Listen, 'Stoner Rick'... not everything you think and say is mindblown, earth-shaking facts or perspectives. And this is coming for a dude who used to get high and once thought that I and my friends (who were not high,) were in an atom accelerator going down the highway. My mind was blown away but everyone in the car thought It was a dumb thing to say.
Every time I see one of those "employees must wash hands" signs, I think about getting some custom made "and everyone else should too" signs made up to start posting below them in public bathrooms everywhere I go.
A small percentage of the men's room washes their hands and a small percentage of the women's room DOESN'T wash their hands. It's a night and day difference.
I mean, decades of using one? And the mockery I received by men I got for washing my own hands? I have had family members and numerous classmates tell me that washing your hands is just admitting you peed on them.
Of course my experiences are anctedotal, but for me, it was a quite noticeable difference when I started using the ladies room. I'm not trying to make a definitive statement, absolutely there are men who do reguarly wash their hands, but there is also a very large majority of men who don't. From my experience, that's not the case with people in the women's room.
I said where. What part of the world do you live in? I’ve lived mostly in the USA, and most of the public bathrooms I’ve used have been at restaurants, museums, bars, and gyms.
In those places, it’s rare to see a man leave the bathroom without washing his hands.
And these are literally the examples I would've given. To be fair, it's been years since I've been in a mens room. But, I know it's common for most guys to walk straight out.
I'm not interested in getting your 'pickle juice' on my hands. I don't care if you washed your hands before. 'Pickle juice' splashback happens when you've got your hand down there. So wash after the fact, Jack.
Eh i know people who drink their own urine, I'm not that worried about pee. I don't want to drink my own pee, let alone a stranger's pee, but I'm more concerned about the shit in shit when taking about hand washing.
What % of kitchen sponges in the US were found to contain fecal matter? I don't remember, but it was high enough for me to switch to Swedish dish clothes immediately. Eurgh.
A whole bunch of friends from the town I used to live in. One started peeing on his skin as an eczema treatment, which seemed to work, and somehow this progressed to drinking it. It spread, and became a thing in town. Last I heard there were about 10 pee drinkers, but obviously it's not something people talk about openly.
Apparently morning pee is relaxing because of the melatonin content?
Same here. Was out with my mother and brother once, went to a fast food restaurant, grabbed some shakes. Well, we happened to go inside and use the restroom, and so did an employee.
My brother witnessed that the employee did not wash his hands, annnnnd they made our shakes.
We didn't want to make a scene, we just didn't drink them, fuck that shit.
Some men claim they don’t want to get germs on their penis
How does that make any sense? What... how... I just... ?! Do they believe one washes their hands BEFORE peeing? Well OK, let's imagine that, then then would have... cleaner hands so... less germs? Do they imagine that one "reverse wash" theirs hands before? Like... rubbing their hands on the floor itself THEN pee? It makes absolutely 0 sense. I don't get any of it.
I feel so nasty if I don't wash my hands after using the bathroom.
I'm not a germaphobe, but I refuse to touch bathroom handles. I will grab a paper towel and use it to turn on and off the faucet and open the bathroom door.
Urine isn't sterile. While it's true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.
If you don't wash your hands you're already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.
Drying with air blower is better than not drying? Mhh but its not like that washing without drying is worse than not washing?
Yeah i mean bacteria like wet areas but i dont see the point that drying is they key point about the hygiene. I sweat a lot and my hands take a big part of it. So even after drying they get wet really fast, so i think the most important part is Soap. These little mafuckers love it wet but more they hate it if its alcaline. So dont save up on the Soap :)
Other peoples fecal matter will contain many forigen bacteria, and these microbes are proven to coat the hands of people after using air driers. My apologies about the sterile urine comment. Nonetheless, you'd be in a better situation with bacteria on your hands from your own pee vs from a strangers feces. One's apart of your microbiota, while the other is entirely foreign. IDK, I've seen many cases where washing your hands after a piss made no sense due to cleanliness issues or a lack of a sink and never heard anyone around ever having any issues. Yet many pathogens are spread via the fecal oral route. So I'll take my chances of maybe having some of my urine vs having someone else shit on my hands everytime in that situation.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You believe you'll come into contact with other people's piss and shit less often when people don't wash their hands?
Air hand driers cover your hands in other peoples fecal matter. That's a massive biological risk, especially with how many pathogens are transmitted from poop to mouth. Using a urinal will most often result in no backsplash, keeping my hands pretty clean. To wash off that minor, if any, urine which got on my hands and end with others poop on my hands from the air drier has put me in a much worse position. That's all I'm saying, is there's 100% situations where washing you hands makes no sense after a piss. But it's good practice for sure, unless an air drier is involved.
Using a urinal will most often result in no backsplash, keeping my hands pretty clean.
Using a urinal definitely results in backsplash, and because your hands and body are right in front of it, there's even less likelihood of avoiding it vs a toilet. Just because you don't see or feel it, doesn't mean it's not there.
I told folks to start buying masks in March 2020 and found a new gig as the one I had didn't enforce any mask requirements. But I'm also a backpacker who knows bacteria and the immune system pretty well. I don't read much research on urine, so again, please forgive that oversight. But funny how people aren't easily categorized, ah?
So you only trust science sometimes? There are contradictions on whether air dryers are more or less hygienic than paper towels. But there's no contradictions on whether you should wash your hands.
This study from the American Society of Microbiology specifically demonstrates how air driers at least add 3 bacterial colonies, and up to 254 colonies, when using an air drier in a public restroom: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.00044-18. In addition, a Harvard review of the research also identifies that the chances of picking up a serious pathogen in the bathroom are quite small.
So, having little chance in general yet using the air drier, which has shown to add bacteria to your hands in every single test, doesn't make sense after understanding this data. I'm a man of science, and this involves assessing all available data regarding the topic at hand. This being the case, the data provided above highlights how just not touching your face and washing your hands at the next opportunity after leaving a bathroom with only hand driers is the most logical move. But to each their own, I know microbiologist and virologist who are much smarter than I that refuse to use air driers, so I took note and make moves accordingly.
There are two important quotes I would like to point out from that paper:
It is certainly clear that hand washing can reduce the risk of infections (39). However, the deposition of potentially pathogenic bacteria on the hands after hand washing to remove transient floras reduces the effectiveness of hand washing
Note the wording: "reduces effectiveness" means you should still do it, it is still effective, just less so.
These results did not differ significantly from those for bacterial colonies deposited by hand dryers from the same bathrooms when calculations of the colonies deposited by hand dryers and small fans were corrected for the times for air exposure and rates of airflow from these two sources
In other words: moving the air around is the cause, so a bathroom with paper towels that also has an air conditioner or fan will produce similar results. You know what else moves air around similar to a small fan? You when walking around, your hands are moving air and contacting lots of it.
I could reply with a study that finds air dryers to be safer and filter more bacteria, and we could go back and forth until one of us grows tired. Instead I'll leave you with a review of several papers published on the matter where you can see that it's not so clear cut, there is discussion around it and it doesn't help that the vast majority of papers out there are financed by either paper companies or air drying companies (btw, kudos for citing one of the independently financed studies)
If you don't want to read this, the long story short is that we don't have enough evidence to conclude whether they are more or less hygienic:
The second question we sought to answer is ‘Are PT safer than hand dryers relative to human infection risks?’ We found no data to support any human health claims relative to hand dryers vs PT use.
And finally I leave you with another quote from this paper:
Of notable importance is the need to evaluate risks from hand‐drying activities in consideration of handwashing scenarios, given that the greatest uncertainty in hand contamination is associated with the handwashing method, and not the drying method.
In short: not washing your hands is worse than any drying method.
For people who don't know, the theory of chiropractics is that the light of God somehow shines into the human body through the top of the head, travels down the spine, and on through the nerves. If you can just fix any blockages (aka "subluxations") in that flow then it will be impossible for disease to exist in the body. Because God's light.
The founder of chiropractics was told this information by a ghost.
I know some people swear by chiropractic adjustments, but this is information I wish I'd known when I had my back injury because going to a chiropractor set my recovery back by at least three years. And the money I lost to that quack could have paid for not only the legit physical therapist that actually got me feeling better, but probably a decent massage chair too.
Wow, I knew chiropractors were quacks, but I didn't know it was this bad. Thanks for sharing this; I'm sorry that you didn't have this information when you most needed it.
"Early chiropractors believed that all disease was caused by interruptions in the flow of innate intelligence, a vitalistic nervous energy or life force that represented God's presence in man; chiropractic leaders often invoked religious imagery and moral traditions. D. D. Palmer said he 'received chiropractic from the other world'. D. D. and B. J. [Palmer] both seriously considered declaring chiropractic a religion, which might have provided legal protection under the U.S. constitution, but decided against it partly to avoid confusion with Christian Science."*
Why would a chiropractor tell you that? Nobody selling you a quack remedy is going to just come out and tell you it's quack remedy. That's rule #1 of selling quack remedies. But the history of chiropractics isn't a secret, Neither are the statistics on vertebral artery dissection and other injuries caused by chiropractic adjustments. But look, I'm not your mommy. You don't have to believe me, and you're free to go do what you feel. It's your own neck you're risking.
Someone can praise their chiropractor, in the end that's anecdotal and then I could point to all the people that have become paralyzed due to chiros.
All of them are quacks because most of what they do to people is bullshit and potentially harmful, it just happens that they sometimes also do some things that are actually ok but it's methods employed by an actual medical field.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the ghost that taught DD Palmer the art of chiropracticness was totally legit. DD even said the ghost was a doctor, why would you not believe him?!?
Depends on what you mean by that. PTs can use chiropractic techniques to great effect.
But there is a MASSIVE difference between an actual PT that sometimes uses specific chiropractic techniques and the con artists who try to shake your down for weekly neck cracks.
PT is evidence based, chiropracty is woo.
PT goal is to get you better and stop PT or teach you how to do it on your own.
Chiropractors want you to come back for the rest of your life.
People are so convinced that if we're more cruel to criminals, they'll stop committing crimes, or if we're harsher to workers, we'll work harder, or if you're tough on border controls, immigrants will go away. It does not work and it cannot work.
killing nazis makes the ones you weren't able to kill more steadfast in their beliefs, (so it becomes harder to make them stop being nazis without killing them) and it makes it easier for them to convert others into becoming nazis (such as using it as 'proof' that they are oppressed)
I'd argue that cops existing also counts as "doing harm" to the people who would be cops. I remember a while back when I learned about how cops are trained (stuff that causes them to see everyone as a potential criminal who wants to kill them), I felt profoundly sad because as well as the harm that the cops cause as a result of this, it also just seems like a terrible way to live. I honestly feel sorry for cops
For one, I think that you should be told when you're rejected from a job. The uncertainty of waiting is one of the worst parts of job hunting in my opinion, and it's made worse by the fact I can't just assume that if I haven't heard anything, I haven't got the job, because some places have hiring processes that seem to last for months. I get that if you're offered a job months down the line, they probably hired someone else, fired them and are now moving down their list of next best candidates, but I don't think it's reasonable to keep people in the dark for so long.
I feel like right now the dating and hiring and job hunting experience is all based on getting enough volume to then get to pick from the potentials. Maybe if we were able to do a mutually agreed upon “we (dating, employer, job hunter) are going to be really honest, you can be honest too and let’s see if we’re a good match.” I think it would be slower, and initially scarier to have less volume, but maybe in the end it would get better quality matches all around.
All rich people became rich because people like you and me are paying more for services and things than they're truly worth, which means we pretty much never get our money's worth even when we feel like we do.
Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible, and anything that relies on perpetual growth to function is doomed to eventually fail.
For instance: social services that rely on perpetual population growth (especially youth population; e.g. Japan/South Korea), companies that rely on perpetual increase in users (most publicly-owned companies; e g. basically every social media company ATM), industries that rely on perpetual advancements in technology (e.g. industrialized agriculture, which constantly needs new ways to fight self-induced problems like soil depletion and erosion), housing as wealth generation (to be a wealth generator it has to outpace inflation, but at a certain point no one will be able to afford to purchase houses at their inflated prices no matter how over-leveraged they get; e.g. Canada). [Note that these are merely examples where these issues are currently coming to a head; they are by no means special cases, they're just in a more advanced state of "finding out."]
In other words, a lot of the modern world, in both public and private sectors, is built around a series of ponzi schemes.
*Lemmings. (I was going to use that as an answer to your post, but someone learning something new never gets me even the slightest bit miffed.)
--
Most scam products like "power saver" plug-in modules for your home, fake ODB2 gas saver modules for cars or those little stickers for cell phones that are sold as "antenna boosters". Also, anything that is marketed as a "detox" product will piss me off.
