His obsession with the letter X is like that middle school kid who used to talk about how many girlfriends he got and how good he is at being a bad assā¦
Basically, heās a less likeable version of Zane from Hypnospace Outlaw.
I guess heās claiming the font having that little white separation between parts of the letter is some unique identifier, but so many fonts and logos do this that I donāt think it passes a distinctiveness test at all.
Mates, makeup aināt for yāall. You know how you spent eight hours messing with your .bashrc or rolling for counter strike skins or whatever weirdass hobby you have? You donāt do it because you are trying to attract women - you see your friends get into something cool and you get competitive with them. Thatās what it is for the womenfolk. They get their nails did and do weird ass makeup looks because itās a fun hobby. They know that you probably donāt care about the difference between coffin and ballerina nails. But their friends do, and they want to show off, because itās fun.
Maybe itās a guy thing to want to look hot primarily to attract a mate, so thatās why hetero men think women do everything just to look good for them.
Honestly i think it isnāt a Gender thing and much more an individual thing thats different for everyone IMO much too much gets associated with Gender when it shouldnāt have anything to do with it
I mean, considering how widespread the hobby seems to be and how long limited forms of it have been around, I wouldnāt be surprised if evolution had a hand in it even if people donāt consciously perceive themselves as doing makeup for that reason. Itās kind of like how people tend to get bored of the same food if they eat it too much because the same taste over and over stops being interesting, but really, that mechanism promotes a more diverse diet that covers more nutritional requirements.
And the notion of what is looking good and bad is a result of heavily sexualized norms that are fed into girls at a young age already. In the effect women who chose not to wear makeup are facing backlash and are made to feel less confident.
So it isnāt just a fun hobby. It is also the expression and often submission to sexualized and sexist societal norms.
Yeah women spend an hour on makeup before their shitty job they hate every morning because they just like it as a fun thing to do, totally nothing to do with societal pressures of beauty, itās just a fun thing most women like to do to entertain themselves at 6am when they aināt getting enough sleep as is.
Yeah youāre right women only put makeup on for work and never do it cause they want to, never use colors or styles they think are pretty, never take pictures of their makeup done to show to their friends, spend 0 time in communities dedicated to discussing techniques and styles that are popular
Youāre totally right we all only do it cause of social obligations and hate doing it
Didnāt had the fun to mess with my .bashrc, but I have to mess with the jdk-openjdk and the jre-openjdk package, which are in conflict. All help I found online didnāt work.
Reminds me of an early application of AI where scientists were training an AI to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog. It got really good at it in the training data, but it wasn't working correctly in actual application. So they got the AI to give them a heatmap of which pixels it was using more than any other to determine if a canine is a dog or a wolf and they discovered that the AI wasn't even looking at the animal, it was looking at the surrounding environment. If there was snow on the ground, it said "wolf", otherwise it said "dog".
Maybe not the hardest, but still challenging. Unknown biases in training data are a challenge in any experimental design. Opaque ML frequently makes them more challenging to discover.
The unknown biases issue has no real solution. In this same example if instead of something simple like snow in the background, it turned out that the photographs of wolves were taken using zoom lenses (since photogs donāt want to get near wild animals) while the dog photos were closeup and the ML was really just training to recognize subtle photographic artifacts caused by the zoom lenses, this would be extremely difficult to detect let alone prove.
The general approach is to use interpretable models where you can understand how the model works and what features it uses to discriminate, but that doesnāt work for all ML approaches (and even when it does our understanding is incomplete.)
So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.
As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldnāt be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the modelās ability to draw any conclusions based on background.
However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesnāt even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.
Early chess engine that used AI, were trained by games of GMs, and the engine would go out of its way to sacrifice the queen, because when GMs do it, itās comes with a victory.
You donāt use it for the rule-set and allowable moves, but to score board positions.
For a chess computer calculating all possible moves until the end of the game is not possible in the given time, because the number of potential moves grows exponentially with each further move. So you need to look at a few, and try to reject bad ones early, so that you only calculate further along promising paths.
So you need to be able to say what is a better board position and what is a worse one. Itās complex to determine - in general - whether a position is better than another. Of course it is, otherwise everyone would just play the āgoodā positions, and chess would be boring like solved games e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe.
Now to have your chess computer estimate board positions you can construct tons of rules and heuristics with expert knowledge to hopefully assign sensible values to positions. People do this. But you can also hope that there is some machine learnable patterns in the data that you can discover by feeding historical games and the information on who won into an ML model. People do this too. I think both are fair approaches in this instance.
All possible moves one step from a given position sure.
But if you then take all possible resulting positions and calculate all moves from there, and then take all possible resulting positions after that second move and calculate all possible third moves from there, and so on, then the possibilities explode so much in number that you canāt calculate them anymore. Thatās the exponential part I was refering to.
You can try and estimate them roughly, letās say youāre somewhere in the middle of the game, there are 12 units of each side still alive. About half are pawns so we take 1.2 possible moves for them, for the others, well letās say around 8, thats a bit much for horses and the king on average, but probably a bit low for other units. So 6 times 8 and 6 times 1.2, lets call it 55 possibilities. So the first move there are 55 possible positions, for the second you have to consider all of them and their new possibilitues so there are 55 times 55 or 3025, for the third thats 166375, then 9.15 million, 500 million, 27.6 billion, 1.5 trillion etc. That last one was only 7 moves in the future. Most games wonāt be finished by then from a given position, so you either need a scoring function or youāre running out of time.
