Also karma on Reddit is basically irrelevant. The only place it matters is in automoderation removing posts and comments for users under a certain level of karma.
Sure, that’s what I’m saying though. Anyone who posts regularly has enough karma that it makes no material difference. It’s one of those measures with high specificity when you have negative or low karma and almost no specificity once you get beyond some arbitrary minimum.
Karma’s return diminishes almost completely after you hit the bare minimum required not to get automoderated.
Posting comics on Reddit, I found it a quick way to see how well I made something and what people generally liked. Eventually though I started to become a little skeptical of the numbers, and hated having to play this game where those numbers might be better when posting at different times and different days. I couldn’t help but feel like some of them were bought initially to heat, or boost their posts.
I started to absolutely loathe those numbers, but I don’t know what you can do to replace them.
Which is honestly freaking dumb. Sure you can do it with a big community but it will speed up the hivemind and alienate new users and frankly did nothing to curb bots because bots just farmed karma elsewhere on a sub where it was open by spamming posts and comments. And then went right back on the “threshold” subs.
Probably people from Reddit defending the idea of a karma system, they always say that they’re made up internet points but the fact that Karma restrictions exist and are enforceable proves that wrong.
I once wanted to post a meme on r/memes. My post got removed because I needed a lot more karma (my estimation was that I needed 1k each for both comments and posts but it wouldn’t actually tell me how much I needed). I REALLY hope that doesn’t appear here. It just blocks people from making and sharing content with others.
Yeah this wasn’t some spec ops vet, it was a 20 year old kid that just watched a cop retreat down the stairs to radio for help, he knew he had seconds, was probably shaking like crazy, and was shooting a store bought ar-15, and as you said, knew he either pulled the trigger and died, or didn’t, and then also probably died
I’m not sure I like this thinking. It’s almost making an excuse for the shooter. They could have decided not to shoot at any point. The very fact they made it long enough to shoot with so many eyes on them shows they had a way out without dying.
I know it’s a weird argument considering your comment was really about something else, but assuming this was mental illness people have to know that it’s never too late. That they could always get help.
I’m not sure I like this thinking. Cops shoot people because they think their cell phone is a gun. Admittedly the SS should be more professional than your average street cop.
someone in another thread was like, “he had a scope!” and i’m like, “so? have you ever shot through a scope? it’s not like a video game where scope guarantees a headshot. it just makes it a bit easier.”
130m is really far, and an AR-15 isn’t even a sniper rifle. the fact he hit trump at all is pretty amazing.
One report has a cop surprising him too, and he pointed the gun at the cop. So it was turn around for cop > turn back around > aim > fire. I don’t think I’ve seen the time between the cop and firing but I think it was quick. Dude was probably shaking like crazy.
Woah, naw 130 meters is not far at all for an AR-15. Max effective range for a point target is 500 meters, meaning you can accurately hit an average sized person at that range. If you have something like a standard issued trijicon ACOG RCO, look at the BDC (Bullet Drop Compensation) lines go all the way to 800m. Interestingly enough too, the width of those lines is the width of an average person’s shoulders at that range.
Their comments on the AR accuracy are blowing my mind. I hit all 40 targets and got marksman with the M16 and I never touched a gun before when we went to the range to qualify, a few others did also and everyone hit pretty damn accurately up to 300 yards away all on iron sights. And a properly sighted scope helps significantly, especially if you’ve planned your shot in advance. The only way someone thinks a sniper rifle is needed for those ranges surely has to be ignorant of what it’s like to shoot one of these guns.
Yeah my first time at a range for a beginner’s class my wife and I took our gun (A Springfield Armory 9mm, can’t remember the specific model) and of course they supplied us with a .22 handgun. Our first round my wife does pretty good with her shots with our 9mm. I’m low on almost all of mine. “Haha psycho_driver looks like your wife’s wearing the holster in your family.” We trade off for the next round and I’m nailing center and my wife’s shooting low. Their gun sights were off pretty bad and that was at something like 50’ targets. They swapped that gun out and the rest of the day went pretty good. I ended up with the highest accuracy out of that bunch.