All of those products are actively being sold on Amazon, EBay and at some other major retailers or in malls. They are openly sold because people refuse to learn that magic does not exist.
I've lived long enough, to learn that there is not just one stupidity tax. And like you said..."Being ignorant," is more of a lifestyle than it is a bad habit(s) IMO.
True, and as if that was not enough we now have to deal with LLM generated content feeding on misinformation and allucinated content generated by other LLMs.
Kbin was a flop (at least in the direct sense), but Mbin and sometime Sublinks will be released allow federation with Mastodon and some other stuff, so this is more inclusive.
Also Leftist Lemmies may become a thing, bc of all that about the origin of the code and supporting genocide in China (and sometimes Russia), so Fedizen avoids that?
Are we... (Star Trek) Fedizens ✨? Learned (Loony?) Lemmites? We'll decide at some point. :-P
In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
So is the right lane. If you're driving the same speed as the car in front of you, you have no reason to use the left lane. Unless you're making a left turn. Right?
Hm, that makes sense. My mistake. Doesn't change my actual point but thanks for the info. Substitute passing lane for left lane and that's what I meant.
I dont agree, I use the left lane frequently to not have a car in front of me. Increases visibility and security a lot, and just gives a nice feeling of not being blocked.
I do drive a bit faster than cars in the right lane almost always though.
Sure, I do the same thing sometimes. But I also pay attention and move to the right when I see someone catching me from behind. And I especially don't drive at the exact same speed, side-by-side with the car in the right lane. And yet I see other drivers do that constantly.
Some people seem to think of it like a moral crusade or a pissing contest and they feel emasculated if another vehicle passes them. The sociology of automobiles and traffic is endlessly fascinating to me, although I often forget my intellectual curiosity when I'm actually driving 😅
See this is a sensible response to people getting unreasonably PO'd about this. You drive in "the left" (whatever that means to your relative position) until someone faster comes along and they can't move more left than you.
I get upset when some fuckwit is going 15+ over the flow of traffic and then that fuckwit gets pissed when he runs up on someone's ass expecting them to be aware of every dangerous fuckwit out there.
No I drive fast enough to never have cars behind me. :) So Im actually not part of the problem the thread was discussing, with drivers just driving the same speed in the left lane. That is really frustrating when people do that.
I would go as far as saying that this behavior of driving faster in the left lane helps to make traffic flow a lot better and avoid congestion. But it's not legal.
Nah, if it's in the city (or in a small town with 4 lane roads and low speed limits), you'll see semis use the left lane for the same reason I do: the right lane stops a lot due to right turns.
I find this scenario extremely rare as in most cases I'm envisioning, there is a middle turn lane separating the two opposite lanes. Either from a light or just as a buffer between the flows of traffic.
This is all to say, there aren't any hard and fast rules and there are too many scenarios to cover with a blanket statement like "The left lane is for passing. If you're not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It's not that hard people" (comment above).
If I'm going straight, or right eventually, I wouldn't use the left lane to pass people when driving in the city. That's just lane surfing and not very safe driving.
I don't think it's lane surfing if you're not changing lanes. Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don't unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they're going faster than you, etc.
The best advice I ever got about driving was "be predictable." I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
I don't think it's lane surfing if you're not changing lanes.
No, definitely not. It's only lane surfing if you're changing lanes to pass. Sorry, I thought that was the implication.
Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don't unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they're going faster than you, etc.
Yes, agree completely. ❤️
The best advice I ever got about driving was "be predictable." I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
Exactly. That person understands traffic. So many times people will decelerate very rapidly to stop and give way for me (because it's a place where they are supposed to). But because they are coming at such speed, it doesn't look like they'll stop in time and it makes me react by breaking suddenly.
People need to look far, and break early and slowly. Be predictable and have clear car body language.
I actually like it better that way because it emphasizes how obvious it is. When I visited the UK and rented a car, I actually found that drivers were far more courteous and self-aware compared to the US.
I'm a relatively good driver (not the greatest) I'll never understand how people don't understand there's more you can do to control your vehicle speed besides just hitting the gas then the brake. It's terrifying seeing someone speed up on someone then hit the brakes ever every 3 seconds. I've had my set of brakes on for nearly 7 years I know people who change them yearly and I'm strictly talking about the ones I know for a fact get the same level of quality brakes that I get. I own a truck hauling stuff around nearly every day so in theory I should be going through brakes WAY more than the average person.
What frightens me is when you see a vehicle put on their brake lights while they are clearly accelerating. I tend to back way away from that type of driver.
Long-term, regulations are either bypassed or dismantled, or the regulatory agencies are captured. Either lead to the same cyclical result where in the euphoria/bubble state of capitalism, existing regulations are removed to allow the system to grow faster/higher, and once the economy inevitably busts and (poor people's) lives are lost/ruined, then some regulations are added to "not let this happen again". At least, until the next boom cycle begins. We've already seen this play out and we're at the point where we can't see it play out again as that will literally lead to a human-led mass extinction event.
I'm still not sure about the following yet, but it seems to be accurate.'Unregulated' capitalism is what the US has been dealing with for many, many years now. I look to the major countries in Europe to see what kind of economies they run, to help me understand what a better off country might look like. (Yes, most of them are part of the EU, and that itself brings Pros and Cons to singular economies.)
The end result of capitalism is slavery. The end result of anarchy is also slavery. The end result of socialism is... yup, also slavery. Basically humanity seems to enjoy slavery:-). :-(
Knowing this, it might have been good to have tried to work against that trend. However, we got too lazy, and/or greedy, and if you don't fight against entropy then the natural state takes over.
Case in point: our level of technological progress is higher than it has ever been. We could feed the world. We won't, but we could. And yet, food prices reflect... more similarity to slavery than to freedom of choice - what other food can I buy except the stuff that is twice as expensive as it was?
I can understand capitalism resulting in slavery, because it wants to minimize labor costs, so slavery is the logical conclusion (also, slavery is still used by capitalists). I don't see anarchy resulting in slavery, because slavery is inherently hierarchical. I also don't see socialism resulting in slavery because the workers own their means of production/businesses/workplaces.
Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That's extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)
True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called "anarchy" but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).
Outside of theory, irl I don't know that "capitalism" can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even "regulations" seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of "capitalism" and rather bc of "anarchy" i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.
And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I'll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn't lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc "unregulated" anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.
i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.
And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven't yet fallen into the anarchy state... but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.
LLMs are not general AI. They are not intelligent. They aren't sentient. They don't even really understand what they're spitting out. They can't even reliably do the 1 thing computers are typically very good at (computational math) because they are just putting sequences of nonsense (to them) characters together in the most likely order based on their training model.
When LLMs feel sentient or intelligent, that's your brain playing a trick on you. We're hard-wired to look for patterns and group things together based on those patterns. LLMs are human-speech prediction engines, so it's tempting and natural to group them with the thing they're emulating.
How corporations use advertisements to influence how the media reports on their activities. Prime example is how BP ran all those "We're Sorry" ads when they poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. They weren't apologizing to the public. They were using the ads to pass bribes to the news agencies to make sure to give them soft coverage when they should have been ranking them over the coals.
When changing lanes or turning you are supposed to use the turning signal before doing the manouver. The turning signal is supposed to warn other drivers that you are going to do something. It doesn't make any sense to use the turning signal when already mid-turning or while already changing lanes. Many drivers don't seem to know that.
Fundamental attribution error. Wanting something to happen ≠ believing it should happen. When wanting becomes believing, you are fucked.
Too many people think that the world should bend the laws of reality to conform to their ideas. Gamblers are the prime example. They take something solvable by pure math and completely discard the solution, opting for a solution based on their wants instead of reality.
I think you're conflating a fundamental attribution error with a some other cognitive bias.
The fundamental attribution error refers to an individual's tendency to attribute another's actions to their character or personality, while attributing their behavior to external situational factors outside of their control. In other words, you tend to cut yourself a break while holding others 100 percent accountable for their actions.
It is amazing to me that millions of idiots whole heartedly believe in some variant of magic/placebo/prayer/astrology, some very slightly different version of it becomes popular when someone figures out some new lingo that sounds neat, and can lie convincingly in a video.
People in developed worlds live such comfortable lives, we start to feel entitled to things. Like "genocide should not happen"... okay then, so how about investing some effort to stop it instead of just talking through our mouth holes about it?
One for the USA: we know how the electoral college works, and especially now with WFH many people could live anywhere, so will we go somewhere to flip districts, in order to both stop genocide (at least the Russian variety, and maybe Chinese, if not also Israeli; but the other side wants to do more genocide not less) and also preserve rights for women, and minorities and every other thing we claim to value?
Answer: no, at least so far we have not. It is not so easy or simple... and I don't blame anyone especially women of child bearing age for not wanting to move to a place that could be dangerous. BUT then in that case we need to accept the consequences of our choices, and that's the part I almost never see, especially on social media.
If you are advocating for people to uproot their lives from their communities, friends, family, and every other connection they have to where they live -- for political reasons -- I would argue that's a very bad idea. I think it would ruin society.
Fwiw, I agree with you. I even tried it myself personally, but then moved back into a city. So I understand what you are saying, believe me I do. All I meant is that we need to see clearly as we move forward, and that means questioning our own biases and preconceptions, so that we can accurately chart out a course forward that does not fall again in the same old traps, e.g. that HRC fell into by not bothering to campaign in the midwestern states (Obama likewise ignored rural in favor of urban areas, though in his case it seems more defensible since many racists were never going to vote for him regardless of his platform or activities?).
Here's one that's not as consequential as other posts here. It's not going to change the world, but would make things slightly better.
Split lock washers are worse than useless. They're supposed to be a spring against the bolt to help resist it turning back out over time. They don't. If anything, they make it worse.
The lockwasher serves as a spring while the bolt is being
tightened. However, the washer is normally flat by the time
the bolt is fully torqued. At this time it is equivalent to a solid
flat washer, and its locking ability is nonexistent. In summary,
a Iockwasher of this type is useless for locking.
This was published in 1990, but we're still using this shit. Stop. There are many other kinds of fastener locking that work, like nylon locking nuts or threadlock, and we don't need these.
I'd love to work in areas, communities and industries which don't have the resources to usually pay for professional skills. Just gotta detach from the time waste of getting salary to live first.
Conspiracies that require absolute lock tight secrecy to function at a basic level aren't generally tenable to be sustained for longer than a handful of years at a time at most. Somebody always fucks up or basically was just lucky nobody checked for awhile. The nessesity of any large scale collaboration creates inefficiencies and potential error points in the system. Even the best of the best spy agencies fuck up and get caught rather routinely, particularly when operating on their home soil. A lot of investigative journalists accidentally trip over stuff all the time but have good faith arrangements (or in some places laws) to not disclose the active manoeuvres of the state to the public.
It's just really hard for humans in general to accept that events that effected them or things they care about very deeply personally weren't somehow also grand in design. Grocking sometimes it really is just random chance or stupid mishandling is not something we're well wired to handle. Stories of all powerful conspiracies masterminding the world scratch that itch... But logistically speaking the conspiracy aspect is completely unnecessary. If someone is trying to blame a nebulous bogeymen who exists as nameless, numberless ultimately wealthy but also totally off the books super spies.... chances are they are just trying to capitalize on making you feel flattered, smart and empowered by something "only you are smart enough to believe" - while feeding you bullshit they can personally profit from in some way with you none the wiser.
Related to the current election, that OG conservatives, or Reagan and Bush conservatives (referring to George H. W. Bush) are the same thing as MAGA conservatives.
The difference is, the old guard blithely preserved the kind of policies that shredded social safety nets and business regulations in favor of tax cuts, leading to precarity and the rise of paranoia that led to the Trump takeover in 2015.
The OGs just wish they had another mile or two of altitude to plummet, and are freaked out about the ground looming so close and rushing so fast. But they will still keep the same policies, and will still lay a ground of Ayn Randian, Reagan-worshiping Mitt Romney / Jeb Bush / Ted Cruz candidates until some other charismatic narcissist Mussolini-wanabe rushes in and plucks the whole party from their hands again. And they'll get all butt-smoochy with the new guy like Lindsey Graham did with Trump (after predicting how this loose cannon will end the Republican party).
They didn't just buy the ticket to ride. They bought stocks in the railroad line, and insisted that fascism-backed one-party autocracy was the destination. They knew it since Reagan. By George W. Bush it was showing serious signs even before the PATRIOT act.
So when people freak out today because we're on the brink of losing our democracy, I have to wonder where they've been the last two decades. How is it after George W. Bush, and torture and Iraq and the pig lagoons and Abstinence-Only sex ed, did you think another Republican president was a good thing? I know Clinton was scary, but did you take even one look at Trump?