There are more possible chess moves (estimated at 10^120 for an average game) than there are atoms in the observable universe (estimated at 10^80). That is to say the number of possible chess moves has 40 more zeros on the end than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Can you point to some souce showing how modern hardware can work these out easily?
Thatās funny because if I was trying to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog I would look for āis it in the woods?ā and āhow big is it relative to whatās around it?ā.
I love posts like this because it always has the subtle insinuation that weight gain is some moral failing on individuals instead of the natural result of allowing food producers across the board to sell the most unhealthy slop you could ever dream of while simultaneously making healthy food (literally just fresh, unprocessed items - i.e. the things that everyone ate for tens of thousands of years) a luxury item. This, of course, happening after food lobbyists successfully brainwashed entire generations of people with their shareholder-approved āfood pyramid.ā
Healthy food is absolutely not a luxury item. Iāll accept the argument that the time to prepare healthy food is a luxury, but in almost every corner of the US you will find basic ingredients (eg rice, beans, carrots, celery, corn, potatoes, pasta) are way less expensive than the pre-prepared slop in boxes in the middle aisles of the store. People are addicted to that sugary shit and actively choose it
Addiction is the inability to stop doing something.
With the acknowledgement that addiction is a disease, whatās happening is a part of the brain cannot stop choosing to do something, for a variety of legitimate chemical and habitual reasons
Lol yes. Choice has meaning. Choice here being dictated by compulsive behavior, or dominant chemical signaling is still choice. Like, your brain is doing it. Choice is not just āwhat color shirt will I wear todayā, it is far deeper.
Iām not victim blaming or trying to fuck with you, I am focusing on the fact that words have meaning, and choice isnāt just a surface level, front brain thing. Choice is integral to the human condition, and choice and addiction are bedfellows. The latter dominating the former.
Choice is, by definition, not subject to compulsion, and if it is subject to compulsion is not a willing choice, it is forced and influenced. If you want to be a pedantic asshole at least have the intellectual integrity to be right first.
Compulsion: an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act
Impulse: a sudden desire, whim, or inclination
Inclination: a preference or tendency, or a feeling that makes a person want to do something
Preference: the power or opportunity of choosing
Addiction is the loss of power or opportunity to CHOOSE.
You seem obsessed with the assumption that I think addicts are just weakly choosing the wrong thing, or something. Thatās very much not my suggestion. Deep in the core of the brain, chemical dependence pathways influence decisionmaking in a way the victim is unable to override.
How is choosing to buy a sugared drink instead of water the same as playing a game of chess against a grandmaster? What exactly about it makes your analogy fit?
Information: does an individual know chess rules? Openings? En passant? Do they want to spend the time and effort to learn? Are they getting their info from reliable sources or are they learning bongcloud and knooks?
Difference in skill level: the food and diet industries have thousands of specialists on their side with experience in psychology, advertisement, economics, lobbying, etc. Grandmasters can set up traps that new like a good idea to their opponent while thinking 10 steps ahead.
Complexity: chess and diet are not a single choice, but a series of choices, some of which make later moves more difficult.
Effort: it takes a long time to learn enough to even put up a decent resistance to a grandmaster, let alone win. Itās more than Iād care to put in. I donāt want to think about chess all the time. Thatās called a chessing disorder.
So your point is that itās difficult to resist the urge to buy sugared drinks due to distinct factors such as lack of information about it being unhealthy (which I seriously doubt nowadays) and people being psychologically manipulated through advertisements and making their product economically competitive. I agree some of these factors make it easier to be unhealthy, but I disagree that itās enough to say people donāt have and make a choice. The choice to be healthy is just a harder one to make than it should.
Youāre straw manning me. Iām not saying people donāt have a choice. But theyāre still going to lose. It doesnāt matter that I have a choice of which piece to move when the point is not to move pieces, but to checkmate. Saying there are choices misses the point.
No it doesnāt because youāre arguing as if choices were dependant on one another. Choosing to avoid a coke one time doesnāt mean youāre now in a bad position to avoid another coke later on. Itās not about winning or losing itās about building habits and keeping them, which I have agreed is made hard in some peopleās environment.
The point Iām making is that a game of chess has a conclusion, a destiny if you will, in which youāll lose even if you make a good choice right now. Real life is not like that, your choice to be healthy now does not mean youāve lost the opportunity to do so in the future, ultimately leading you to your ādestinyā of being unhealthy. That is victim mentality and we shouldnāt endorse it. Still, I completely agree that making the unhealthy choice has become easier in recent times, and we should strive to reverse that trend.
I donāt believe I talked you down or stayed from a respectful tone, but if I made you feel like that I just want to say it was not my intention. In any case, have a good one!
I was also reading an article about nutritional quality of food itself has been declining over the last 50 years. So to get the same nutritional amount, you need to eat more food period.
