Aren't ask lemmy posts "low effort" in general as well in the sense that it's just a question? My point isn't that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it's low effort doesn't mean it's bad.
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don't already do and we don't require them not to in order to keep their vote.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as "Vegan cultures" in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I don't eat meat or dairy, so i technically i'm a vegan, right? But i wouldn't identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i'm at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don't support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn't have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don't think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you'll always be a childfucker.
Eh... Okay, i'll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it's not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it's more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It's always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
For me it is the wholesale - "Everyone can do this, it is a moral failing on your part that you aren't already vegan" that irks me.
I have a combination of diseases that mean I could never go vegan, but every single time I have interacted with a vegan online they take the stance that I am lying/wrong and just justifying my choices. Well - My choice is to not die of malnutrition while being tied to a toilet 24/7.
Like yes, random internet vegan - You certainly know my dietary needs better than my doctor and I do...
It's about decreasing demand not decreasing waste. The purpose of flexitarianism is to reduce the demand for animal byproducts. Food waste is a much bigger issue at chain restaurants, especially fast food as it's often thrown out at the end of the shift as spoilage.
Food waste in American homes is miniscule compared to the food waste in chain restaurants and fast food. You eating or not eating that steak is a mouse fart in a hurricane. There aren't enough mice to turn this train around. Food waste needs to be tackled in a very different way than demand. A vegan restaurant is just as likely to waste food as an omnivore restaurant is.
Would you eat human meat? Enslaved toddlers, probably killed at roughly 1-4 years old. Cannibals say it tastes like ham. If it was nice and packaged up for you at the grocery store.
I've had debates with vegans on something similar:
I'm not vegan, I'll never be vegan. That's a complete non-starter for me.
What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I'll be all over that. I still won't be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They're never interested. It's all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It's as though they're a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn't have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
"Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3"
"Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now" (in reference to meatless Mondays)
I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don't.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat "humane" meat. I put "humane" in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don't personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
I've never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
Once governments stop or reduce funding for the meat and dairy industries, prices will continue to go up and more people will be like you. At the end of the day, animal products (especially those from bovines) aren't super sustainable and cost a lot more than we pay at the supermarket.
It's pretty nuts what they're asking for meat. I don't do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef... holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you're comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I think as something like a burger it's not that great but stuff like shepherds pie or meatballs where I'm adding other ingredients and seasoning it's indistinguishable. I even fooled my whole family with some homemade beyond meatballs.
Honestly I feel like the idea of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is so lame. Like I understand that you could find something technically ethically wrong with everything, but that statement just feels like a way for people who don't want to give up certain things to justify themselves.
Capitalism, especially modern day capitalism where the government and companies collaborate, does lead to a lot of ethical issues. And yes, I understand that it is not liveable to give up everything that is unethical. But you can still have boundaries.
I mean like, buying oats and grains from a grocery store, which are typically grown domestically, compared to buying dead abused animals or bananas from a company that uses slave labor. Those are totally different things.
If you prioritize buying things that are made in countries that have better labor laws, and avoid animal products, then that's a pretty damn good start.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don't just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That's too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn't keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I'm taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I'm supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
human are omnivore, it's a biological trait not a diet. Being omnivore doesn't mean that you need to consume animal products, in the contrary, it means that you can avoid them and still strive, as opposed as carnivore.
own your choices, plain and simple. don't blame other for taking action to reduce suffering, CO2 and waste of ressources.
I think our ancestors also hunted large game which is why we evolved to be endurance hunters. Not that we are bound so tightly to our evolutionary as all that. But still.
I support vegans and respect their decisions, I just have little interest in being one myself.
Although when I buy leather products (belts shoes) I tend to buy ones that last decades. So there's that. And yeah I try to reduce meat consumption and I strive to do better.
What? You're saying that because we needed leather in the past, we can't wear cotton now to keep warm? At one point we didn't have easy access to plant-based proteins so we should continue eating animal products? By that logic, we didn't have vaccines in the past, so does that mean we can't use them now? Our ancestors also didn't have the internet, so why are you here?