We aren't better than most of the people in the past, we just have better systems thanks to the insane amount of hardwork people put in to make it better and easier to act more ethically (in large).
Like it never made sense that people can just imagine people in the past being inexplicably worse then ourselves today.
It's not so much that people don't want to learn about it. It's more so that they don't want to be told/believe. Another factor IMO, is that they can't understand it, so they won't believe it. And you can't force people to understand something. It takes time. Think back to your days in school. Think about your favorite teacher. How did they teach you about something you had no idea about? Did they start to become unglued when you didn't understand what they were talking about? Did they tell you to just believe it because it's true?
Chrome is a browser. Google is a website. They are not the same. It flabbergasts me anytime I find out that someone I know doesn't know what a browser is.
Cannabis is fun and has some medical benefits, like if you're a cancer patient trying to stimulate your appetite, but it also genuinely does lower your IQ.
If the point of getting a job is so that you can eventually retire one day, and you know what you want to do when you retire, you should start doing what you want to do now while you can enjoy it.
Similarly, If you feel like the place you were born in makes you unhappy, move to a different place. There are so many places.
Maybe, maybe not. For now all the approaches I've found out, heard, ideated have glaring problems, are very unique to the person, or rely on external factors not available to all.
I'll always appreciate new concrete information or solution guides, but lack of trying isn't the pitfall.
I wrote out the easiest solution in another comment in this thread.
If you're a native English speaker, you can go work for $20 to $30 an hour for 10-20 hours a week a few months and then live for a year or more in dozens of countries on the savings.
There are many other solutions to quitting working, but that is the easiest one that you can start tomorrow and be finished within 2 or 3 months.
If you have more specific criteria for quitting working, I can give advice specific to you.
Geographical numbers vary but let's say an office worker needs something between 1200–2700 eurodollars per month for expenses. They might have a loan on their housing or they might rent. Maybe they have some hundreds, or even a few ten thousands in savings generating a bit in compound interest. They like to live where they live or live half of the year there and the rest elsewhere or have a few vacation trips. Maybe they'd want to spend the time not working anymore with their family, or enjoy culture, or learn new things, or keep themselves functional by exercising. Maybe they find a volunteer group that does something meaningful to the world which could take time.
Another case could be some sweatshop worker, where the daily pay is a bowl of food. No cash income, no higher education.
The problem is that the one thing I want to do that I'm not already doing is "not work"
I don't have any grand plans to take up new hobbies or anything in my retirement (though I'm sure I'll continue collecting hobbies just as I always have) I just want to be able to do them on my own schedule
You could chant primary colors at kindergarteners online line for a maximum of 20 hours per week, or in person for a maximum of 10 hours per week
That may work for you, and if it does I'm happy for you, but for me, as much as I want more time for myself and my hobbies, one thing I want even more is to not ever spend any amount of time doing anything even remotely like that.
I also have no real interest in working abroad even if I didn't think that job sounded horrible. A week or two of vacation, sure, but by the end of week 2, I'm ready to go home, and that's really the point here, I want to be able to just stay home, and only leave when it's to do something I want to do.
Several of those programs are scammy. I know people who’ve been screwed by their company in South Korea, Ethiopia, and the Philippines. I’m glad it worked for you, and it’s a worthwhile thing to try if it calls to you, but it’s a recipe for culture shock and depression if someone doesn’t fully understand and want that experience.
I’m an American living in Germany, and I teach German classes to new immigrants, so I see a lot of people who wanted something different, but didn’t specifically want Germany. It’s much more difficult for them to adjust to a new place than for people who specifically seek Germany out.
I also personally think teaching children is too important to leave to people who are untrained, even if they’re subject matter experts, but I may be biased as it’s my career. I definitely wouldn’t teach kindergarten, because I (like most people) don’t have the patience.
As much as literally any profession is scammy, I'll agree that teaching can also be scammy.
I'm glad it worked for you, but like I said, there are many other avenues.
Teaching abroad is not a recipe for culture shock and depression.
That's like saying learning to swim is a recipe for drowning.
All these people complaining about their jobs and how they can't survive their life and don't want to do anything?
They're already pretty depressed.
That's fine if you don't have patience, lots of people do.
People assume that if something can't help everybody then it can't help anybody. And that is about as wrong as it gets.
Do you want to heal people? Go into health services. Do you want to make video games? Go into programming or design. Feel like working with your hands? Carpentry.
The carpenter isn't going to want to make video games, and the programmer doesn't want to be a doctor. They found their own solutions. Not everybody has to be a teacher.
If your goals are simply to maximize your own time, there are many effective ways to do that quickly.
Teaching abroad without proper preparation and understanding of what you’re signing up for is a recipe for culture shock and depression.
Just like going swimming without proper preparation ( swimming lessons and adequate aerobic fitness) is a recipe for drowning.
Lots of people have the patience for kindergartners, but that’s only because there are eight billion people. Telling everyone who’s depressed to go to a new place where they know no one and have to deal with kindergartners and employers who may or may not fulfill the accommodation or pay promises they made while not having a good working knowledge of the local culture or language is irresponsible.
It sounds like you had a bad experience, but try not to project that on to others.
Nobody suggested teaching or swimming without proper preparation and adequate aerobic fitness. I understand how changing your argument makes it easier to argue against yourself.
Kind of like how in your subsequent paragraph you pretend things were sad that nobody has said in the entire thread except for you.
You don't have to teach kindergarteners if you don't want to. It sounds like it you might want to re-examine your choices.
Making up your own arguments and then throwing a tantrum about your own bad ideas is not very convincing.
If your goal is to maximize your time and minimize your work, there are lots of easy ways to do that.
Teaching is one of them.
You seem stuck on teaching, probably because of your profession, but it's not the only road and you shouldn't force it on others.
You prefer to minimize your own time.
I help people maximize their time and minimize their work.
That if you are not paying for a product, you are the product. If a product you love is free, and/or you use it because it's free, think of what you are paying for it with.
Even if you are paying for a product, you may be another income stream. You pay for a smart watch/home assistant/email/VPN and they use your data. Not all but enough people need to be aware of. Sadly It's pretty much now deciding on who gets your data. Or trusting that they really are not taking your data, trust them, they say they are not!
Spelling, punctuation, and the use of contractions. The part that really sells the irritation factor is when they try to say they’re correct by making up some definition for what they said or claiming “common usage”. I guess it’s because people don’t really read much anymore. Reading someone else’s words that have been carefully edited, corrected into good sentence structure, and spellchecked can really help get it your own head.
They place the burden on the reader to decipher their made-up vocabulary. It really isn’t too awful, it’s just that people have to have read the correct way something is used yet insist on not changing.
That we'd all be better off if we accepted our own fallibility. That we are not perfect little robots, and as a result more tolerance and forgiveness in the world is necessary.
That Israel is committing a genocide, and seemingly the majority of people don’t care or worse believe propaganda or dehumanise a whole population of people.
Also, when people defend massive corporations and don’t see the negative impact they have on industries.
If this is the case, they should put a ring around the base with what color the markers are. As long as the lid is the main indicator of color, people will put them lid up. Is lying down ok, or does that ruin them too?
That you should never use the same password for more than one site, especially some random Chinese eshop. I don't get why people refuse to use password managers, ffs...
We have figured out how to run everything, absolutely everything, in the 1950s.
The original computer "AI" craze was started by "cybernetic systems" and for good reason. You probably only know of the bastardizations of "cyber-" that don't have anything in common with the original concept.
The original concept goes like this:
set a goal
perform an action
measure how much impact that had, did it get you closer to your goal or not?
If you are at your goal, you're done,
otherwise adjust your actions, got to 2. (This is "feedback" and the reason that word is now so common. People at the time knew)
The faster you go through the loop, the faster you will figure out what works.
You can measure anything you want, as vague is you want. Happiness, money, productivity. It's the way democracy is designed to work, in which case the feedback is vague and the cycle time is measured in years. It runs your thermostats, in your home, big national power grid power plants. It's how autopilots autopilot.
The idea that "nobody could have predicted..." or "nobody responsible" is a myth. We have the science. We know how it works.
Every failure we still experience is a failure we allow to happen. Because of profit, politics, or whatever.
Didn't catch something "going on for years", maybe someone should check more often. "Crazy single individual causing a tragedy"? No, that's a person at risk, probably with social or mental problems you didn't take care of before, didn't flag, and didn't stop in time.
"Nobody wants to work on our open source project" Really, how is your onboarding? Do people take a look at the docs/culture and run away screaming? Yeah?
Due process. Freaking due process. Or the scientific method or whatever you want to call it.
What do I mean to be implied by saying this? Suppose you encounter a situation where accusations are thrown around. Normally this starts by asking what the claim is before talking further about what is wrong with the action in question plus what separates it from hearsay. You might consult testimony/proofs/cross-examination for this, with some of this being more defining/damning than others. Things like you'd see in 12 Angry Men, like "you just said X when you're now saying Y", "what makes this indication of what happened, inarguable enough to not be found within reasonable doubt", and "you have all this testimony on one hand and the physical remnants telling us another thing".
In short, it's supposed to be instinctual that what people want to do is to mark the truth via scrutiny when it would otherwise blend in with everything else.
Alright, so you might be asking what I mean when I say this as my answer. The pen being mightier than the sword is not an idiom that anyone should have to say, but seldom has someone here ever had any issue randomly walking up to a crowd and making damning remarks about someone they don't like and instantly denting another individual in ways that should matter. Relatedly, someone might have what they insist is solid indication of something but isn't for the very fact that it's arguable and leaves room for doubt.
I've seen an individual in particular do this, they go up to people and say "this person is a pedo", they then go up to another crowd, same thing, they say "this person is a pedo". Usually it has some super long elaboration too, complete with a mixture of things without solid indicators, things with no indicators, and actions which were already compensated for years ago. People in charge typically know better, but the common people have this idea in their mind that "this is a damning claim, logically it wouldn't exist for no reason", like have you ever seen a spiteful ex before? I myself amanarguablevictimofthis,chronicallyonnumerousoccasions, in all spheres of life, being unable to do so much as engage in hobbies without the paparazzi wannabe we know as the human populace chiming in. Sometimes they'll even pull the "well then prove the rumors are false" card which requires that you can prove a negative (which would make it not a negative in the first place). The social equivalent of chopping down trees so that I have to walk over them while walking on a path, hoping one day maybe a branch will jab me or something.
One day a few of us asked aboutthis and the response every time was "it's human nature to forego due process if someone can sense due process would be dishonorable", and that was one of the last straws that led to my misanthropy and the fact that, in a profound way, I detest the very essence of humanity, and why I often contrast neurodivergence with human nature, because it's often those of us who are neurodivergent who are considered as having the lesser states of mind. I beg to differ, we're not the ones who are showing how profoundly self-defeating we are. One might say I've even self-reflected months at a time just to contemplate if maybe I was the asshole. I'm sure I am the asshole sometimes, but that doesn't mean a learned person cannot see the holes. And people wonder why I feel sorry for the ultra stigmatized.
This is a lot for me to comprehend, but as for people randomly calling people a pedo is mind-boggling and down right gaslighting. Unfortunately I've had an experience of this myself, recently, just for making jokes with friends around my age. It wasn't my friends who were calling me a pedo or anything, but rather third parties who didn't like what they saw and slapped an ominous name on it, tried to build up accusations, and started misinterpreting pretty much everything.
Mind you, I am a 17M. I don't like children like that, it's fucking disgusting. I am scared shitless to turn 18, am afraid to even consentingly joke around with my friends. I'm scared shitless to even get a relationship at all because of this and I'm afraid of false accusations from completely (hidden, or those who have grown to be) psycopaths. I'm afraid of human interaction, because I know these claims are nothing but baseless, but the problem is people eat that anyway and throw people the consequences they shit out.
Also, these same people accusing me of being a pedo and a creep, are no more than 15 years old AND fetishizing men well over 20 years old "impregnating" them. It's disgusting, scary, projection, and worrisome to say the least. Shit like this makes me have no hope for society, I'm not sure how much longer I can stand to live in it.
Just be genuine and I think you'll be okay. I mean you never know - some people used to roam around and string people up on trees to hang them, sometimes fairly at random even (so long as they had a certain ethnicity or immigration status or whatever) - but all you can control is yourself so don't focus overmuch on what is beyond that.
Also I believe that the literal, legal definition of pedo (or whatever, "statutory rape" I guess? I'm not searching for that term right now!:-P) excludes people who are 18 dating someone who is 17. It would be different if you were 20 dating a 15-year-old, but in general once you move past high school just don't go back and I think you'd be fine?
Also children (even at 15 years old... and sadly also at 50) are going to play regardless, and that means slinging words around that they don't mean, or necessarily even know what the definitions are. Just don't be a pedo, and then even if they accuse you, there's nothing there to justify it so you should (fingers crossed) be fine?