Thereās also bigger systemic issues about food access that is driving people to āchooseā it. Lack of time, cost, availability, transportation all factor in that are beyond a simple idea if a person having a pure choice between two equal (or even somewhat equal) options.
almost every corner of the US you will find basic ingredients (eg rice, beans, carrots, celery, corn, potatoes, pasta) are way less expensive than the pre-prepared slop in boxes
However, a number of studies suggest that poor health in āfood desertsā is primarily caused by differences in demand for healthy food, rather than differences in availability.
First of all, thatās one ādevilās advocate howeverā in an article full of information to the contrary.
Second of all, Iād be interested in seeing who funded those studies. Lobbying groups for different unhealthy foods as well as grocery stores looking for excuses to not cater to poor people often fund junk studies that say exactly what they want them to. Just like Big Tobacco did and political groups still do.
Third, addiction still ā choice and sugar is more addictive than most narcotics.
Just on your last point, sugar is not more addictive than narcotics. Thatās complete bunk. Provide a primary source for that claim if you want to refute me, but all those headlines about that topic were sensational and were basically based on sugar lighting up the same part of the brain as narcotics, namely the pleasure areas. So we like them both, but that has no bearing on addictiveness.
Huh, guess I might technically live in a food dessert
low-income census tracts that are more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.
Many people in the US also live in food deserts where easy access to healthy food IS a luxuary due to simply not being able to buy it where they live or work.
āI can spend a ton of executive function thinking about and preparing food in a way contrary to what the food industry and their advertisers, food engineers, psychologist, etc., try to get a person to do while having only a slight chance at losing weight if Iāve already gained it. Iāll probably do so by getting involved in the super scammy diet industry.ā
Vs
āI donāt want to spend that much of my life thinking about, preparing, tracking food (maybe because I have an eating disorder/medical issue/mental health issues, maybe because itās just not worth it to me)ā
Itās also not just a choice, itās dozens of choices every day, forever.
Youāre way oversimplifying it. Weāre not going to magically get better humans, so maybe changing the systems would be a better way to get results than relying on people and industry to change their behavior (which is obviously not working).
Even if you only have access to garbage food you can still limit your caloric intake. I eat fast food every day I work and Iām a healthy weight. Itās not difficult at all.
All you have to do is know how many calories you need in a day (this is easily available online)and keep track of how many youāre eating (again nutritional info is easily available online). If you want to get really fancy with it you can look at protein/carbs/fat specifically.
Everything else comes down to self control and making excuses. If you have problems with snacking donāt keep snacks in the house or at least serve them in a reasonable portion instead of sitting with the bag and shoveling them down your gullet for an hour before you realize what youāve done to yourself. If you only have fast food options buy al a carte items instead of the XXL Big Mac combo with a 1/2 gallon of coke. A bit of self awareness when you are choosing what you consume is all it takes.
Iāve practiced CICO most of my adult life. Both when I wanted to gain weight and when I wanted to lose it. It works. The body can only reduce metabolism so much. If you maintain a deficit you will lose weight. When Iām cutting I can plan almost exactly how long it will take to get where I want to be just by tracking calories.
I was only commenting on the concept of free will. Doesnāt matter where you apply it, weāre all just following our programming.
Obviously, the program is incredibly complex, otherwise the illusion of free will wouldnāt be so easy to believe.
However, there are many examples where the programming becomes apparent.
The best example of this is a radio lab episode about a woman with transient global amnesia. Her memory reset every 90 seconds, and she kept repeating the same conversation over and over for hours. Like a program stuck in a loop.
She couldnāt choose to say something else. Given the same input, she would repeat the same response every time. She didnāt have the ability to realize she had already said it, so she just kept looping.
Plenty of philosophers over the centuries have thought long and hard about the free will problem, and not all of them have come out on the side of it existing. David Hume, for instance, had to resort to religion to solve his issues with it (God made us have free will), and several contemporary philosophers have come down firmly on the ādeterministic but complex enough to look non-deterministicā side of the fence. in essence, that free will is an illusion, but a good enough one that we still feel like we have it.
Okay fair enough. But thatās philosophy and doesnāt really translate to the physical properties of the universe. I do understand what youāre saying from the philosophical point of view. I did read both responses you sent.
I think you have great points, but I also donāt want to absolve personal responsibility entirely. I think I saw Boogie for on the Financial Audit and spends $900 per month on fast food? Thereās definitely food deserts and busy people with busy lives and bad education. Absolutely. I also find that healthier living was easier in the UK as grocery stores had ready-made meals easier to access with better options. However, I do think thereās also a component of personal accountability for those that know the right thing to do and choose not to.
Both things can be true. People can be addicted or have limited access to food, but still choose poorly from their limited choices. Itās a ādiminished capacityā to make and choose healthy food.
Yes, premade food has gotten more expensive and worse nutritionally. So choose better among your limited choices. Thereās no one who actually has no options for fruit, vegetables, or meat. It just takes time to shop and cook.
ā¦the average American had between 400 and 500 calories worth of snacks a day, which is typically more than what they ate at breakfast. Even worse, the snacks usually carried little to no nutritional value
All food has gotten expensive due to inflation/greedflation, but (at least in my area) snacks, desserts, and some sugary drinks got hit especially hard. Except maybe for people living in food deserts, snacks are way more of a luxury good than āwholeā foods are nowadays.