The past was a completely different world. Don't let it hold you back from doing better now.
the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.
you choose what you consume, but don't put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it's fair to state this fact.
Sorry, but I just don't think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It's rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.
This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.
No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It's our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.
no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.
we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.
don't return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it's not debatable.
you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it's totally ok. but own your choices, you don't need to justify them.
we all are full of contradiction, and it's more than ok. but don't make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.
Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they've crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
That pedos shouldn't be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don't think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed "statistical data" on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
Many, many spoilers below. But, seriously, this movie is 21 years old. Get over yourselves.
Check it: a young girl adopts an illegal alien (killing machine from deep space) and protects him from the U.S. (and galactic) government (Military-Industrial complexes), while keeping her incredibly depressed sister (slices both ways) from giving up completely as they keep their Indigenous Hawaiian family together in their co-opted homeland. One sister works a series of dead-end tourism jobs; the other has anger issues. The hate each other and love each other fiercely, though they are about 12 years apart in age.
Oh, yeah, and their parents are dead.
Meanwhile, the alien is a political refugee and freedom fighter fleeing from his own people who want him dead for —get this— existing. A lab-grown, indestructible terrorist, he seeks asylum on an island — but he can't swim.
He does learn to surf.
The only downside to this film is that Disney produced it. And Elvis.
"Ohana means family. Nobody gets left behind or forgotten."
TikTok and YouTube shorts are brain-rotting garbage, and if you use them regularly you need to stop now. Yes, even if you claim you only watch educational stuff.
Also giving a child under the age of 8 or 9 a personal internet-connected device should be seen on a similar level as neglect if not full-on abuse.
Teachers should be paid 50% more. If you want good teachers to stay, you have to walk the walk, otherwise you'll get a perpetual cycle of overwhelmed grads being bossed around by rusted-on bottom teer heads.
The vast majority of humans are actually nice, altruistic and not selfish if you treat them with respect. And hence anarchism would not resolve in everyone killing each other.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Those math questions that rely on purposeful ambiguity in order to drive engagement are annoying as fuck. It's like "congratulations, you just proved that in math (and questions in general) if you're not clear with what you're asking, people will get different answers". What fantastic value! What a novel hypothesis! Now fucking knock it off. I'm tired of literally everyone screaming about how their way is right when it doesn't fucking matter, the question was asked in a bullshit way in order to piss everyone off.
Bonus, PEMDAS, BEMDAS, PE-MD-AS. It's a goddamn terrible mnemonic that twists itself in knots to make the acronym work, rather than to make the order of operations clear. Screaming it doesn't make your shit any clearer anyways.
Air fryers are only popular because Americans have been using microwaves to cook for decades, which are possibly the worst cooking devices ever created.
If they had decent fan ovens during that time, they wouldn't be anywhere near as popular
Conversely, air fryers are seen to be popular in the UK, because nobody will admit they fell for the advertising, and now only use them for chips
Force damage in D&D 5E is too poorly-defined to be a good part of the game and exists solely for when the designers don't want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question. Either we need an actual description of what happens to a thing that gets hit by it or it should be cut; the vast majority of the things that deal it could perfectly easily be magical bludgeoning / piercing / slashing. Spiritual weapon and Bigby's hand are particularly egregious
Zelda BotW and TotK are not fun. The stamina system is pointless and the weapon durability is frustrating. On top of that, the world's are just sooo empty. There's really nothing in them. Oh look, an interesting ruin... it's another repetitive shrine. Oh, that geological formation is really unique aaannnddd it's another fucking korok seed. That's all you ever got for exploring. Shrines and korok seeds.
I did like slapping random shit onto my weapons in tears of the kingdom though. All in all to me the games are fine but not really Zelda games.
What we're currently calling AI isn't AI but just a language processing system that takes its best guess at a response from it's database of information they pilfered from the internet like a more sophisticated Google.
It can't really think for itself and it's answers can be completely wrong. There's nothing intelligent about it.
Doing drugs should be decriminalized, but not legal. Ideally when someone is found addicted to drugs they would be provided help rather than punishment. Selling drugs should remain criminal but consequences should be determined based on the amount found selling and to who (like a child or someone who's pregnant would be a higher penalty at the discretion of the court), legalizing would just give a tax incentive for pushing drugs similar to gambling.