This is…not entirely accurate. 200 yards is WELL within 556x45’s effective range. Like by a lot. At that range your bullet isn’t even dropping more than 4 inches.
It’s not that it’s a super easy shot for a novice, but saying that it’s remarkable that he even hit him because of the range is crazy.
It’s remarkable because of the stress and lack of training.
It’s remarkable because of the stress and lack of training.
That’s what I’m talking about. Anyone with little experience can take a much longer shot than that (at a range, at a stationary target, when they are calm, cool, and collected), but consider his target, the scoping he was doing, and that he was already being followed/tracked, he was probably freaked the hell out. It’s incredible that he got a single shot as close as he did.
It’s also an absolute and ridiculous security failure that he got a shot off at all.
Also, a local police officer was alerted to him. The cop then went up there, where he says Crooks pointed his rifle at him and he retreated to get help. So this added a bunch of stress and dramatically cut the time frame to take his shot. I think this may have played into the miss, assuming what the cop was reported saying, is what happened
i read another post that really pissed me off about the cops’ response. apparently, they saw him scoping out buildings with a rangefinder for a while beforehand, and watched him set up and take the shot without doing much to stop him.
IIRC one saw him up there scoping around, but thought it may be SS, as their plans weren’t well communicated to the lowest ranks, the cops on the ground. However, when other people described him one cop went up there. He started shooting immediately afterward. So he may have notified them ASAP, like on his radio, but it was too late. Crooks spot got blown and it forced him to act.
Or so this seems to be the narrative at this early point
That reminds me of the time, quite a few years ago, Amazon tried to automate resume screening. They trained a machine learning model with anonymized resumes and whether the candidate was hired. Then they looked at what the AI was looking at. The model had trained itself on how to reject women.
Another similar “shortcut” I’ve heard about was that a system that analyzed job performance determined that the two key factors were being named “Jared” and playing lacrosse in high school.
And, these are the easy-to-figure-out ones we know about.
If the bias is more complicated, it might never be spotted.
Edit the moderators of the vegan community have decided that they don’t want you to read what was written in the thread and have removed all of my comments
They only need to be pregnant once. The calf milk is different than normal milk and can not be sold. The stuff we drink is what happens after a calf is born but you never stop milking so the cow stays productive. I think you need to revisit mamal biology. Once the process of Milk production is started milk will be produced in most mammals till the long term cessation of mamary tisssue stimulation.
Im sorry, but what kind of mammal biology are you talking about that says that two different types of milk come from the same animal?
Also, milk production usually does go down somewhat over time and sometimes even does cease, and it’s different for every individual, which makes it less predictable and less profitable to just impregnate a cow once. This is why dairy farmers almost always try to impregnate their cows yearly. Here’s one source, there’s plenty more coming up if you look it up on a search engine though www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/…/farming
Even if what you said was true (spoilers: it’s not and you’re making shit up, most dairy cows are impregnated once a year) your argument is that it’s ok because we only rape and kill the cows calf shortly after birth once.
It’s fine that you have shitty opinions, but stop spreading misinformation to support them. And definitely stop doing it while using big words to smugly pretend you’re smarter than other people.
Nope that’s not how it works at all. They keep reimpregnanting the mother and then they take the calf away for slaughter while the mother cries for her child for months on end.
Cows are mammals. They produce milk for their calves, its not something that cows just naturally produce. So the dairy industry only exists from repeated forcible impregnation.
They’re the same industry. Impregnate cows to keep them producing milk, steal the babies away and either raise them to get impregnated or send them to be slaughtered for veal. You’re either lying or clueless and I don’t really care to find out which it is anymore, I’ve lost interest. Have fun.
You realise that veal is often just the calves taken from dairy cows, right? If you drink milk you are already supporting veal. They’re killed anyway, it’s just the difference between them being discarded or being sold.
You see part of the problem with the system then. This is why vegans go as far as possible and practicable, because animal abuse is built into everything and is not optional. We’re trying to minimize it where we can, and use that momentum to eventually get rid of some of the malevolent built in nonsense we all have to deal with. Nobody should be subsidizing cow rapists and murders, and it shouldn’t be a requirement to live here to.
