or if you were explicitly talking about the vertical version of it, but even for 4:3, I won’t consider a sidebar to be a bad idea, unless perhaps, it was German.
Your dad is right. On desktop, navigation is on the left. On tablet, you shrink it to a rail. On mobile it should be a dismissible nav drawer.
The top menus, especially the flyover(on mouse hover), are bad for accessibility because they convert a non-committal action (hover) to a context changing one (focus). It’s a uniquely web-only invention and thankfully falling out of usage. (Unless you mean menubar/toolbar. Those are fine but extremely rare on Web.)
lemmy.world
Top