Edit: I want to clarify, I'm talking about addictive drugs with known negative health effects like meth. Weed can be legal, who cares.
What you are saying ia only half true. While you can get addicted to let's say your phone, it's still natural. You can put it down and pick it up any time, you just have a harder time reasoning with yourself, and will do it sometimes out of habbit.
However drugs manipulate your brain, and getting addicted to drugs is on another level of addiction. The "harder to reason with yourself" part becomes near impossible. Without help you borderline can't stop.
With a "natural" addiction your impulses are still in a healthy range. You are in control, it just guides you to something that you like subconsciously.
I oversimplified and I'm also not a professional at this topic, but I did some research. I was curious about why can't ppl stop playing some videogames, while others are just an activity, nothing more. (Also why the tiktok formula is so addicting)
Yeah, but we already have laws against specific drugs so this wouldn't be any worse than what we already have, instead it's an approach to make it safer without just saying it's okay. But yeah the decision of if it should be a controlled substance should be left up to a board of medical professionals rather than politicians as it is now.
Modern "wellness" has gone too far to where people experiencing any hardship or adversity of any kind is "trauma" .
Negative reinforcement is a massively powerful motivator, but it doesn't feel good while it's happening.
Ideally there's also positive reinforcement in your life to make a nice balanced stew, but we need to be able to survive off negative, especially in professional pursuits.
Every emotion you experience isn't a condition, even if you feel it often.
If you feel it CONSTANTLY, then yeah something is wrong.
There's no public debt crisis. People don't understand how government debt works. One casualty of this is the slow green transition which will cost us dearly in the future.
Leadership has the capacity and capability to change things for the better and continue to fail to do so because true leadership means making decisions that at times may hurt and may not be universally liked.
This is as true in politics as it is in business.
In short our leaders are not leading out of the fear of repercussions of leading.
Privately owned cars are fine, but we should abolish minimum parking requirements in zoning codes and outlaw on-street parking. Keep your car, but finding somewhere to park it is your own problem, not society's.
We should also do this for commercial trucks. They cause the vast majority of road damage because of their weight and should pay for the vast majority of road maintenance costs. Charge the true price for freight and then see how profitable it is to ship things to houses.
We the people are subsidizing the for profit trucking industry and that is wrong.
All DST and time zones should be removed and we should only have one global time. People in different locations would just get up at different times on the clock. Communication about times would get so much easier, communication about schedules would get so much easier. "The same time every week" would have an actual meaning all year around regardless of any notions about getting up later relative to local sunrise in the darker time of the year.
Large corporations are, indeed, soulless and thankless. No amount of their pandering to the masses with charity campaigns and outreach programs ever end without them making money.
Knowing this, I prefer to take everything at face value. If I start concerning myself with the ulterior motives of these people that don't believe in class equality, I will very quickly want to put a lightbulb in my mouth.
For those familiar, Destiny 2 (a video game by Bungie, the originators of the Halo franchise) has come under scrutiny lately due to mass layoffs, and the following PR nightmare it has turned into. With every day that passes, we learn more thanks to the diligent work of journalists doing their job.
I appreciate knowing to help me make informed decisions about who I fiscally support, but I will spend my money on entertainment based on the value it gives me. Not the morals I'm told I should have by people bickering on the internet, and content creators that use these situations as clickbait.
And that all goes for any corp, I'm just largely invested in this one example. I am aware that Nestle is garbage ass company, but due to me not existing in their world view, I will buy a KitKat when I want one, thanks.
Lore is not story. Sekiro is the best From Soft game. Sekiro's second half doesn't fall apart or disappoint. The puzzle boss is acceptable. The combat actually feels like Seven Samurai and Star Wars: a flurry of blocks and parrys, culminating in a coup de grace.
Chipping hit points with a light sabre or a battle axe is dumb as shit and it's been normal so long we don't notice.