Appreciate it. That's the thing though, have to keep fingers crossed, shit could still happen. We have seen what cancel culture has done to people of all groups when being falsely accused.
Angry reactions is a good example recently. It's been years since I watched the dude, because I dont use tiktok anymore, deleted the app and my account years ago, but genuinely he was a funny and wholesome guy.
When the drama started, I stated that it was important to take both sides seriously, wait for facts and evidence to come out, and not just instantly side with one. I'm not gonna debate which one's worse, but sexual assault is wrong and damaging to someone's life, but so is the accusation of it. People forget that, and hell, I think it's another thing that seems so obvious that people are just so ignorant of.
When it came out that he was indeed innocent, and the accuser admitted to making up some B.S., the damage was done, his reputation already went down the gutter, and that's gonna sting.
With this only growing to be more common, this is the type of shit that I'm just scared of. Even when you were PROVEN to be innocent, your life is still ruined. That's what makes me not to touch any relationships or even interacting with "children" MY AGE anymore with a 500 mile radius.
I don't want any silver of possibility of being put into that position where I get falsely accused, and if I do, it's (hopefully) clear that it's not possible. Call it trust issues or whatever, but I hate risks, and at this rate having relationships of any kind is fucking risky.
Yes but, if you will pardon the doom speech: climate change is going to kill us all? So like, don't worry about what you cannot control. Yes keep it in mind. Yes do what you can. But if you can't do anything, then why lose sleep over it? Every single black person that has ever lived in America has experienced this, and the vast, VAST majority of women in the past. Also most immigrants - legal or otherwise - too.
I am making it sound like I am telling you what to do, but to rephrase, I am just hoping to offer this different perspective?
Fwiw, I think you have a good idea to beware of it, b/c an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. Some super well-known people in the past, for reasons of their religion, have decided to not ever be alone with a woman (except their wife or daughters). This sounds like some Muslim bullshit... but actually in their case it has more than a tiny bit of merit. They have even declined the services of taxi / uber drivers if they are women - like WTF? On the other hand, how many evangelical church pastors can you think of that have been accused of, even outright proven (or like admitted it later) to have had sexual relations with someone that they should not have? I don't even mean outside of their marriages, but in a conflict-of-interest scenario (like a therapist and their client) where the person is in their congregation. Isn't it close to 100%? Okay probably not, but it does seem that way sometimes. Some teachers will likewise refuse to allow their office doors to be closed if a young woman student is in there with them. So go for it - stay safe, indeed. Just I hope you find your inner peace also as you do so:-). And maybe some of these practices can help with that, by providing both protection from accusations and thereby that peace of mind that the protection exists?
Not at all - I've never faced that particular scenario, being more focused on college at that time in my life and also you have shown me that some things have really changed - but I do hope that mulling over this different perspective will help as you move forward:-).
I may only dream of such a world where it was that simple. Some would say one's will and inspiration to frame an individual suffices as a foundation. To use a metaphor, it's a very Corenlius-Evazan-esque situation but without a jedi to retaliate and with the whole bar (representing the known world) in on it. The stigma is also contagious in a way, the few people who see things for what they are being lumped in with me, often not even intentionally. The suspicion for me was always pre-existing, based on trivial things about me that brought to mind misconceptions, and it just possesses new forms it seems, no matter how collateral, never shrinking because it takes a self-feeding form. Sometimes it's like the minds of the world have been hacked because one minute I might be explaining such a thing to them and being told I'm being agreed with, and the next, they're being confronted by an antagonizer who barely says two words to them about the conspiracy theory of what I've done that I just got done alluding to as what it is, even involving positions of authority on occasion, and suddenly they've beenwololo'd. So avoiding fulfilling the object of their fears does little to quell anything.
You might find it fascinating to watch The Alt Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios on YouTube. It just might change your life. It's not fully about politics so much as, much more importantly, the method of discourse that has somehow become popular in the Western world, as many right-wing groups worldwide have started to use it and it has permeated our entire culture.
That the start menu has a search bar. You would think that everyone would know this after almost 2 decades, but too many people still navigate through their computers like it's 1998.
Genders aren't real. Stop bothering me with how you think people should act regarding their ugly bits. I don't need to know about your sex life and how proud you are for the way you get your happy sensors wiggled.
Tell us: with that level of density, is the earth going to be okay? Like, do we need to send some people away, or will we turn into a black hole or some such? (Sorry, I'm just one of those plebes - I know nothing okay!?)
I once picked an answer that contained an umlaut and apprently their system couldn't handle that. Years later I actually needed it and it seems easy enough. My place of birth. "wrong" .... like wtf, I know where I was born.
Eventually the customer support accepted my answer as "close enough" after I gave like 3 different spellings.
You mean like... all, all? How so? You mean like by asking you this question I'm "manipulating" you into answering it? If so that's a bit of a stretch in my personal opinion.
A stretch, yes. But it’s an interesting model for understanding what communication is. By telling you this, I am manipulating you into understanding my point of view and hopefully getting you to agree with me.
It’s important to note that not all manipulation is negative. I should hope parents manipulate their children into being aware of safety.
Even chit-chat could be seen as manipulating each other into “being social” but even I would say that’s a long shot.
I think the definition of manipulation is a bit odd here. Manipulation to me has a connotation of being nonconsensual. If both or all parties are voluntarily participating I wouldn't consider it manipulation.
Huh, I've never thought of this before... I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I've never thought of communication like this before but now I'm going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I'm a know it all by telling them this lol
You ask the question in the hope that the answers will provide you either entertainment or edification.
I answered the question in the hope that others will give me a sense of validation for my views or, failing that, start an entertaining or edifying discussion on a topic I'm already interested in.
That's too neutral or positive for my connotation. Mine includes something negative from the perspective of the one being manipulated. It might be incorrect but it's my connotation.
That's a cynical way to put it, if technically correct. Manipulation has a negative connotation for people, but people don't communicate for exclusively malicious reasons.
You might as well say that any conscious entity only acts out of reason, to get food, joy, rest... Or that it isn't possible to speak without words. That much goes without saying. Everyone knows that, which makes this an odd thing to bring up in this thread.
And I'd suggest that you can't prove that a conscious entity without reason ceases to act. We've all surely done something or other for "no particular reason" even if an outward observer might assign one.
Does that mean it's possible to speak without meaning anything in particular? I genuinely don't know.
But I can be sure of one thing, that speaking with the intent to achieve one thing, almost never achieves that exact thing. Is failed manipulation still manipulation? Is unintended manipulation still manipulation? People interpret meaning where non was meant all the time.
That's a good point where the aspect of correctness aside even, it unhelpfully puts too much focus on the sender, whereas communication is widely known to be more of a partnership between both the sender and the recipient(s).
e.g. birds singing is interpreted differently by other birds (want some fuq?) than us humans who happen to hear it as well (oh, such pwetty songs!)
The pursuit of "equity" is a tribalistic and often racist effort that rebuilds and reinforces the systemic racism we've been trying to dismantle for decades.
That the "give heroine to pregnant women and cigs to kids" era of the 18-1900s is the same as the "artificial food additives and lab grown meat" of today
You somehow thinking that the word "lemmy" is from lemon...? That's a level of idiocy that shouldn't be possible. It's Lemmings, and the logo is a lemming, which is obvious. How the fuck is it even possible to miss any of this?
That you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. I’ve seen too many grown men walk straight out of the restroom after urinating.
Do you really wash your hands, or, do your hands wash each other while you watch?
Listen, 'Stoner Rick'... not everything you think and say is mindblown, earth-shaking facts or perspectives. And this is coming for a dude who used to get high and once thought that I and my friends (who were not high,) were in an atom accelerator going down the highway. My mind was blown away but everyone in the car thought It was a dumb thing to say.
After COVID this is the only way I greet anyone.
Family gatherings get a little awkward.
I mean… I’m not totally against this.
Imagine non sexual genital touching.
Every time I see one of those "employees must wash hands" signs, I think about getting some custom made "and everyone else should too" signs made up to start posting below them in public bathrooms everywhere I go.
I wish it was only after urinating that I'd seen my fellow man just walk straight out of the toilet, beyond disgusting.
Trans woman here, I've seen both sides.
A small percentage of the men's room washes their hands and a small percentage of the women's room DOESN'T wash their hands. It's a night and day difference.
Not my experience. Where have you seen this?
I mean, decades of using one? And the mockery I received by men I got for washing my own hands? I have had family members and numerous classmates tell me that washing your hands is just admitting you peed on them.
Of course my experiences are anctedotal, but for me, it was a quite noticeable difference when I started using the ladies room. I'm not trying to make a definitive statement, absolutely there are men who do reguarly wash their hands, but there is also a very large majority of men who don't. From my experience, that's not the case with people in the women's room.
I said where. What part of the world do you live in? I’ve lived mostly in the USA, and most of the public bathrooms I’ve used have been at restaurants, museums, bars, and gyms.
In those places, it’s rare to see a man leave the bathroom without washing his hands.
So where did you see that?
US, lived mostly up and down the west coast.
And these are literally the examples I would've given. To be fair, it's been years since I've been in a mens room. But, I know it's common for most guys to walk straight out.
That's wild. Maybe I'm not observant but I haven't ever seen someone leave the bathroom without washing their hands
Is this the real reason why we have longer lines in the bathroom? In addition to having to finagle several layers just to pee?
This guy says otherwise
That is so fucking cursed, hell naw 💀
Don King had an alternative thesis:
https://youtu.be/o4qo161MRNE?feature=shared
You should probably do it twice, before and after. Just to be on the safe side.
In the very first episode of House M.D. we establish that House washes both before and after.
We then watch him go to the bathroom at least a dozen times throughout the series, and not once does he wash before. Worst. Series. Ever.
I'm not interested in getting your 'pickle juice' on my hands. I don't care if you washed your hands before. 'Pickle juice' splashback happens when you've got your hand down there. So wash after the fact, Jack.
Eh i know people who drink their own urine, I'm not that worried about pee. I don't want to drink my own pee, let alone a stranger's pee, but I'm more concerned about the shit in shit when taking about hand washing.
What % of kitchen sponges in the US were found to contain fecal matter? I don't remember, but it was high enough for me to switch to Swedish dish clothes immediately. Eurgh.
Who are these people?
A whole bunch of friends from the town I used to live in. One started peeing on his skin as an eczema treatment, which seemed to work, and somehow this progressed to drinking it. It spread, and became a thing in town. Last I heard there were about 10 pee drinkers, but obviously it's not something people talk about openly.
Apparently morning pee is relaxing because of the melatonin content?
Edit: Apparently it's a very old and widespread practice. Here's a Healthline article on it: https://www.healthline.com/health/drinking-urine
Same here. Was out with my mother and brother once, went to a fast food restaurant, grabbed some shakes. Well, we happened to go inside and use the restroom, and so did an employee.
My brother witnessed that the employee did not wash his hands, annnnnd they made our shakes.
We didn't want to make a scene, we just didn't drink them, fuck that shit.
How does that make any sense? What... how... I just... ?! Do they believe one washes their hands BEFORE peeing? Well OK, let's imagine that, then then would have... cleaner hands so... less germs? Do they imagine that one "reverse wash" theirs hands before? Like... rubbing their hands on the floor itself THEN pee? It makes absolutely 0 sense. I don't get any of it.
Im thinking they unzip, pull underwear out of the way, amd piss hands free?
Ohhh... that actually makes sense, thanks!
they must keep a pair of tongs handy.
I feel so nasty if I don't wash my hands after using the bathroom.
I'm not a germaphobe, but I refuse to touch bathroom handles. I will grab a paper towel and use it to turn on and off the faucet and open the bathroom door.
Urine isn't sterile. While it's true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.
If you don't wash your hands you're already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.
Drying with air blower is better than not drying? Mhh but its not like that washing without drying is worse than not washing? Yeah i mean bacteria like wet areas but i dont see the point that drying is they key point about the hygiene. I sweat a lot and my hands take a big part of it. So even after drying they get wet really fast, so i think the most important part is Soap. These little mafuckers love it wet but more they hate it if its alcaline. So dont save up on the Soap :)
Air dry after shaking off the excess.
Or rub it all over you pants. The drying part isn't the most important... the washing is
Other peoples fecal matter will contain many forigen bacteria, and these microbes are proven to coat the hands of people after using air driers. My apologies about the sterile urine comment. Nonetheless, you'd be in a better situation with bacteria on your hands from your own pee vs from a strangers feces. One's apart of your microbiota, while the other is entirely foreign. IDK, I've seen many cases where washing your hands after a piss made no sense due to cleanliness issues or a lack of a sink and never heard anyone around ever having any issues. Yet many pathogens are spread via the fecal oral route. So I'll take my chances of maybe having some of my urine vs having someone else shit on my hands everytime in that situation.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You believe you'll come into contact with other people's piss and shit less often when people don't wash their hands?