Also fucked up is that fat doesnāt = bad. I dunno when this came about but you can be unhealthy and skinny as well, and you can be unhealthy and jacked. I wonāt say that, kind of along the lines of a bodybuilder, itās easy to be healthy and be fat, but you can do it. Sumo wrestlers. You want that subcutaneous fat, and not that visceral fat, and you wanna have good cardio and heart health.
Part of the reason why people become super fat is because they enter a kind of death spiral where they donāt believe theyāll ever get better, and then they eat more, because whatās the point if youāll never get better at all. Part of the reason why they think theyāll never get better is because people are constantly telling them thatās the case, and that theyāre at fault for being the way they are, when usually people get really fat through some childhood trauma or mental disorder. Iām not gonna blame someone for that, or demand they ātake responsibilityā for it. Especially if them ātaking responsibilityā for it just ends up making them eat more slop.
Itās really not that complicated. Positive reinforcement and active help is a lot better in these situations than demanding that people be held accountable for being so fat, or that itās their choice, or whatever. I donāt really care to argue the semantics of philosophies of āfree willā or whatever, Iām just saying people need to not be dicks to fat people, because thatās more productive to making them be healthy.
Hear hear. And it wouldnāt matter to me even if being fat were automatically a death sentence and the only reason people got that way was laziness. Even if it were a simple choice that someone made, itās still none of my business, yāknow?
Itās both none of my business, and being a dick isnāt an effective way to get them to change. I dunno why so many people kind of have that as like, a default response. I guess it makes sense to get mad when someone you care about āchoosesā to self-destruct, but people are complicated and delicate machines, and they require better maintenance than the nuclear option, and ultimatums.
I think part of why people have this sort of desire for everyone to have agency, they have this narrative, is because itās the only way that theyāll be able to keep dealing with all these shitty things in their life. Itās like a really bad survival strategy, or something, people become kind of fucked up and then they only function if they have this dire sense of internal pressure at all times, that theyāre responsible for everything that happens in their life. Itās weird, and I donāt really get it.
You mean women are people who knows how to navigate to a website, sign up for accounts, and express our own points of view on different topics? How could this be possible?
Itās not that people donāt think women have the capability. There is just a general assumption that theyāre smart enough not to waste their time with it and they have better things to do, like actual hobbies and friends/family to see.
When I have time to kill I dick around online and usually ignore anything else I could do. Every woman I know is making scrapbooks, knitting her own hats and some more for others, taking care of some kids, building and maintaining relationships with people in the real world, cooking amazing food just because they want it, getting involved in the community, working some extra side jobs, and generally doing stuff to make their world and the world around them better.
Why do you assume the assumption that everyone is a guy online is somehow the result of a negative view on women?
There is just a general assumption that theyāre smart enough not to waste their time with it and they have better things to do, like actual hobbies and friends/family to see.
Did you actually ask other people what they think, or are you projecting? Because this doesnāt represent me at all
Iām projecting, but also, I said it was an assumption thatās generally held, not a hard fact that everyone does or should believe. We all know different people and that will color or views.
My wife and I are waiting until marriage until we have some free time this holiday to play it co-op. Weāve had similar problems in the past with games like Warcraft 3, but the amazing coop system in the Borderlands franchise has allowed us to log hundreds (if not thousands) of hours playing together - hoping that BG3 works similarly well enough.
The co-op is pretty good, though there are a few tiny frustrations - I canāt automatically use an npc party memberās skills in conversations (like guidance or bardic inspiration) if theyāre under my husbandās control instead of mine, for instance. Our problem is that we both want to finish the storyline for ourselves before making storyline decisions in our co-op campaign and I have an entire day off that he doesnāt thanks to working 4 10s instead of 5 8s. So I have to wait for him to push ahead in his campaign before we can play ours, but I can just play mine at my leisure, lol.
The fact you think motivation, caring for you family, and having social media are mutually exclusive says a lot about you. If you think women on Reddit, lemmy, whatever social media are unmotivated because they donāt knit hats and care for children or whatever you define as womanhood you might need to reflect on what you think womanhood is outside of your personal experiences with the women in your social bubble.
Women might use Reddit or lemmy or a number of social media sites to find a social group to connect with that they donāt have in their immediate area, just like men do. They are normal people who donāt have to adhere to whatever gender ideologies society wants to ascribe to them. Also spending time on sites like this can just be an hour in the morning or evening not an entire life so you might never see them do it.
Excuse me?! Being on Lemmy is ādoing shitā. VERY important shit. I have shit to read and memes to laugh at. There is nothing more important in life.
I have. The most recent woman I saw was my sister, who does literally all the things I mentioned, and has probably never been on reddit. She might not even know what it is.
Oh cool she definitely represents the entire female population of the world. Maybe you should go try and meet a second or even third woman (not including your mother), it might give you a broader perspective.
I wasnāt aware you wanted a list of everyone woman Iāve ever met. Iām not going to provide that, as itās insane. Thatās why I simply mentioned just the most recent. I also didnāt say anything about the entire female population in the world, thatās a bunch of spin you made up in your head. Stop being so sensitive and trying to make things out to be worse than they are. I donāt know you, nor was I thinking about you when I made the post; you donāt need to take it personally.