Humanity cannot and will not change its practices fast enough to avoid running out of resources we keep ourselves dependent on because it's "profitable." We are a doomed species and won't be around for very much longer. We are likely living in the flash of bright before the long dark. I don't think the world my grandchildren live in will be remotely like the one we have now.
I'm perfectly fine hedging my bets and living life normally, but I think our longevity is an uncomfortable truth most people don't want to face.
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon are some of the best Pokemon games, better than most of the (especially newer) main series games. I started with Pokemon Mystery Dungeon so I may be biased though.
All forms of communication that promotes any level of division between the general population, and the idea of payback or revenge is very wrong and toxic and are some of the main reasons for the shit we all go through these days, yet most people either don't think it's a big deal or think it's necessary. We're gonna end up killing ourselves and we're all gonna lose, but at least you got to punch the guy that punched you first, right? Or kill all the ancestors of the guy that punched your great great great granddad, then their ancestors killing yours for killing their ancestors, right? You deserve to kill them all, they had it coming, so did your ancestors, right?
Until the childish ideas of revenge and division is gone from our adult society, i don't see us surviving as a civilization before we kill each other first.
I'm tired of hearing people justify either. It's all nonsense, illogical, and childish.
We are trying to solve computer/rocket-age problems with a caveman brain. If we don't start genetic engineering humans soon i'd wager we'll eradicate ourselves before we colonize other planets and stars.
That capitalism is not the cause of most societal grief. Pathological self preservation is a fundamental human problem. It’s the reason we’re okay with seeing hordes of homeless people, or with killing people to resolve geopolitical issues. Greed can optimize any system to work for itself, people who are or will be adept at such optimization would thrive under any kind of socioeconomic or cultural system, including extremely leftist systems. Just spit ballin’ tho, haven’t thought about it much tbh.
Saw it posted on Instagram or Facebook or somewhere and all of the top comments were saying 1. Any comment saying 16 had tons of comments ironically telling that person to go back to first grade and calling them stupid.
At this point, you solve it left to right because division and multiplication are on the same level. BODMAS and PEMDAS were created by teachers to make it easier to remember, but ultimately, they are on the same level, meaning you solve it left-to-right, so....
Depends on whether you're a computer or a mathematician.
2(2+2) is equivalent to 2 x (2+2), but they are not equal. Using parenthesis implicitly groups the 2(2+2) as part of the paretheses function. A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4 and evaluate the expression left to right, but this is not what it written. We learned in elementary school in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn't know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn't know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do.
Of course, modern mathematicians work primarily in computers, where the legacy calculator functions have become standard and distinctions like this have become trivial.
It seems you are partly correct. You are correct in saying that this is how it used to be done (but that was 100 years ago, it seems) and you are correct that in modern times, this would be interpreted as I did it, above.
The author of that article makes the mistake of youth, that because things are different now that the change was sudden and universal. They can find evidence that things were different 100 years ago, but 50 years ago there were zero computers in classrooms, and 30 years ago a graphing calculator was considered advanced technology for an elementary age student. We were taught the old math because that is what our teachers were taught.
Early calculators couldn't (or didn't) parse edge cases, so they would get this equation wrong. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted rather than reprogram every calculator on earth, which is a rational decision I think. But that doesn't make the old way wrong, anymore than it makes cursive writing the wrong way to shape letters.
No, that video is wrong. Not only that, if you check the letter he referenced Lennes' Letter, you'll find it doesn't support his assertion that the rules changed at all! And that's because they didn't change. Moral of the story Always check the references.
Only if that's what the programmer has programmed it to do, which is unfortunately most programmers. The correct conversion is 2(4)=(2x4).
in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do
Actually it's only in the 90's that some calculators started getting it wrong - prior to that they all gave correct answers.
But that's not the same thing as 8÷2(2+2). 2x(2+2) is 2 Terms, 2(2+2) is 1 Term. 8÷2×(2+2)=16 ((2+2) is in the numerator), 8÷2(2+2)=1 (2(2+2) is in the denominator)
And both you and people arguing that it's 1 would be wrong.
This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication sign between 2 and ( is often interpreted as having priority. This is all matter of convention.