Air hand driers cover your hands in other peoples fecal matter. That's a massive biological risk, especially with how many pathogens are transmitted from poop to mouth. Using a urinal will most often result in no backsplash, keeping my hands pretty clean. To wash off that minor, if any, urine which got on my hands and end with others poop on my hands from the air drier has put me in a much worse position. That's all I'm saying, is there's 100% situations where washing you hands makes no sense after a piss. But it's good practice for sure, unless an air drier is involved.
Using a urinal definitely results in backsplash, and because your hands and body are right in front of it, there's even less likelihood of avoiding it vs a toilet. Just because you don't see or feel it, doesn't mean it's not there.
Not by the time it exits your body, no. Urine is sterile when it leaves the bladder, but it picks up bacteria on its way through the urethra
I bet you also refused to use masks because you couldn't breathe.
I told folks to start buying masks in March 2020 and found a new gig as the one I had didn't enforce any mask requirements. But I'm also a backpacker who knows bacteria and the immune system pretty well. I don't read much research on urine, so again, please forgive that oversight. But funny how people aren't easily categorized, ah?
So you only trust science sometimes? There are contradictions on whether air dryers are more or less hygienic than paper towels. But there's no contradictions on whether you should wash your hands.
This study from the American Society of Microbiology specifically demonstrates how air driers at least add 3 bacterial colonies, and up to 254 colonies, when using an air drier in a public restroom: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.00044-18. In addition, a Harvard review of the research also identifies that the chances of picking up a serious pathogen in the bathroom are quite small.
So, having little chance in general yet using the air drier, which has shown to add bacteria to your hands in every single test, doesn't make sense after understanding this data. I'm a man of science, and this involves assessing all available data regarding the topic at hand. This being the case, the data provided above highlights how just not touching your face and washing your hands at the next opportunity after leaving a bathroom with only hand driers is the most logical move. But to each their own, I know microbiologist and virologist who are much smarter than I that refuse to use air driers, so I took note and make moves accordingly.
There are two important quotes I would like to point out from that paper:
Note the wording: "reduces effectiveness" means you should still do it, it is still effective, just less so.
In other words: moving the air around is the cause, so a bathroom with paper towels that also has an air conditioner or fan will produce similar results. You know what else moves air around similar to a small fan? You when walking around, your hands are moving air and contacting lots of it.
I could reply with a study that finds air dryers to be safer and filter more bacteria, and we could go back and forth until one of us grows tired. Instead I'll leave you with a review of several papers published on the matter where you can see that it's not so clear cut, there is discussion around it and it doesn't help that the vast majority of papers out there are financed by either paper companies or air drying companies (btw, kudos for citing one of the independently financed studies)
https://academic.oup.com/jambio/article/130/1/25/6726080
If you don't want to read this, the long story short is that we don't have enough evidence to conclude whether they are more or less hygienic:
And finally I leave you with another quote from this paper:
In short: not washing your hands is worse than any drying method.
That chiropractic care is not evidence based
For people who don't know, the theory of chiropractics is that the light of God somehow shines into the human body through the top of the head, travels down the spine, and on through the nerves. If you can just fix any blockages (aka "subluxations") in that flow then it will be impossible for disease to exist in the body. Because God's light.
The founder of chiropractics was told this information by a ghost.
I know some people swear by chiropractic adjustments, but this is information I wish I'd known when I had my back injury because going to a chiropractor set my recovery back by at least three years. And the money I lost to that quack could have paid for not only the legit physical therapist that actually got me feeling better, but probably a decent massage chair too.
Wow, I knew chiropractors were quacks, but I didn't know it was this bad. Thanks for sharing this; I'm sorry that you didn't have this information when you most needed it.
I’ve never heard a chiropractor say that. How do I know what you just claimed about that field isn’t misinformation?
From the Wikipedia article:
Why would a chiropractor tell you that? Nobody selling you a quack remedy is going to just come out and tell you it's quack remedy. That's rule #1 of selling quack remedies. But the history of chiropractics isn't a secret, Neither are the statistics on vertebral artery dissection and other injuries caused by chiropractic adjustments. But look, I'm not your mommy. You don't have to believe me, and you're free to go do what you feel. It's your own neck you're risking.
The stuff they do that works is stuff that a physiotherapist will do, just go see the expert.
My chiro has all his training in physiotherapy. So is he a quack or is he a pro? I'm so confused!
If he was a certified physiotherapist then he would work as a physio I can guarantee that.
I think you’ve just reconciled two things:
Internet always says chiropractors are quacks
Multiple reasonable people IRL have praised their own chiropractors
Someone can praise their chiropractor, in the end that's anecdotal and then I could point to all the people that have become paralyzed due to chiros.
All of them are quacks because most of what they do to people is bullshit and potentially harmful, it just happens that they sometimes also do some things that are actually ok but it's methods employed by an actual medical field.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure the ghost that taught DD Palmer the art of chiropracticness was totally legit. DD even said the ghost was a doctor, why would you not believe him?!?
Depends on what you mean by that. PTs can use chiropractic techniques to great effect.
But there is a MASSIVE difference between an actual PT that sometimes uses specific chiropractic techniques and the con artists who try to shake your down for weekly neck cracks.
I thought PT was chiropractic.
PT is evidence based, chiropracty is woo. PT goal is to get you better and stop PT or teach you how to do it on your own. Chiropractors want you to come back for the rest of your life.
I've been cracking my own neck and back since I was 14/15, never had to pay for fake doctors
You cannot achieve any good by hurting people.
People are so convinced that if we're more cruel to criminals, they'll stop committing crimes, or if we're harsher to workers, we'll work harder, or if you're tough on border controls, immigrants will go away. It does not work and it cannot work.
Idk, if someone's trying to do a mass shooting, a little intervention could do some good.
Less good than helping the shooter before they went over the Rubicon...I think that's the point.
That's entirely fair.
Alright but there are people who currently exist who are already over the Rubicon. Ideal future utopias aside, force must be met with force.
This is a fair point, as far as it goes, and I'm happy to accept 'mass shooters curently engaged in a mass shooting' as an exception to the rule!
Sadly, it often works for personal profits.
To quote a theorem from one of my engineering courses:
This means any time you’re preparing to make something small worse, for the global good, it’s a mathematical fact you’re about to do the wrong thing.
What about eliminating nazis?
killing nazis makes the ones you weren't able to kill more steadfast in their beliefs, (so it becomes harder to make them stop being nazis without killing them) and it makes it easier for them to convert others into becoming nazis (such as using it as 'proof' that they are oppressed)
Well, (my vegetarian friend's least favourite dumb philosophical question:) Is Death Even Actually Painful?
Isn't that more of a scientific question?
Unless they're cops. Just get rid of those.
I'd argue that cops existing also counts as "doing harm" to the people who would be cops. I remember a while back when I learned about how cops are trained (stuff that causes them to see everyone as a potential criminal who wants to kill them), I felt profoundly sad because as well as the harm that the cops cause as a result of this, it also just seems like a terrible way to live. I honestly feel sorry for cops
The current system of getting a job is horrifyingly toxic, broken and inefficienct
The problem with some bad systems is that people recognize the system as bad, but can't create a better system.
What would a better system look like?
For one, I think that you should be told when you're rejected from a job. The uncertainty of waiting is one of the worst parts of job hunting in my opinion, and it's made worse by the fact I can't just assume that if I haven't heard anything, I haven't got the job, because some places have hiring processes that seem to last for months. I get that if you're offered a job months down the line, they probably hired someone else, fired them and are now moving down their list of next best candidates, but I don't think it's reasonable to keep people in the dark for so long.
Agreed. A few places have an online portal where you can see the status of your application but they are few and far between.
For one thing, people would only apply to a few places, with requirements that closely matched their skills.
I feel like right now the dating and hiring and job hunting experience is all based on getting enough volume to then get to pick from the potentials. Maybe if we were able to do a mutually agreed upon “we (dating, employer, job hunter) are going to be really honest, you can be honest too and let’s see if we’re a good match.” I think it would be slower, and initially scarier to have less volume, but maybe in the end it would get better quality matches all around.
What field of expertise are you applying for? What country are you applying from?
Computers, and US. But I'm not just basing it off my experience
All rich people became rich because people like you and me are paying more for services and things than they're truly worth, which means we pretty much never get our money's worth even when we feel like we do.
There are no good rich people.
Hours spent working is not the same as productivity.
Twice as many people assigned to a project does not double productivity either.
I could go on...
Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible, and anything that relies on perpetual growth to function is doomed to eventually fail.
For instance: social services that rely on perpetual population growth (especially youth population; e.g. Japan/South Korea), companies that rely on perpetual increase in users (most publicly-owned companies; e g. basically every social media company ATM), industries that rely on perpetual advancements in technology (e.g. industrialized agriculture, which constantly needs new ways to fight self-induced problems like soil depletion and erosion), housing as wealth generation (to be a wealth generator it has to outpace inflation, but at a certain point no one will be able to afford to purchase houses at their inflated prices no matter how over-leveraged they get; e.g. Canada). [Note that these are merely examples where these issues are currently coming to a head; they are by no means special cases, they're just in a more advanced state of "finding out."]
In other words, a lot of the modern world, in both public and private sectors, is built around a series of ponzi schemes.
*Lemmings. (I was going to use that as an answer to your post, but someone learning something new never gets me even the slightest bit miffed.)
--
Most scam products like "power saver" plug-in modules for your home, fake ODB2 gas saver modules for cars or those little stickers for cell phones that are sold as "antenna boosters". Also, anything that is marketed as a "detox" product will piss me off.
All of those products are actively being sold on Amazon, EBay and at some other major retailers or in malls. They are openly sold because people refuse to learn that magic does not exist.
Please. Stop buying these things.
I almost prefer lemons of Lemmy 🍋
I know what you mean. It's like a stupidity tax. Being ignorant makes you fall for those kinds of products and schemes. Ignorance is expensive.
I've lived long enough, to learn that there is not just one stupidity tax. And like you said..."Being ignorant," is more of a lifestyle than it is a bad habit(s) IMO.
And yet humanity invented this device that fits in your pocket and allows you to access unlimited knowledge. It's sad, really.
Knowledge can only take us so far. It's how 'we' use that knowledge, that matters the most. But be carful, as false information can, and has been passed off as knowledge. Knowledge: the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
True, and as if that was not enough we now have to deal with LLM generated content feeding on misinformation and allucinated content generated by other LLMs.
That is going to get very annoying very fast.
No no, you don't understand. They get rid of "toxins".
... which toxins? Uh ...
Haha, yeah, sorry about that. Came back to Lemmy last week, so I just came up with something. Almost went with "Lemmers".
The scam products also tend to get me pissed as well, it's so stupid and just downright low tbh.
Fedizens?
Kbin was a flop (at least in the direct sense), but Mbin and sometime Sublinks will be released allow federation with Mastodon and some other stuff, so this is more inclusive.
Also Leftist Lemmies may become a thing, bc of all that about the origin of the code and supporting genocide in China (and sometimes Russia), so Fedizen avoids that?
Are we... (Star Trek) Fedizens ✨? Learned (Loony?) Lemmites? We'll decide at some point. :-P
Many instances have already adopted the lemming as a mascot, like my home instance:
Still though, you do you. I got no complaints about what people want to call things. ;)
Well I am not in charge, but I did think I'd offer that thought for consideration, as it offers greater inclusivity. :-)
The most stupid thing I have seen so far, the "Vehicle molecular de-icer"
https://youtu.be/IT-w0KA7vNs
The left lane is for passing. If you're not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It's not that hard people
Left lane... on the highway maybe. In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
So is the right lane. If you're driving the same speed as the car in front of you, you have no reason to use the left lane. Unless you're making a left turn. Right?
Exactly my point, yes. Both/all lanes should be for navigational purposes in most cases in the city. 👍
What if the car in front of you is driving at the same speed but heading right at you? Or if there is an angry T-Rex in the right lane?
Idk man. That's above my pay grade.
Ok, I'll come clean, I'm actually an angry T-Rex that drives on the wrong side of the road. I'm just looking for validation
T-Rexes were the first victims of Thalidomide, you could probably sue for compensation.
Do you drive a Model-T?
Wrong. In cities left lane is for through traffic unless there are 3+ lanes then it's the center.
Source: me CDL holder and trained driver. Training specifically went over this point.
Hm, that makes sense. My mistake. Doesn't change my actual point but thanks for the info. Substitute passing lane for left lane and that's what I meant.