This comment is so sad lmao. Let me introduce you to this awesome idea, and I ask that you please read it in the SpongeBob voice for āimaginationā: anecdotes arenāt evidence
I did not meet women in person, but I heard lots of them just hang out on instagram, posting their best moments online. Ofc similar for some good-looking men as well. Thatās why I assume most people here are either men or lgbtq+.
Iām almost guaranteeing that the person you are replying to is making a joke, because of how ludicrous it sounds. āI did not meet women in person, but I heard lots of them just hang out on instagramā implies that the commenter has literally never met a woman in their entire life and only knows about them via a website that theyāve never even been to themselves, as the information about them being on instagram is itself second hand. Like, it literally makes women sound like cryptids.
The things the women in your life are doing, are providing services for the people around them, through food, knitted goods, and photo albums. Women also want a break, but we donāt get one if no one in our lives gives us one.
Six years ago, my terrible ex would have said that I loved reading organizational blogs and baking, but thatās because he was a slob whose family had weekly parties that I was expected to bake for. Maybe all the women in your life are stepford bots, but maybe you should try learning to knit or cook with some of them, and see if they branch out or just need some help.
āThe things the women in your life are doing, is providing service for the people around themā¦.ā
āWomen also want a break, but we donāt get one if no one in our lives gives us one. [note: or if we take it, with all the risks that may or may not entail.]
No, itās not just women; yes, it often is women due to social factors.
When I have time to kill I dick around online and usually ignore anything else I could do. Every woman I know is making scrapbooks, knitting her own hats and some more for others, taking care of some kids, building and maintaining relationships with people in the real world, cooking amazing food just because they want it, getting involved in the community, working some extra side jobs, and generally doing stuff to make their world and the world around them better.
Are there any women you know who arenāt housewives?
I donāt understand why men are even on here. Every man I know is so busy chopping down trees, wrestling bears and building log cabins. How does anyone on here even find the time!?
Iām a woman and I do knit and bake as a hobby, I also 3d print and design, do some robotics and Iām a cybersecurity professional. I have joined and participate in online communities for all of those TBF the crochet community in Reddit is one of the most awesome and welcoming i have ever seen.
With these corridors, they fence the road so that the animals can only pass over the bridge. And youre right, sometimes they do raise the road and let animals pass under. It depends on the topography.
When we design things like this in reclamation, there is often the concern that the designed feature can act like a trap or increase predation. There was an article a while back that showed that these are actually safe, and blend into the surrounding landscape in terms of risk to the animals.
Oh look, someone actually backing their viewpoint up on the internet:
iād imagine that risk would be easily outweighed by animals being able to safely cross anyways, not like predators just sit there inhaling prey unceasingly, they would go there to catch something then leave with their food to go eat.
While youāre right, in that predators wonāt sit there, doing their best to get on Season 8 of My 600-lb life, they definitely exploit linear corridors like this if they arenāt properly constructed. Transmission lines, for instance, can be really gnarly for ungulates. Both predators and prey are smart. For predators, if thereās an easy meal to be had, theyāll continue to over-use this feature on the landscape, rather than the rest of their habitat (why cook, when you can order in?). This in and of itself is an impact on the natural ecosystem, and something we try to avoid, when the goal is āno impactā or āas close to no impact as possibleā.
From a prey standpoint, if you see Jim-Bob getting ripped apart by wolves, or got chased by pack of hungry wolves, youād be pretty hesitant to use that feature again, now wouldnāt you? In this regard, not properly designing these things can essentially render them useless to ungulates and the like, and prevent the re-connection of the two polygons (areas) weāre trying to connect.
I sent it better to funnel wildlife into traps for predators than to have the wildlife killed by vehicles on a road, attracting those predators onto the road seeking out their carcasses only to be hit by vehicles themselves?
Many owls and raptors get killed because they are trying to feed on a carcass in the road and get hit themselves.
This person is openly telling you that the only thing stopping them from being a shitty person is some myth about otherworldly punishment after they die.
Which, of course, means theyāll be juuuust as shitty as they believe they can get away with.
Yeah, the āwhy be good if thereās no God/Hellā is a disturbing as fuck argument, because it essentially says that if they decide that their god wants them to start killing, theyāll do it.
Iām good because if I do something bad, I feel bad about it. Itās pretty simple.
exactly. i understand that doing bad things is bad because i feel guilt and shame when i do bad things. conversely, i feel good when i do good things. I also understand the broader implications of both-- not to mention that i have empathy and can see the impact of my actions upon others while caring as well.
i donāt need a fairy tale to threaten me with eternal torture in order to not be a sociopath.
Thatās the problem. These people lack empathy. They donāt feel happy when they make someone else happy unless they get something more than that out of it.
because theyāve been taught that life is a zero-sum game: if anyone elseās life improves - even just a little - it must necessarily come at the cost of someone elseās life getting worse. this isnāt true, of course, but they canāt see life as any other way, so the ideas of equality and working together to improve society are antithetical to their worldview. theyāre to be fought. They have an āevery man for himselfā philosophy, and itās nothing but selfish, self-centered solipsism.
it also teaches their kid that selfish motivations and material rewards are the only things of value, and that theyāre worth liying, cheating, and even stealing for-- as long as you donāt get caught, because right and wrong are only a matter of the consequences one may personally face. and, even then, itās a cost-benefit analysis. again, the zero-sum game.