I see what you're getting at but the issue isn't really the assumed multiplication symbol and it's priority. It's the fact that when there is implicit multiplication present in an algebraic expression, and really best practice for any math above algebra, you should never use the '÷' symbol. You need to represent the division as a numerator and denominator which gets rid of any ambiguity since the problem will explicitly show whether (2+2) is modifying the numerator or denominator. Honestly after 7th grade I can't say I ever saw a '÷' being used and I guess this is why.
Back in gradeschool I was always taught that in Pemdas, the parenthesis are assumed to be there in 8÷(2×(2+2)) where as 8÷2×(2+2) would be 16, 8÷2(2+2) is the above and equals 1.
Not quite. It's true you resolve what's inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Now this is what gets most people. Even though Multiplication technically comes before Division the Acronym PEMDAS, that's really just to make it sound correct phonetically. Really they have equal priority in the order of operations and the appropriate way to resolve the problem is to work from left to right solving each multiplication or division sign as you encounter them. Giving you 16. Same for addition and subtraction.
So basically the true order of operations is:
Work left to right solving anything inside parentheses
Work left to right solving any exponentials
Work left to right solving any multiplication or division
Work left to right solving any addition or subtraction
Source: Mechanical Engineering degree so an unfortunate amount of my life spent in math and physics classes.
Absolutely, its all seen as equal so it has to go left to right However as I said in the beginning the way I was taught atleast, is when you see 2(2+2) and not 2×(2+2) you assume that 2(2+2) actually means (2×(2+2 )) and so must do it together.
Ah sorry just realized what you were saying. I've never been taught that. Maybe it's just a difference in teaching styles, but it shouldn't be since it can actually change the outcome. The way I was always taught was if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there.
So you were taught that 2(2+2) == (2(2+2))
I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)
Interesting difference though because again, assuming invisible parentheses can really change up how a problem is done.
Edit: looks like theshatterstone54's comment assumed a multiplication symbol as well.
It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Not "inside parenthesis" (Primary School, when there's no coefficient), "solve parentheses" (High School, The Distributive Law). Also 8÷2(4)=8÷(2x4) - prematurely removing brackets is how a lot of people end up with the wrong answer (you can't remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside).
US Senators and congressmen are underpaid. Their salaries should be doubled. The president should make at least a $1 million a year, directly paid by taxpayers.
Reason: If I, the taxpayer, pay them, then they have to work for me. The payment makes that service relationship explicit. I pay you, you work for me. And, yes, the current pay is too little, $174,000 - barely comparable to tech workers.
Only taking $1 is an invitation for corruption. (Not claiming it happened, but it is an invitation.)
The main story of Baldur's Gate 3 is pretty bland and mediocre.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a phenomenal game! The companion arcs, acting and overall presentation are still next level, some sidestories are very good, and it’s great how faithfully they adapted the D&D rules. But the main story ...
::: spoiler Spoiler
... is pretty bare bones and has no real twists and turns along the way.
You start with a mindflayer tadpole in your head, so who do you think will be the final boss? Exactly, an elder brain.
On the way you kill 3 major henchmen, who just want power, destruction, or are confused beyond saving. None of them were particularly interesting or multi-layered (maybe Ketheric a bit). None of them could be saved, convinced to switch sides, or at least affected somehow. Aligning with them is only temporary, makes barely any difference, and absolutely no difference for the end afaik.
Most big quests end in act 3 in the same manner: Go to a place in BG and dispose of the boss character behind it all.
The revelations with the Emperor/Balduran were nice, but he was a very mysterious character for the entirety oft he game, and his decision to fight you if you side with Orpheus is just absolutely ridiculous!
:::
Why would you wanna fight aging when we reproduce in such a massive way that we are pretty much doomed? The last thing we need is a bunch of 120 year olds who rule the world.
Well the old people in power just gets replaced withother old people. Making people grow old and die isn't working against dictators either.
But your idea is that it would be better if we became ill even earlier then, like we should stop fighting aging the way we do it today (medicin, operations, transplants...)?
How about we solve the quality of life issues with higher age first before we work on extending the lifespan even more. Nobody benefits from old senile people who have to stay in bed all day and can't see properly having a few more years of suffering in that state.