I dont agree, I use the left lane frequently to not have a car in front of me. Increases visibility and security a lot, and just gives a nice feeling of not being blocked.
I do drive a bit faster than cars in the right lane almost always though.
Sure, I do the same thing sometimes. But I also pay attention and move to the right when I see someone catching me from behind. And I especially don't drive at the exact same speed, side-by-side with the car in the right lane. And yet I see other drivers do that constantly.
Some people seem to think of it like a moral crusade or a pissing contest and they feel emasculated if another vehicle passes them. The sociology of automobiles and traffic is endlessly fascinating to me, although I often forget my intellectual curiosity when I'm actually driving 😅
This is a good book on the subject.
See this is a sensible response to people getting unreasonably PO'd about this. You drive in "the left" (whatever that means to your relative position) until someone faster comes along and they can't move more left than you.
I get upset when some fuckwit is going 15+ over the flow of traffic and then that fuckwit gets pissed when he runs up on someone's ass expecting them to be aware of every dangerous fuckwit out there.
It is better to have angry drivers behind you?
No I drive fast enough to never have cars behind me. :) So Im actually not part of the problem the thread was discussing, with drivers just driving the same speed in the left lane. That is really frustrating when people do that.
I would go as far as saying that this behavior of driving faster in the left lane helps to make traffic flow a lot better and avoid congestion. But it's not legal.
Nah, if it's in the city (or in a small town with 4 lane roads and low speed limits), you'll see semis use the left lane for the same reason I do: the right lane stops a lot due to right turns.
That's fine. That means you're passing the cars in the right lane that are slowing to make a turn.
Then the left lane stops prerry much every time someone needs to make an uprotected left.
I find this scenario extremely rare as in most cases I'm envisioning, there is a middle turn lane separating the two opposite lanes. Either from a light or just as a buffer between the flows of traffic.
This is all to say, there aren't any hard and fast rules and there are too many scenarios to cover with a blanket statement like "The left lane is for passing. If you're not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It's not that hard people" (comment above).
victorz said it more succinctly below.
If I'm going straight, or right eventually, I wouldn't use the left lane to pass people when driving in the city. That's just lane surfing and not very safe driving.
I don't think it's lane surfing if you're not changing lanes. Anyway, this comment section has made me realize that it always just depends. Drive aware, keep safe distance, don't unnecessarily change lanes, let people pass (on the left) if they're going faster than you, etc.
The best advice I ever got about driving was "be predictable." I think if anyone really takes that to heart empathetically then it would be safer.
No, definitely not. It's only lane surfing if you're changing lanes to pass. Sorry, I thought that was the implication.
Yes, agree completely. ❤️
Exactly. That person understands traffic. So many times people will decelerate very rapidly to stop and give way for me (because it's a place where they are supposed to). But because they are coming at such speed, it doesn't look like they'll stop in time and it makes me react by breaking suddenly.
People need to look far, and break early and slowly. Be predictable and have clear car body language.
👌👌 You and I are on the same page.
Depends on which country...
And if you're on a highway, and if that highway has left-lane exits or turns.
The passing lane* is for passing.
I actually like it better that way because it emphasizes how obvious it is. When I visited the UK and rented a car, I actually found that drivers were far more courteous and self-aware compared to the US.
Holy shit. Remind me never to drive in the US if we are an example of courtesy and self-awareness.
The US is really big, but the Northeast megapolis is a bit of a nightmare when it comes to driving etiquette.
I'm a relatively good driver (not the greatest) I'll never understand how people don't understand there's more you can do to control your vehicle speed besides just hitting the gas then the brake. It's terrifying seeing someone speed up on someone then hit the brakes ever every 3 seconds. I've had my set of brakes on for nearly 7 years I know people who change them yearly and I'm strictly talking about the ones I know for a fact get the same level of quality brakes that I get. I own a truck hauling stuff around nearly every day so in theory I should be going through brakes WAY more than the average person.
What frightens me is when you see a vehicle put on their brake lights while they are clearly accelerating. I tend to back way away from that type of driver.
"Homeopathic" does not mean organic, or good for you, natural, wholesome, effective, or inherently safe to consume.
It is, in fact, a code word for no active ingredient.
Capitalism is not working.
CapitalismDeregulation is not working.Capitalism Regulation does not work in the long term.
Explain, please.
Long-term, regulations are either bypassed or dismantled, or the regulatory agencies are captured. Either lead to the same cyclical result where in the euphoria/bubble state of capitalism, existing regulations are removed to allow the system to grow faster/higher, and once the economy inevitably busts and (poor people's) lives are lost/ruined, then some regulations are added to "not let this happen again". At least, until the next boom cycle begins. We've already seen this play out and we're at the point where we can't see it play out again as that will literally lead to a human-led mass extinction event.
"Regulatory capture" is one way that regulated capitalism can fail. Bring that, I'm not sure.
I'm still not sure about the following yet, but it seems to be accurate. 'Unregulated' capitalism is what the US has been dealing with for many, many years now. I look to the major countries in Europe to see what kind of economies they run, to help me understand what a better off country might look like. (Yes, most of them are part of the EU, and that itself brings Pros and Cons to singular economies.)
What do you mean by "working" in this context?
The end result of capitalism is slavery. The end result of anarchy is also slavery. The end result of socialism is... yup, also slavery. Basically humanity seems to enjoy slavery:-). :-(
Knowing this, it might have been good to have tried to work against that trend. However, we got too lazy, and/or greedy, and if you don't fight against entropy then the natural state takes over.
Case in point: our level of technological progress is higher than it has ever been. We could feed the world. We won't, but we could. And yet, food prices reflect... more similarity to slavery than to freedom of choice - what other food can I buy except the stuff that is twice as expensive as it was?
I can understand capitalism resulting in slavery, because it wants to minimize labor costs, so slavery is the logical conclusion (also, slavery is still used by capitalists). I don't see anarchy resulting in slavery, because slavery is inherently hierarchical. I also don't see socialism resulting in slavery because the workers own their means of production/businesses/workplaces.
Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That's extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)
True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called "anarchy" but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).
Outside of theory, irl I don't know that "capitalism" can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even "regulations" seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of "capitalism" and rather bc of "anarchy" i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.
And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I'll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn't lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc "unregulated" anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.
i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.
And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven't yet fallen into the anarchy state... but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.
LLMs are not general AI. They are not intelligent. They aren't sentient. They don't even really understand what they're spitting out. They can't even reliably do the 1 thing computers are typically very good at (computational math) because they are just putting sequences of nonsense (to them) characters together in the most likely order based on their training model.
When LLMs feel sentient or intelligent, that's your brain playing a trick on you. We're hard-wired to look for patterns and group things together based on those patterns. LLMs are human-speech prediction engines, so it's tempting and natural to group them with the thing they're emulating.
How corporations use advertisements to influence how the media reports on their activities. Prime example is how BP ran all those "We're Sorry" ads when they poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. They weren't apologizing to the public. They were using the ads to pass bribes to the news agencies to make sure to give them soft coverage when they should have been ranking them over the coals.
You can recharge your new iPhone in the microwave.
Dandelion leaves are like crack to ducks and geese and you can use them to influence said fowl for your own nefarious purposes
When changing lanes or turning you are supposed to use the turning signal before doing the manouver. The turning signal is supposed to warn other drivers that you are going to do something. It doesn't make any sense to use the turning signal when already mid-turning or while already changing lanes. Many drivers don't seem to know that.
Fundamental attribution error. Wanting something to happen ≠ believing it should happen. When wanting becomes believing, you are fucked.
Too many people think that the world should bend the laws of reality to conform to their ideas. Gamblers are the prime example. They take something solvable by pure math and completely discard the solution, opting for a solution based on their wants instead of reality.
I think you're conflating a fundamental attribution error with a some other cognitive bias.
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error
I like how fundamental attribution error sounds so that's how I called it
cellar door is apparently the most beautiful phrase in the english language but that's not what you described either.
I'm going to M A N I F E S T my problems away!
It is amazing to me that millions of idiots whole heartedly believe in some variant of magic/placebo/prayer/astrology, some very slightly different version of it becomes popular when someone figures out some new lingo that sounds neat, and can lie convincingly in a video.
That reality is not defined by our wishes, but by observable, verifiable facts.
Sadly, a large amount of people cannot accept this.
Reality is what you can't turn away from.
Reality is that which continues to exist when you stop believing in it.
People in developed worlds live such comfortable lives, we start to feel entitled to things. Like "genocide should not happen"... okay then, so how about investing some effort to stop it instead of just talking through our mouth holes about it?
One for the USA: we know how the electoral college works, and especially now with WFH many people could live anywhere, so will we go somewhere to flip districts, in order to both stop genocide (at least the Russian variety, and maybe Chinese, if not also Israeli; but the other side wants to do more genocide not less) and also preserve rights for women, and minorities and every other thing we claim to value?
Answer: no, at least so far we have not. It is not so easy or simple... and I don't blame anyone especially women of child bearing age for not wanting to move to a place that could be dangerous. BUT then in that case we need to accept the consequences of our choices, and that's the part I almost never see, especially on social media.
If you are advocating for people to uproot their lives from their communities, friends, family, and every other connection they have to where they live -- for political reasons -- I would argue that's a very bad idea. I think it would ruin society.
Fwiw, I agree with you. I even tried it myself personally, but then moved back into a city. So I understand what you are saying, believe me I do. All I meant is that we need to see clearly as we move forward, and that means questioning our own biases and preconceptions, so that we can accurately chart out a course forward that does not fall again in the same old traps, e.g. that HRC fell into by not bothering to campaign in the midwestern states (Obama likewise ignored rural in favor of urban areas, though in his case it seems more defensible since many racists were never going to vote for him regardless of his platform or activities?).
Quantum mechanics would like a word...
Any system that relies on people selling themselves will inevitably select for those who can sell themselves best, not any other metric
Any metric will become a target and then people will maximize that instead of whatever they were supposed to be doing. Goodhart's law
Ooh, I must remember that, that's a good one. Some of my clients could do with learning it.
Not voting doesn’t stop an election.
American cars having their brake lights and turn signals be the same light is stupid and dangerous.
When you're done with the microwave and took your food out early to avoid the alarm, clear the fucking time that's remaining.
God isn't real. No deities exist. Stop being delusional.
Things you will need to operate while driving your car shouldn't have touch screen controls.
That other than a niche we specialize in, we're pretty fucking dumb at everything else.
Here's one that's not as consequential as other posts here. It's not going to change the world, but would make things slightly better.
Split lock washers are worse than useless. They're supposed to be a spring against the bolt to help resist it turning back out over time. They don't. If anything, they make it worse.
Here's a NASA publication on fastener design (because of course there's a NASA publication on fastener design): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900009424
This was published in 1990, but we're still using this shit. Stop. There are many other kinds of fastener locking that work, like nylon locking nuts or threadlock, and we don't need these.
Humans are not descended from apes. They have the same ancestors.
Why is that so hard to understand?
The spices at the grocery store I've been going to for the past 25 years has had the spices alphabetized this entire time.
Edit, I misread the question but I'm not fixing my response
We should live more instead of wasting time at work but we can't because we're forced to get income to live
Exactly. I've heard a "counter-argument" to this saying "I need to keep myself busy, I need to work." Why not be able to optionally work more?
I'd love to work in areas, communities and industries which don't have the resources to usually pay for professional skills. Just gotta detach from the time waste of getting salary to live first.
Conspiracies that require absolute lock tight secrecy to function at a basic level aren't generally tenable to be sustained for longer than a handful of years at a time at most. Somebody always fucks up or basically was just lucky nobody checked for awhile. The nessesity of any large scale collaboration creates inefficiencies and potential error points in the system. Even the best of the best spy agencies fuck up and get caught rather routinely, particularly when operating on their home soil. A lot of investigative journalists accidentally trip over stuff all the time but have good faith arrangements (or in some places laws) to not disclose the active manoeuvres of the state to the public.
It's just really hard for humans in general to accept that events that effected them or things they care about very deeply personally weren't somehow also grand in design. Grocking sometimes it really is just random chance or stupid mishandling is not something we're well wired to handle. Stories of all powerful conspiracies masterminding the world scratch that itch... But logistically speaking the conspiracy aspect is completely unnecessary. If someone is trying to blame a nebulous bogeymen who exists as nameless, numberless ultimately wealthy but also totally off the books super spies.... chances are they are just trying to capitalize on making you feel flattered, smart and empowered by something "only you are smart enough to believe" - while feeding you bullshit they can personally profit from in some way with you none the wiser.
I refer to us as Lemmings
Related to the current election, that OG conservatives, or Reagan and Bush conservatives (referring to George H. W. Bush) are the same thing as MAGA conservatives.