I had a coworker catholic who both said that statement, and also argued animals had no souls, so no one should ever get in trouble for animal abuse. Along with his ridiculously heated response to any government involvement in Healthcare, and the way he got close to yelling when discussing these topics while also claiming he was just being logical, not emotional. Why yes he did call women emotional, how did you know?
People like him scare me, because it sounds like if he could use some religious context to say I didnāt have a soul, heād probably come to the same conclusion he did about dogs.
Yeah thatās my takeaway from that argument as well. If you have to be threatened by some vague notion of a future punishment in order to not be a complete dickwad, youāre clearly not a good person.
Why be good if thereās no hell? Because to live is to suffer. Society sucks. Accepting that, working past it, and being kind to those around you makes everything slightly more bearable. You are to be kind to others because itās the right thing to be.
Happened to a relative of mine, kind of. Went on a drug and debauchery spree. Not the fun way. Hard drugs, seriously addictive. Stole from the family, we all disowned them. Ended up hitting someone while driving under the influence and killing them. Went to jail, supposedly got sober, but Iām still no-contact.
Eh. Oat milk is really popular for some reason. It could very likely be the only other milk they know. If someone was drinking rice or soy milk though then yeah I donāt know how they wouldnāt be familiar.
I tried soy milk before I tried oat milk because soy was the only cruelty free milk I knew about. But I eventually tried all the varieties and determined that oat milk tastes the best.
I think the real upsetting thing isnāt Bidenās performance, or having Biden as president for four more years. He achieved quite a bit after all. The real upsetting thing is the DNC being such cunts that they even pushed for this debate, hoping that Biden could win, only to deny and ignore Bidenās abhorrent performance immediately after. That Bernie got shafted twice by them, that is the really upsetting part.
It seems pretty obvious to me at this point that the DNC would rather lose than have an actual progressive win. None of the shitty things that Trump wants to do will hurt them, (stupid take if they cared at all about their descendants but theyāre either too arrogant or too ignorant to worry about that) but actual progressive policies that helped average people WOULD hurt their way of life. Marginally. Like, the tiniest little amount. Like, your yacht can only have one master bedroom instead of four. But why give that up when you donāt have to?
āItās a big club, and you aināt in itā
Iām voting for Biden though, and Iāll keep voting as progressively as possible in the down ballot elections. If a progressive movement from the bottom up can start by doing things like getting rid of FPTP, we still have a chance. And to anyone thinking about not voting, please do. The president is one person. They are the single most powerful person individually, (taking aside impact on the judicial system) but the collective impact on your day to day life is far more influenced by down ballot positions. Research your down ballot candidates and vote. Many of those races are decided by only a handful of votes. Yours matters.
It seems pretty obvious to me at this point that the DNC would rather lose than have an actual progressive win.
Itās not in their interests to let a progressive win. Just like their counterpart, the DNC takes a shit ton of bribery donations from corporations lobbyists. Bringing in a progressive who would reform the system or push back against pro-corporate policies is biting the hands that feed them.
The title of this video is āAn Anarchistic Watches West Wingā or something similar. I only watched 20mins but it was good so far. Itās a criticism of the American Capitalist system, American Democracy (power of the president, presidential hero worship), etc. via the way itās portrayed in the West Wing.
Aye. The timestamp I linked specifically talks about something talked about in this thread, which is that the DNC would rather have the far right win than move left.
Iām using my appās built in video player and I guess it didnāt recognize the time stamp. I wanted to give people an idea of the context because I think itās worth a watch. Iāll give that timestamped portion a watch later.
I hate to keep bringing this up, but I donāt think it counts as a āshit postā if youāre just posting an actual real thing that you found in the news
Iām pretty sure thatās just a regular news post
So why even bother with it then? If weāre just posting āanything and everythingā wherever we feel like it then I might as well be back on Reddit š¤®
I seeā¦ So since you clearly donāt understand what a āshitpostā is, I should block the entire community and go away. Thatās some real next level thinking right there š¤Æ
The sidebar also specifies āmemes, jokes, vents, and banterā which would typically all fall under āshit postingā. It does not say āregular news articles you just thought were neatā
The old chef forged documents to take over the restaurant for himself, stealing from the protagonist, took advantage of the name Gustav to sell cheap food for profit.
He didnāt forge documents. He just didnāt want to tell the protagonist that he was the heir. I believe the letter also told him not to tell. So, in a way, he was fulfilling the dead motherās wishes on that.
Gustavās was failing. Selling cheap food for profit might have been the only way to keep the business afloat. Yes, he tarnishes the name, but sometimes things have to be done, and he might have had to make that hard decision.
My wife has to be up at 4am for her job, which means Iām up that early most days too. It isnāt a choice that we want to. But it is a social life killer. You invite me to arrive at your house on a Tuesday at 7 for an evening of dinner and games or something, the answer is probably going to be no.
IF your dishwasher is working properly then you ought to be able to put your poop knife, dinner dishes AND toilet brushes in and everything comes out sanitary.
Donāt ask why there is peanut butter left on the knife. Youāll be ok.
Yeah I was gonna mention that I donāt think the soap and steam really care if itās poop germs or food germs. As long as your dishwasher is working properly, everything in there should be snapped out of existence.
Seriously just make sure the peanut butter is rinsed off beforehand.