You’re obviously not listening to what I’m saying.
I understand you have strong feelings about your beliefs but not everyone does.
When you attack someone for not sharing your feelings you are as bad as the anti-abortion people or the republicans who want to take away the rights of the LGBTs.
How the fuck did you think milk was produced? This is literally grade school biology. Farmers rape cows for their milk, and you pay them for the privilege.
I think you seriously underestimate how much non-human raping goes on in the animal world. Many species have dicks that have evolved specifically to facilitate rape.
What does that have to do with humans choosing to rape cows for profit? Total non-sequitur. Bears shit in the woods, does that mean you do too? Animals rape, therefore you should too?
It’s literally penetrating a genitals to impregnate them against their will for our own benefit, the definition of rape. Saying you don’t care about the rape of cows and will keep eating dairy is your opinion, but denying that it is rape is just straight up cognitive dissonance.
It’s like if you pay a hitman to do some murders for you. Are you a murderer? I guess not technically, but ‘conspirator to commit murder’ doesn’t have the same ring to it. Thus we just opt for rapist, since you support an industry that annually rapes cows and kills their calves so that you can enjoy a tall glass of cow juice.
It’s ok if that’s what you want to do. No judgement here.
You can’t really compare the two things. You have limited control over how your taxes are spent, you can vote on how you want them spent and protest the actions of your government, but outside of that it’s not up to you.
With milk, though, you are directly financing it by buying the product, and the product wouldn’t exist without those things happening. So you are in effect a ‘conspirator to cow rape’ since your demand incites the act.
Ok, so because you’re being needlessly pedantic here is the comparison.
I am not directly responsible for the wars and murders my government commits because of the reasons I stated above. But if they had a big bucket that said ‘put money in this big bucket to directly support the wars and murders of your government’ and I were to put money in of my own free will - then yes I would be directly responsible for those wars and murders.
If I do not put money in I am not directly responsible.
That’s the difference between paying taxes and buying a bottle of cow milk.
I guess I don’t agree with you. If I buy a product that specifically requires the death of an animal I would feel like I am responsible for the death of that animal and monetarily incentivising the death of other animals.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone I am not innocent of murder.
You don’t get to support an industry that kills animals and then say you’re not responsible for the death of animals.
the animal is dead long before I walk into a store or restaurant, and the people who did the killing have already been paid. I have no responsibility for that.
Without getting into a semantics debate on what rape is. The reason the word is used is because dairy cows are impregnated by fisting the cows asshole and stimulating their cervix before squirting a semen gun into their vagina. The cows cannot consent to this so the word rape is used. Some people might not consider it rape for whatever reason and yes, the word was probably chosen to be provocative. But that’s the explanation.
Beyond burgers are literally right there lmao. You don’t need lab grown meat to stop supporting animal abuse, it’s a thinly veiled excuse to avoid having to change and grow as a person
2 things, 1) I can’t afford it as a regular item 2) Id say they’re maybe 70% there, there’s still a taste and texture issue. I personally don’t mind it and would happily switch over if it weren’t for #1
Vegans/Vegetarians will never get the vast majority of people out there to give up meat, best shot is that lab meat if they can get the cost equivalent to real meat.
Sounds like the perfect thing to advocate that the government subsidizes while the tech matures and comes down in cost on its own.
70% is way more than enough there that it’s no excuse to support animal abuse
Like I said, if I could afford it I would have switched already long ago, I personally am fine with the taste and texture. But for many others, that 30% is gonna be a deal breaker.
Impossible burgers cooked right on the skillet are pretty damn good, imo. And easy. I’m no vegetarian but we keep them in our weeknight rotation.
Edit: Connect is messing up and I can no longer see some comments below. The study you cite, SMCF, uses the Nova classification system to define ultra-processed foods, meaning that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don’t know what a “health food” would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what “Impossible” etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn’t processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I’d probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what “processed” food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one’s health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one’s health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely “processed” versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn’t a worthwhile comparison.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of “ultra-processed foods” as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Modern plant-sourced diets may incorporate a range of ultra-processed foods (UPF), such as sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery, but also the ‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers that are produced with ingredients originating from plants and marketed as meat and dairy substitutes.