The difference is, the old guard blithely preserved the kind of policies that shredded social safety nets and business regulations in favor of tax cuts, leading to precarity and the rise of paranoia that led to the Trump takeover in 2015.
The OGs just wish they had another mile or two of altitude to plummet, and are freaked out about the ground looming so close and rushing so fast. But they will still keep the same policies, and will still lay a ground of Ayn Randian, Reagan-worshiping Mitt Romney / Jeb Bush / Ted Cruz candidates until some other charismatic narcissist Mussolini-wanabe rushes in and plucks the whole party from their hands again. And they'll get all butt-smoochy with the new guy like Lindsey Graham did with Trump (after predicting how this loose cannon will end the Republican party).
They didn't just buy the ticket to ride. They bought stocks in the railroad line, and insisted that fascism-backed one-party autocracy was the destination. They knew it since Reagan. By George W. Bush it was showing serious signs even before the PATRIOT act.
So when people freak out today because we're on the brink of losing our democracy, I have to wonder where they've been the last two decades. How is it after George W. Bush, and torture and Iraq and the pig lagoons and Abstinence-Only sex ed, did you think another Republican president was a good thing? I know Clinton was scary, but did you take even one look at Trump?
We aren't better than most of the people in the past, we just have better systems thanks to the insane amount of hardwork people put in to make it better and easier to act more ethically (in large).
Like it never made sense that people can just imagine people in the past being inexplicably worse then ourselves today.
That a whole foods plant-based diet is healthier and better the environment and yet people do their utmost to refuse to learn more about it.
It's not so much that people don't want to learn about it. It's more so that they don't want to be told/believe. Another factor IMO, is that they can't understand it, so they won't believe it. And you can't force people to understand something. It takes time. Think back to your days in school. Think about your favorite teacher. How did they teach you about something you had no idea about? Did they start to become unglued when you didn't understand what they were talking about? Did they tell you to just believe it because it's true?
i belive and i understand, i just don't care
That it's actually totally possible for most people to live without a car.
Chrome is a browser. Google is a website. They are not the same. It flabbergasts me anytime I find out that someone I know doesn't know what a browser is.
Cannabis is fun and has some medical benefits, like if you're a cancer patient trying to stimulate your appetite, but it also genuinely does lower your IQ.
If the point of getting a job is so that you can eventually retire one day, and you know what you want to do when you retire, you should start doing what you want to do now while you can enjoy it.
Similarly, If you feel like the place you were born in makes you unhappy, move to a different place. There are so many places.
For the first: Would but will run out of money quickly
Edited for clarity.
That's a common concern for those who haven't tried it yet.
Maybe, maybe not. For now all the approaches I've found out, heard, ideated have glaring problems, are very unique to the person, or rely on external factors not available to all.
I'll always appreciate new concrete information or solution guides, but lack of trying isn't the pitfall.
No maybe about it in my experience, I've encountered that exact concern hundreds of times, exclusively from people who haven't tried.
What concrete information or solution guides are you looking for, the first or second of my suggestions?
Ah, forgot you had two topics. I was replying about quitting working
I wrote out the easiest solution in another comment in this thread.
If you're a native English speaker, you can go work for $20 to $30 an hour for 10-20 hours a week a few months and then live for a year or more in dozens of countries on the savings.
There are many other solutions to quitting working, but that is the easiest one that you can start tomorrow and be finished within 2 or 3 months.
If you have more specific criteria for quitting working, I can give advice specific to you.
OK.
Geographical numbers vary but let's say an office worker needs something between 1200–2700 eurodollars per month for expenses. They might have a loan on their housing or they might rent. Maybe they have some hundreds, or even a few ten thousands in savings generating a bit in compound interest. They like to live where they live or live half of the year there and the rest elsewhere or have a few vacation trips. Maybe they'd want to spend the time not working anymore with their family, or enjoy culture, or learn new things, or keep themselves functional by exercising. Maybe they find a volunteer group that does something meaningful to the world which could take time.
Another case could be some sweatshop worker, where the daily pay is a bowl of food. No cash income, no higher education.
The problem is that the one thing I want to do that I'm not already doing is "not work"
I don't have any grand plans to take up new hobbies or anything in my retirement (though I'm sure I'll continue collecting hobbies just as I always have) I just want to be able to do them on my own schedule
ohet
That may work for you, and if it does I'm happy for you, but for me, as much as I want more time for myself and my hobbies, one thing I want even more is to not ever spend any amount of time doing anything even remotely like that.
I also have no real interest in working abroad even if I didn't think that job sounded horrible. A week or two of vacation, sure, but by the end of week 2, I'm ready to go home, and that's really the point here, I want to be able to just stay home, and only leave when it's to do something I want to do.
ohet
He doesn't want to leave that situation for a nightmare shitshow of a downgraded situation.
He should try something easier that fixes his problems instead.
It's surprisingly pretty rare when someone wants that either.
Because your suggestions are all completely deluded.
They're not better. For pretty much anyone.
Several of those programs are scammy. I know people who’ve been screwed by their company in South Korea, Ethiopia, and the Philippines. I’m glad it worked for you, and it’s a worthwhile thing to try if it calls to you, but it’s a recipe for culture shock and depression if someone doesn’t fully understand and want that experience.
I’m an American living in Germany, and I teach German classes to new immigrants, so I see a lot of people who wanted something different, but didn’t specifically want Germany. It’s much more difficult for them to adjust to a new place than for people who specifically seek Germany out.
I also personally think teaching children is too important to leave to people who are untrained, even if they’re subject matter experts, but I may be biased as it’s my career. I definitely wouldn’t teach kindergarten, because I (like most people) don’t have the patience.
As much as literally any profession is scammy, I'll agree that teaching can also be scammy.
I'm glad it worked for you, but like I said, there are many other avenues.
Teaching abroad is not a recipe for culture shock and depression.
That's like saying learning to swim is a recipe for drowning.
All these people complaining about their jobs and how they can't survive their life and don't want to do anything?
They're already pretty depressed.
That's fine if you don't have patience, lots of people do.
People assume that if something can't help everybody then it can't help anybody. And that is about as wrong as it gets.
Do you want to heal people? Go into health services. Do you want to make video games? Go into programming or design. Feel like working with your hands? Carpentry.
The carpenter isn't going to want to make video games, and the programmer doesn't want to be a doctor. They found their own solutions. Not everybody has to be a teacher.
If your goals are simply to maximize your own time, there are many effective ways to do that quickly.
Teaching abroad without proper preparation and understanding of what you’re signing up for is a recipe for culture shock and depression.
Just like going swimming without proper preparation ( swimming lessons and adequate aerobic fitness) is a recipe for drowning.
Lots of people have the patience for kindergartners, but that’s only because there are eight billion people. Telling everyone who’s depressed to go to a new place where they know no one and have to deal with kindergartners and employers who may or may not fulfill the accommodation or pay promises they made while not having a good working knowledge of the local culture or language is irresponsible.
It sounds like you had a bad experience, but try not to project that on to others.
Nobody suggested teaching or swimming without proper preparation and adequate aerobic fitness. I understand how changing your argument makes it easier to argue against yourself.
Kind of like how in your subsequent paragraph you pretend things were sad that nobody has said in the entire thread except for you.
You don't have to teach kindergarteners if you don't want to. It sounds like it you might want to re-examine your choices.
Making up your own arguments and then throwing a tantrum about your own bad ideas is not very convincing.
If your goal is to maximize your time and minimize your work, there are lots of easy ways to do that.
Teaching is one of them.
You seem stuck on teaching, probably because of your profession, but it's not the only road and you shouldn't force it on others.
You prefer to minimize your own time.
I help people maximize their time and minimize their work.
Youre naturally defensive, try to recognize that.
lol
But what if I enjoy not going to work?
That's my favorite thing.
I would redirect you to the easiest solution I made to another commenter of saving up money for a few months and then not working for a year.
That if you are not paying for a product, you are the product. If a product you love is free, and/or you use it because it's free, think of what you are paying for it with.
Even if you are paying for a product, you may be another income stream. You pay for a smart watch/home assistant/email/VPN and they use your data. Not all but enough people need to be aware of. Sadly It's pretty much now deciding on who gets your data. Or trusting that they really are not taking your data, trust them, they say they are not!
I suspect that's the blocker right there:-|
Yup, it's all "license that can be revoked at any time" bs.
Where the turn indicator lever is, and how to use it.
It's integrated into the steering wheel, right?
But the fluid costs too much in a BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, and Audi!
Spelling, punctuation, and the use of contractions. The part that really sells the irritation factor is when they try to say they’re correct by making up some definition for what they said or claiming “common usage”. I guess it’s because people don’t really read much anymore. Reading someone else’s words that have been carefully edited, corrected into good sentence structure, and spellchecked can really help get it your own head.
They place the burden on the reader to decipher their made-up vocabulary. It really isn’t too awful, it’s just that people have to have read the correct way something is used yet insist on not changing.
That we'd all be better off if we accepted our own fallibility. That we are not perfect little robots, and as a result more tolerance and forgiveness in the world is necessary.
Russia will not stop warring if Ukraine surrenders. Russia's war will stretch to every corner of the earth.
That Israel is committing a genocide, and seemingly the majority of people don’t care or worse believe propaganda or dehumanise a whole population of people.
Also, when people defend massive corporations and don’t see the negative impact they have on industries.
8% of 50 is 50% of 8
Put your dry erase markers in the holder basket thing CAP DOWN. jfc, the amount ruined, dried out markers could probably fill a landfill
If this is the case, they should put a ring around the base with what color the markers are. As long as the lid is the main indicator of color, people will put them lid up. Is lying down ok, or does that ruin them too?
Yeah, one of the biggest selling brands is hopeless for this. I have to colour the base of each one.
It's like the company wants the marker to dry out and for me to go buy more.
! waaaaait a minute!
Capitalism 101, friend.
Never put some thought into that, don't usually deal with dry erase markers, but it makes total sense!
The term is Lemmings, btw.
Because :
That you should never use the same password for more than one site, especially some random Chinese eshop. I don't get why people refuse to use password managers, ffs...
We have figured out how to run everything, absolutely everything, in the 1950s.
The original computer "AI" craze was started by "cybernetic systems" and for good reason. You probably only know of the bastardizations of "cyber-" that don't have anything in common with the original concept.
The original concept goes like this:
The faster you go through the loop, the faster you will figure out what works.
You can measure anything you want, as vague is you want. Happiness, money, productivity. It's the way democracy is designed to work, in which case the feedback is vague and the cycle time is measured in years. It runs your thermostats, in your home, big national power grid power plants. It's how autopilots autopilot.
The idea that "nobody could have predicted..." or "nobody responsible" is a myth. We have the science. We know how it works.
Every failure we still experience is a failure we allow to happen. Because of profit, politics, or whatever.
Didn't catch something "going on for years", maybe someone should check more often. "Crazy single individual causing a tragedy"? No, that's a person at risk, probably with social or mental problems you didn't take care of before, didn't flag, and didn't stop in time.
"Nobody wants to work on our open source project" Really, how is your onboarding? Do people take a look at the docs/culture and run away screaming? Yeah?
*lemmings
Probably people who yell at cyclists for following traffic laws, bonus points for them also violating said laws without repercussion.
stronger products need less advertising, so an over-advertised product is likely inferior.
Due process. Freaking due process. Or the scientific method or whatever you want to call it.
What do I mean to be implied by saying this? Suppose you encounter a situation where accusations are thrown around. Normally this starts by asking what the claim is before talking further about what is wrong with the action in question plus what separates it from hearsay. You might consult testimony/proofs/cross-examination for this, with some of this being more defining/damning than others. Things like you'd see in 12 Angry Men, like "you just said X when you're now saying Y", "what makes this indication of what happened, inarguable enough to not be found within reasonable doubt", and "you have all this testimony on one hand and the physical remnants telling us another thing".
In short, it's supposed to be instinctual that what people want to do is to mark the truth via scrutiny when it would otherwise blend in with everything else.
Alright, so you might be asking what I mean when I say this as my answer. The pen being mightier than the sword is not an idiom that anyone should have to say, but seldom has someone here ever had any issue randomly walking up to a crowd and making damning remarks about someone they don't like and instantly denting another individual in ways that should matter. Relatedly, someone might have what they insist is solid indication of something but isn't for the very fact that it's arguable and leaves room for doubt.