My brother in Christ itās still extremely hot steam and soap. I didnāt mean theyāre the same kind of germs but theyāre germs. High temperature and soap kills them because if they didnāt I got bad news for the dude who shit himself and tried to shower. My point was they all die.
Well, itās a hospital. They handle a lot worse than poopy bacteria. Just because carpenters bring a nailgun that doesnāt mean a hammer isnāt nearly good enough.
This isnāt true. A generic dishwasher for at home is not up for the task. Even the stuff they use in restaurants arenāt up for the task. And they already wash with boiling water. Despite this, there are always leftovers. I had the task of cleaning these things at a maccy Ds. Found pink mold that thrived in coffee grounds to survive the dishwaser perfectly. Like the pink goo from the teletubbies.
Yeah, you need a dishwasher with a proper sanitize cycle. Most residential dishwashers, even some with an alleged sanitize cycle, arenāt up to the task. This is why laboratories will pay top dollar for an industrial dishwasher that looks nearly identical to a residential version but it actually will sanitize its contents.
Oh totally. If I had a dedicated shitwasher, sure, but not in the dishwasher with my dishes and utensils. Iām a microbiologist so Iām pretty cavalier about my everyday microbe exposure but thatās a really bad idea.
Try and explain to some people here that not all germs are the same and not all germs/parasites get killed at 90 or 95Ā°C š.
Dedicated dishwasher (which I would never buy, since I wash those things like once a year), sure. But, hotels doing that, yeah, I can see it and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as theyāre done separately in a dedicated one.
Holup, you raise an interest point. A true sanitize cycle is heat. It gets hit enough to kill everything.
How the fuck is a plastic toilet cleaning brush surviving the level of heat sufficient to kill all bacteria?
If the original dishwasher from the past for got enough to kill bacteria, the brush couldnāt survive. Therefore, the dishwasher isnāt getting hot enough to kill bacteria. Therefore donāt put poopy plastic into your dishwasher!
So what weāre looking at is sanitize vs sterilize.
A sanitize cycle typically gets the temperature of the water up to about 65-75Ā°C and holds it there for at least 1.5 hours. This kills the vast majority of pathogenic microbes as human pathogens typically live at around human body temperature. Youāll see ads on how this cycle kills 99.999% of microbes, but the fine print typically states something along the lines of āfoodborne microbesā or āpathogenic microbesā. Anything outside of that may survive, especially if itās a species that forms endospores or a toilet brush.
Sterilizing by definition kills anything living and deactivates viruses. You wonāt get sterilization by heat in any dishwasher, which is why laboratories and medical facilities sterilize with an autoclave. An autoclave utilizes pressure to raise the water temperature up to around 120-135Ā°C without it boiling. This still wonāt sterilize everything, particularly the aforementioned endospore forming bacteria, but itās functionally sterilized for most purposes. For true sterilization, certain autoclaves can reach much higher temperatures and pressures, in excess of 600Ā°C and 0.5 GPa, respectively, which obliterates fairly well everything, but those are extremely uncommon and for niche uses as temperatures that high may just melt your glassware.
This is the same sort of reason why you canāt 3d print items that will come in contact with food. 3d printing leaves microscopic holes in the surface of the object, and once food gets in there, itās never coming out and will become a breeding ground for all kinds of nasty stuff.
How did steel and aluminum parts react after coming into contact with hot water and soap? I can imagine a non-trivial amount of milling/resurfacing of any interface that is meant to take a gasket due to how metals react to caustic environments.
Unless you disabled the dishwasherās internal heating element and used degreasers instead of waterā¦ that makes a lot more sense.
most dishwasher detergent formulations contain corrosion inhibitors for steel, some even contain corrosion inhibitors for aluminium though those are usually in the upper price segment.
I work in a production line that makes parts for diesel engines. We wash the parts in water and alkaline solution, then they hit a drier and get dried. Basically a giant dishwasher. The company is multi million dollar and world wide.
Just a long winded way of saying your imagination is wrong
I just used dishwasher tablets and It was fine as long as you took the parts out straight away while they were still āyou need glovesā hot and hit them with WD40 or sat them in the sun. Never had an issue so long as I did that.
The bare aluminum became discolored, rough and ugly. Food sticks to it more, requiring more scrubbing to clean them. I dont know what that reaction is from a materials science perspective, though, if thats what youāre asking.
You guys arent talking about aluminium thats been under the hood of a Honda Civic for 25 years, heat cycled literally thousands of times and covered in all manner of filth.
I worked at a restaurant in the kitchen. We had a place on the wall to hang brushes. The GREEN brushes were to be used for food/prep areas only. The white brushes were for cleaning toilets, and other filthy places.
The white brushes were soaked in buckets and rinsed/washed thoroughly in a slop sink, then later, put in the racks that push through the dishwasher conveyor belt that ran through the machine if I recall correctly. Itās been more than 20 years
See, this makes sense to me. Itās the same way with anything IMO. If it involves bodily fluids, beyond native saliva and tears, you probably want to wash it specifically. At least in its own load, possibly in a different machine entirely, maybe even get it professionally handled, or clean it with fire. Depending on the severity of the soilingā¦
I have no issue with someone using a thing that was designed for another purpose to do something that itās designers didnāt think of. As long as youāre not cross contaminating your food with it, I couldnāt really care lessā¦ But bluntly, using your dishwasher, the same one you use for dishes, to clean your poop scrubber? Big nope from me.