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
Greater numbers of people are choosing plant-based meat substitutes for various reasons, including perceived health benefits.
While leaner cuts of beef can still have a place in a heart-healthy meal plan, consumers may be more willing to overeat plant-based meat substitutes, but their high sodium and saturated fat content may pose health risks.
As an alternative to over-processed vegan foods, clinicians may advise patients to consider leaner cuts of meat and incorporate wholesome vegetarian superfoods, such as nuts, greens, and vegetables, into their diets.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
However, the Impossible Burger has almost five times the sodium content as a beef patty (327 mg vs beef’s 66 mg). Pair an Impossible Burger with a bun and condiments, and consumers will be on the fast track to a high-sodium meal.
Vegans need to downvote anyone that disagrees when them is proof their ideas cannot stand scrutiny. They do not relish in a debate of in any capacity. They don’t even have original ideas, it’s the same couple talking points because it’s ideology base. They call themselves converts but won’t accept it’s a religion.
This was the investigation and they apparently let him go if he’s posting about it. Right or wrong I’m not surprised they postured strongly at a guy making threat jokes.
“Your call is very important to us… but not so important that we would actually do anything about it like hiring more representatives. This message will repeat every 5 minutes until you get frustrated and hang up.”
Ugh I still have an air conditioner that was dead out of the box (bought it off season so didn’t use it till summer…summer 2020)
Tried a bunch of times to call in but “due to the pandemic” (what a fucking catchall for anti-consumer behavior…if a huge company hadn’t figured out how to keep their call center staffed 5 months into it, then it’s clearly intentional), nobody ever answered the call in the hour or so I’d wait on hold, several times.
yeah, but they would be better able to put an rma through for you. it is kind of on them to guarantee a working product actually. if the manufacturer gave them a faulty product it’s up to them to get the manufacturer to fix it. most retailers have an entire system and process for this kind of stuff. things show up to retailers broken all the time. part of their job is to guarantee against that and deal with it if they fail to before you buy it. if you asked them to replace it with a like model that worked or for them to initiate an rma and they refused then you’d be in the right to issue a chargesback.
I know we all had to be way more patient and lenient during the pandemic, but I would say that it’s way more the store’s responsibility than yours for a defective product, and they should take responsibility for the consequences of doing business with manufacturers who have no customer support.
Retailers are allowed to disclaim the merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose of the items they sell and most do. The customer is free to refuse, of course, via the simple expedient of going away and buying it somewhere else.
This is partially a blame-shifting exercise to reduce costs, yes, but it’s also a shield against the ceaseless horde of dipshits we have in this country who will willfully misuse a product and then immediately try to sue the retailer they bought it from when it doesn’t work or they hurt themselves with it via their own stupidity. It is much easier from a legal perspective to make a blanket “we don’t imply this product is applicable for any purpose” statement vs. having to explicitly predict whatever cockamamie thing someone might try it on and have to say “no, moron, that chainsaw is not suitable for cutting bricks,” etc.
Read all that fine print on the back of your receipt some day. You will be enlightened and, most likely, also infuriated.
Huh I didn’t realise that. I’m Australian but have been living in the USA for around 11 years.
Australia’s consumer laws are far stricter than the USA. In Australia, the store is responsible for fitness and quality of a product, based not just on its advertising but also what sales reps in the store say to you.
Obviously you can’t return something nor ask for a repair/replacement if you’re using it for something other than its intended purpose (like using a chainsaw on bricks or whatever), but otherwise, the law is in your favour as a consumer.
Stores must also accept warranty returns and not say that you need to go to the manufacturer. It’s not legal to say “no refunds”.
Products must last at least as long as a reasonable consumer thinks they should last. For example, a fridge would have to be repaired or replaced under warranty if it stops working after 4 years, even if the warranty is only 1 year, as most people would reasonably expect a fridge to last more than 4 years.
It means some stuff costs more, but it’s absolutely worth it for the protection you get.