I've seen an individual in particular do this, they go up to people and say "this person is a pedo", they then go up to another crowd, same thing, they say "this person is a pedo". Usually it has some super long elaboration too, complete with a mixture of things without solid indicators, things with no indicators, and actions which were already compensated for years ago. People in charge typically know better, but the common people have this idea in their mind that "this is a damning claim, logically it wouldn't exist for no reason", like have you ever seen a spiteful ex before? I myself am an arguable victim of this, chronically on numerous occasions, in all spheres of life, being unable to do so much as engage in hobbies without the paparazzi wannabe we know as the human populace chiming in. Sometimes they'll even pull the "well then prove the rumors are false" card which requires that you can prove a negative (which would make it not a negative in the first place). The social equivalent of chopping down trees so that I have to walk over them while walking on a path, hoping one day maybe a branch will jab me or something.
One day a few of us asked about this and the response every time was "it's human nature to forego due process if someone can sense due process would be dishonorable", and that was one of the last straws that led to my misanthropy and the fact that, in a profound way, I detest the very essence of humanity, and why I often contrast neurodivergence with human nature, because it's often those of us who are neurodivergent who are considered as having the lesser states of mind. I beg to differ, we're not the ones who are showing how profoundly self-defeating we are. One might say I've even self-reflected months at a time just to contemplate if maybe I was the asshole. I'm sure I am the asshole sometimes, but that doesn't mean a learned person cannot see the holes. And people wonder why I feel sorry for the ultra stigmatized.
This is a lot for me to comprehend, but as for people randomly calling people a pedo is mind-boggling and down right gaslighting. Unfortunately I've had an experience of this myself, recently, just for making jokes with friends around my age. It wasn't my friends who were calling me a pedo or anything, but rather third parties who didn't like what they saw and slapped an ominous name on it, tried to build up accusations, and started misinterpreting pretty much everything.
Mind you, I am a 17M. I don't like children like that, it's fucking disgusting. I am scared shitless to turn 18, am afraid to even consentingly joke around with my friends. I'm scared shitless to even get a relationship at all because of this and I'm afraid of false accusations from completely (hidden, or those who have grown to be) psycopaths. I'm afraid of human interaction, because I know these claims are nothing but baseless, but the problem is people eat that anyway and throw people the consequences they shit out.
Also, these same people accusing me of being a pedo and a creep, are no more than 15 years old AND fetishizing men well over 20 years old "impregnating" them. It's disgusting, scary, projection, and worrisome to say the least. Shit like this makes me have no hope for society, I'm not sure how much longer I can stand to live in it.
Just be genuine and I think you'll be okay. I mean you never know - some people used to roam around and string people up on trees to hang them, sometimes fairly at random even (so long as they had a certain ethnicity or immigration status or whatever) - but all you can control is yourself so don't focus overmuch on what is beyond that.
Also I believe that the literal, legal definition of pedo (or whatever, "statutory rape" I guess? I'm not searching for that term right now!:-P) excludes people who are 18 dating someone who is 17. It would be different if you were 20 dating a 15-year-old, but in general once you move past high school just don't go back and I think you'd be fine?
Also children (even at 15 years old... and sadly also at 50) are going to play regardless, and that means slinging words around that they don't mean, or necessarily even know what the definitions are. Just don't be a pedo, and then even if they accuse you, there's nothing there to justify it so you should (fingers crossed) be fine?
Appreciate it. That's the thing though, have to keep fingers crossed, shit could still happen. We have seen what cancel culture has done to people of all groups when being falsely accused.
Angry reactions is a good example recently. It's been years since I watched the dude, because I dont use tiktok anymore, deleted the app and my account years ago, but genuinely he was a funny and wholesome guy.
When the drama started, I stated that it was important to take both sides seriously, wait for facts and evidence to come out, and not just instantly side with one. I'm not gonna debate which one's worse, but sexual assault is wrong and damaging to someone's life, but so is the accusation of it. People forget that, and hell, I think it's another thing that seems so obvious that people are just so ignorant of.
When it came out that he was indeed innocent, and the accuser admitted to making up some B.S., the damage was done, his reputation already went down the gutter, and that's gonna sting.
With this only growing to be more common, this is the type of shit that I'm just scared of. Even when you were PROVEN to be innocent, your life is still ruined. That's what makes me not to touch any relationships or even interacting with "children" MY AGE anymore with a 500 mile radius.
I don't want any silver of possibility of being put into that position where I get falsely accused, and if I do, it's (hopefully) clear that it's not possible. Call it trust issues or whatever, but I hate risks, and at this rate having relationships of any kind is fucking risky.
Yes but, if you will pardon the doom speech: climate change is going to kill us all? So like, don't worry about what you cannot control. Yes keep it in mind. Yes do what you can. But if you can't do anything, then why lose sleep over it? Every single black person that has ever lived in America has experienced this, and the vast, VAST majority of women in the past. Also most immigrants - legal or otherwise - too.
I am making it sound like I am telling you what to do, but to rephrase, I am just hoping to offer this different perspective?
Fwiw, I think you have a good idea to beware of it, b/c an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. Some super well-known people in the past, for reasons of their religion, have decided to not ever be alone with a woman (except their wife or daughters). This sounds like some Muslim bullshit... but actually in their case it has more than a tiny bit of merit. They have even declined the services of taxi / uber drivers if they are women - like WTF? On the other hand, how many evangelical church pastors can you think of that have been accused of, even outright proven (or like admitted it later) to have had sexual relations with someone that they should not have? I don't even mean outside of their marriages, but in a conflict-of-interest scenario (like a therapist and their client) where the person is in their congregation. Isn't it close to 100%? Okay probably not, but it does seem that way sometimes. Some teachers will likewise refuse to allow their office doors to be closed if a young woman student is in there with them. So go for it - stay safe, indeed. Just I hope you find your inner peace also as you do so:-). And maybe some of these practices can help with that, by providing both protection from accusations and thereby that peace of mind that the protection exists?
It sounds like your really understand. Thank you, I really needed this. I wish you the best of things in life!
Not at all - I've never faced that particular scenario, being more focused on college at that time in my life and also you have shown me that some things have really changed - but I do hope that mulling over this different perspective will help as you move forward:-).
Ah, gotcha. Sometimes hearing out another person's idea's is really helpful. I'll try my absolute best.
I may only dream of such a world where it was that simple. Some would say one's will and inspiration to frame an individual suffices as a foundation. To use a metaphor, it's a very Corenlius-Evazan-esque situation but without a jedi to retaliate and with the whole bar (representing the known world) in on it. The stigma is also contagious in a way, the few people who see things for what they are being lumped in with me, often not even intentionally. The suspicion for me was always pre-existing, based on trivial things about me that brought to mind misconceptions, and it just possesses new forms it seems, no matter how collateral, never shrinking because it takes a self-feeding form. Sometimes it's like the minds of the world have been hacked because one minute I might be explaining such a thing to them and being told I'm being agreed with, and the next, they're being confronted by an antagonizer who barely says two words to them about the conspiracy theory of what I've done that I just got done alluding to as what it is, even involving positions of authority on occasion, and suddenly they've been wololo'd. So avoiding fulfilling the object of their fears does little to quell anything.
You might find it fascinating to watch The Alt Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios on YouTube. It just might change your life. It's not fully about politics so much as, much more importantly, the method of discourse that has somehow become popular in the Western world, as many right-wing groups worldwide have started to use it and it has permeated our entire culture.
Does all that come with instructions on what if the other side starts spinning it and making the case that you're operating by this MO?
I believe it does:-).
Where?
One is The Reverse Gish Gallop and another is The Card Says Moops, though the latter is a significantly longer journey.
If you haven't watched (or its been a minute since), I would start from the first one in the series bc it builds so nicely and foundationally:-).
That the start menu has a search bar. You would think that everyone would know this after almost 2 decades, but too many people still navigate through their computers like it's 1998.
Genders aren't real. Stop bothering me with how you think people should act regarding their ugly bits. I don't need to know about your sex life and how proud you are for the way you get your happy sensors wiggled.
It is so obvious: I am the smartest person on earth.
But they are all too dense to realize it. 🤐
Well, you've convinced me! What should I do, o wise one?
I'll jump on board with this too. Someone's got to be the smartest person on earth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell everybody about me.
🫡
Tell us: with that level of density, is the earth going to be okay? Like, do we need to send some people away, or will we turn into a black hole or some such? (Sorry, I'm just one of those plebes - I know nothing okay!?)
Of course, yes. Don't fear. That level hasn't changed for several thousand years.
There's only a handful who deserve that. One of them wants to leave for Mars anyway.
Fear? Oh yes right, I do "not" desire to become a black hole, um, yeah... 😜
Your security questions. You picked them dummy what do you mean you don't know your wife's maiden name!?
I once picked an answer that contained an umlaut and apprently their system couldn't handle that. Years later I actually needed it and it seems easy enough. My place of birth. "wrong" .... like wtf, I know where I was born.
Eventually the customer support accepted my answer as "close enough" after I gave like 3 different spellings.
LMAO
Hm, it might be because I don't have a wife. I'll keep searchin' tho!
I can’t remember the last time I had to use those…
I JUST GOT OUT OF THE POOL!!!
Lemmy exist.
It's fucking "'til" not "tell".
'til is short for "until".
Please stop saying "Let's wait tell later to do that".
Humans aren't mostly rational. Lots of people aren't rational at all.
"Lemons"? Is that "Lemmys gone sour"?
Time to start /c/LemonParty as a replacement for /r/gonewild
NSFLemmy
What have I started?
If everyone were immortal, and no one needed to worry about resources, that would be awesome and pretending otherwise is the biggest cope.
How to park.
I dont drive just yet, I'm sorry 😭
lol you're not doing anything wrong yet then 😄
There's a whole community of young men who wear thigh highs and cat ears while they game and design
I agree with lemmings
That all communication is an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others.
"Manipulate" is perhaps an overly cynical way of saying that everyone has their own motivations, which they pursue both consciously and unconsciously.
You mean like... all, all? How so? You mean like by asking you this question I'm "manipulating" you into answering it? If so that's a bit of a stretch in my personal opinion.
A stretch, yes. But it’s an interesting model for understanding what communication is. By telling you this, I am manipulating you into understanding my point of view and hopefully getting you to agree with me.
It’s important to note that not all manipulation is negative. I should hope parents manipulate their children into being aware of safety.
Even chit-chat could be seen as manipulating each other into “being social” but even I would say that’s a long shot.
I think the definition of manipulation is a bit odd here. Manipulation to me has a connotation of being nonconsensual. If both or all parties are voluntarily participating I wouldn't consider it manipulation.
But I do see what you all mean, conceptually.
Huh, I've never thought of this before... I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I've never thought of communication like this before but now I'm going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I'm a know it all by telling them this lol
You ask the question in the hope that the answers will provide you either entertainment or edification.
I answered the question in the hope that others will give me a sense of validation for my views or, failing that, start an entertaining or edifying discussion on a topic I'm already interested in.
Right, so I think you have a different definition of "manipulation", perhaps. Which is fine. 👍
"alter the behavior of others for one's own perceived benefit", yeah?
That's too neutral or positive for my connotation. Mine includes something negative from the perspective of the one being manipulated. It might be incorrect but it's my connotation.
That's a cynical way to put it, if technically correct. Manipulation has a negative connotation for people, but people don't communicate for exclusively malicious reasons.
You might as well say that any conscious entity only acts out of reason, to get food, joy, rest... Or that it isn't possible to speak without words. That much goes without saying. Everyone knows that, which makes this an odd thing to bring up in this thread.
And I'd suggest that you can't prove that a conscious entity without reason ceases to act. We've all surely done something or other for "no particular reason" even if an outward observer might assign one.
Does that mean it's possible to speak without meaning anything in particular? I genuinely don't know.
But I can be sure of one thing, that speaking with the intent to achieve one thing, almost never achieves that exact thing. Is failed manipulation still manipulation? Is unintended manipulation still manipulation? People interpret meaning where non was meant all the time.
That's a good point where the aspect of correctness aside even, it unhelpfully puts too much focus on the sender, whereas communication is widely known to be more of a partnership between both the sender and the recipient(s).
e.g. birds singing is interpreted differently by other birds (want some fuq?) than us humans who happen to hear it as well (oh, such pwetty songs!)
I can see this one. Some just have good intent and is mutual. Some is just malicious.
Technically true, but ambiguous.
gdday' lemon!
A little while ago, people were complaining incognito mode didn't do what they thought it did.
The band TOOL exists.
The pursuit of "equity" is a tribalistic and often racist effort that rebuilds and reinforces the systemic racism we've been trying to dismantle for decades.
Most anglophones are awful people.
Sugar is bad for you. Fruit is unnecessary.
Fat is good for you.
That the "give heroine to pregnant women and cigs to kids" era of the 18-1900s is the same as the "artificial food additives and lab grown meat" of today
You somehow thinking that the word "lemmy" is from lemon...? That's a level of idiocy that shouldn't be possible. It's Lemmings, and the logo is a lemming, which is obvious. How the fuck is it even possible to miss any of this?