I think the number is a realistic estimate for serfdom, as farming is largely seasonal. However, harvests could mean 2 weeks with 16 hours of work per day for everyone including children.
Arguments like these are also uncomfortably similar to the arguments slave owners would use to justify slavery. āLook, I take good care of them, feed them, give them clothes, and even built them their own shack next to my plantation house! That means Iām totally not exploiting the people I believe are my property!ā
Yeah āonly worked 150 daysā glosses over how much work daily life was. If you were lucky you lived with pigs and cows and their shit in your thatch hut and it didnāt cave in during the winter leaving you for dead, maybe you survived through your thirties without dying of lung disease, because youād constantly have fires going in the hut. Youād have to wash clothes in the river even during the winters and hang them up to dry in the smoke of your hut.
On the plus size in good times, and ironically, you could have a healthier diet than the lord. It wasnāt like being a lord was a worry-free place to be either, despite all the luxuries they could afford. Christmas was basically 2 months in the winter and festival season could be full of pleasure if you were well situated. āPeasantā encompasses a wide variety of economic arrangements and many of them could live comfortably, relatively speaking. There was no one single āfeudalismā and itās debatable whether the term is useful to sum up the period.
Lol, thatās total bullshit. Medieval peasants didnāt work more than people today. And pre-medieval societies worked even less.
āOne of capitalismās most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil. This myth is typically defended by a comparison of the modern forty-hour week with its seventy- or eighty-hour counterpart in the nineteenth century. The implicit ā but rarely articulated ā assumption is that the eighty-hour standard has prevailed for centuries. The comparison conjures up the dreary life of medieval peasants, toiling steadily from dawn to dusk. We are asked to imagine the journeyman artisan in a cold, damp garret, rising even before the sun, laboring by candlelight late into the night.ā
āThese images are backward projections of modern work patterns. And they are false. Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure. When capitalism raised their incomes, it also took away their time. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that working hours in the mid-nineteenth century constitute the most prodigious work effort in the entire history of humankind.ā
Hereās the good stuff:
Eight centuries of annual hours 13th century - Adult male peasant, U.K.: 1620 hours Calculated from Gregory Clarkās estimate of 150 days per family, assumes 12 hours per day, 135 days per year for adult male (āImpatience, Poverty, and Open Field Agricultureā, mimeo, 1986)
14th century - Casual laborer, U.K.: 1440 hours
Calculated from Nora Ritchieās estimate of 120 days per year. Assumes 12-hour day. (āLabour conditions in Essex in the reign of Richard IIā, in E.M. Carus-Wilson, ed., Essays in Economic History, vol. II, London: Edward Arnold, 1962).
Middle ages - English worker: 2309 hours
Juliet Schorās estime of average medieval laborer working two-thirds of the year at 9.5 hours per day
Calculated from Ian Blanchardās estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day (āLabour productivity and work psychology in the English mining industry, 1400-1600ā, Economic History Review 31, 23 (1978).
1840 - Average worker, U.K.: 3105-3588 hours
Based on 69-hour week; hours from W.S. Woytinsky, āHours of labor,ā in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. III (New York: Macmillan, 1935). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year
1850 - Average worker, U.S.: 3150-3650 hours
Based on 70-hour week; hours from Joseph Zeisel, āThe workweek in American industry, 1850-1956ā, Monthly Labor Review 81, 23-29 (1958). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year
1987 - Average worker, U.S.: 1949 hours
From The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor, Table 2.4
1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours
Calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Office of Productivity and Technology
I should add that I grew up on a farm in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. We āworkedā on the farm of two 10 or 12 hours a day, but the majority of that time was spent not slaving away doing actual work, but moving things around. Driving tractors, animal husbandry, cleaning out barns, transporting feed or harvested crops, or the main labor intensive activities.
Additionally, we spent time doing planning and accounting, as well as ordering products and services that the form required. However, compared to working on a factory floor or in an office job the work was far lower in intensity and did not have the type of oversight that modern office labor incurs.
The other thing is that during the winter, from roughly October through February basically no work happens. Nothing grows, so the only thing you need to do is to feed your animals and keep them clean. Thatās it. Itās like a 4-month vacation, although it still requires some upkeep the workload is a fraction of what you do during the rest of the year. Maybe 1 to 2 hours a day.
Thereās also the fact that, before the advent of gas and then electric lighting, you really couldnāt see shit after dark. Tallow candles allow you to see where youāre going, but they donāt give off enough light to allow you to do much real work. Thus, throughout the winter there were simply fewer hours in which to do most things.
This is also likely why ādinnerā was traditionally at lunchtime, and was also the main meal of the day. This was the time of day when you would most reliably have enough light to prepare a large meal. Then, when artificial lighting became a thing, upper class types started having ādinner partiesā late in the evening, and for many dinner became the evening meal. It did not spread everywhere, though, in particular the north of the UK generally still thinks of dinner as lunchtime.
Calls bullshit, facilitates worse bullshit. Classic. I guess I imagined all the hard WORK it took to maintain a home. Remember, if youāre not being paid for it, it doesnāt count as labor. Fucking hell
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.