It doesn’t help that a lot of companies outsource their call centers to third party vendors who only care about keeping the contract and not about the main company’s customers.
That’s what it’s all about, saving on overhead and the percentage of people who give up. Its not just corporations to, ever sign up for any public assistance? You WILL be denied to see if you will give up.
Maybe I will give up when the draft happens. The 1% can defend its own country, it’s clearly not ours.
I don’t mind the complexity of it, but they need to make it bigger to make lane changes possible. That and experienced drivers are too impatient for new drivers to figure it out.
Traffic inside the roundabout has priority, meaning you wait to go in until no one comes from left (roundabouts are always counter-clock). That difficult?
Yeah, everyone knows how a roundabout works but if you’ve never seen several of them combined like this then it can take you by surprise if you were just expecting one big one
Not only that would be super cruel, it would also be pretty stupid, because how are you supposed to rehabilitate someone by basically just torturing them? And also, one of the good sides of prisons is keeping dangerous people away from their (potential) victims. Imagine if someone tried to murder you, went to jail, and then they got back out in 8 hours.
Are you saying that prisons actually reform people now?
I thought they were just private institutions that made insane amounts of money charging people 5 dollars for a pack of ramen and limiting their ability to visit family and friends
Prisoners get access to counselling, education, and a library right?
I do agree with you that the system is messed up, and making it a for-profit activity just seems plain wrong to me. That said, it’s undeniable that there is some attempt at reform no matter how under-resourced.
Hmmmm then why do they hold you past midnight so they can get paid for an extra day of you being there?
Reading comprehension is hard. They was referring to the prisons. And just because the prison itself isn’t private, doesn’t mean that everything inside it is run by the government.
I think it would rely more on fear factor. Like they put someone under for what feels like 2 months, so they are on the brink of giving up hope, then pull em out and go “alright now we’ll assess you’re status and determine whether to put you back in for 10 years”
I speculate it wouldn’t work on a variety of people though, as their brain could already be adjusted to altered time perception through the use of drugs. Even without hard drugs or Adderall, you can still fuck with your time perception using only weed and sugar (the food-- as in drink four cans of cola and get super baked immediately, then set 15 minute timers and get lost in your own head, see how long each of those 15 minutes feel)
Studies have shown that in most cases that you’d care most about, extreme punishment does not serve as an effective deterrent to bad behavior. Creating the Torment Nexus as a way to enhance prison sentences serves only to increase the degree of cruelty involved in our already vengeance-oriented justice system.
I’ll need to find these studies and review them. Intuitively, the little I know about psychology suggests that that an extreme enough negative punishment will almost certainly cause a trauma deterring the afflicted individual from repeating the targeted behavior. This is, obviously, an unethical practice that no licensed practitioner of any form would employ and certainly qualifies as Cruel and Unusual Punishment. I am not promoting it’s use by any means, but suggesting that to the best of my inadequate knowledge that it’s supposedly effective. Then again, some may argue that capital punishment was meant to be an effective deterrent, which was proven false.
Any studies you care to share? No worries if not, just thought I should ask before I go venturing. Appreciate the discourse!
It’s been many years since I read them, so I don’t know them off the top of my head. That said, as I recall the explanation was that:
most violent crimes are crimes of passion, and since they tend to occur in the heat of the moment people aren’t thinking about consequences
a significant amount of property crimes are acts of economic desperation and/or crimes of opportunity, where the consequences of being caught are either unimportant compared to the more immediate survival needs of the perpetrator, or not fully considered when presented with a tempting opportunity for quick gain
and as such, most of what people think of when they think of criminal activity isn’t well controlled by draconian punishment, and is instead better addressed by improving the general welfare of the most at-risk populations, and focusing incarceration on rehabilitating offenders so as to be able to safely reintegrate into society.
If I recall correctly, white collar crime is one of the few exceptions, since it tends to require quite a lot of planning and forethought to carry out… and if I’m perfectly honest, I’m fine with a billionaire CEO being sentenced to one hour in the Torment Nexus for every hour of stolen wages his company profited from, but alas, that’s not the world we live in.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.