So you'd prefer be a decripit sick old person, today already?
Most people thinks they'd change their mind and sort of welcome death at old age, but barring a very small number, nah, they want to live on as much as you and me today.
I will take getting old and decrepit over having to work forever for soulless companies amd shit. Then again it's not like I'm gonna see a pension anyways so I'd rather not get that old in the first place and die earlier.
Our society ain't ready for this type of shit, get everyone to be young forever and most of us will be living sad lives working forever to make someone else richer. And furthermore you'd have a lot more old people, who grew up in a different context than young people and don't always tend to accept the fact the world is different now from when they were young, but they outnumber young people by such a huge margin that the voices of young people will be completely ignored and societal change will happen at a slow crawl, if at all, with a good portion of the population being unrepresented because "gotta cater to the majority if you want enough votes to win"... no thanks.
The world doesn't need more old people and I sure as shit don't want to live in an even worse world than I have now. With climate change and all.
Also I'm not sure if the wording in your first question is correct because, as it is now, it reads like if I don't like extending life to eternity (assuming you don't get shot, etc etc) then I must want to be old immediately which is a completely stupid jump to make so I'll assume it was misworded.
World Peace is no longer an idea. It's happening, and will be the norm before most of us die. The United Federation of Humanity will happen, relatively soon.
Both Mario Odyssey and SMB Wonder are only innovative in a vacuum where Mario is the only platformer franchise. Which for a lot of people I imagine is the extent of their knowledge about platformers.
The things people call "innovative" about Mario Odyssey are just half Kirby and half Banjo-Kazooie. Yeah Odyssey's biggest maps are way bigger than Banjo-Kazooie, but SMO runs on hardware that can emulate the N64, and it still has quite a few maps on the smaller side
SMB Wonder... I don't actually know what people call "innovative" about SMB Wonder, but I've seen people call it "innovative." It's the best 2D Mario made in the 21st century and it has a pretty cool gimmick. What's innovative about this?
The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars movie since the OT. Then they "course corrected" after listening too closely to online discourse, and ended up really ruining the franchise.
I don't want to get rid of daylight savings, because it's still a better option than keeping either summer or winter time.
Edit: another one: not having kids does not in any way contribute to solving environmental problems, we need MORE young, educated minds who have a chance to figure it out (as terrible as it sounds to push problems on the new generation), and we should ensure that in the event that we do manage to stabilize the situation, we won't instead have fucked up demographics to deal with.
I have to agree with the plotless aspect. I will, however, defend it solely for its special effects. I think modern films should strive for the standard that movie set in my mind.
Edit: Sure the plot is nothing to write home about but in this sense it's a pure action movie and as an action movie it's of a much higher quality than what the industry has given us for a very long time.
Dammit, I wanna argue against this so bad. I feel like Fury Road is among the rare, if not only, reboot or sequel or whatever you'd call it for movies that had a fresh entry after so long that holds pretty decent in light of the originals. It has awesome visuals, pretty good pacing, immersive characters, decent interactions.
Yet now I feel like the main plot is kinda stitch-together, "rise up people!" Marvel kind of garbage, with catchy "witness me" kinda stuff sparkled. Local settlement warlords in style of Farcry 3 and up.
The stock market should not exist. Investing in companies is fine, but we shouldn't be able to buy our sell investment shares like a commodity.
All subsidies should not exist. They only alter the supply/demand in unnecessary and damaging ways. This must come with ending commodities trading like stock market investing.
Eating meat and dairy is not sustainable in terms of resources and greenhouse gases, and non-vegan environmentalists are clowns on the level of people flying private jets to climate conferences.
I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that industrial meat and dairy is not sustainable. Communal farms could be.
I saw it somewhere, and now I use it all the time. If you need an example of why capitalism is destined to fail, just look at the cheese caves. We have to bury cheese like nuclear waste just to be able to keep its market value up to a level that makes it worth producing.
This so much this. A mostly vegetarian lifestyle with the occasional meat IS sustainable. People forget that before industrialization, we ate meat like once every one or two weeks. You could count the number of times we ate meat in a month on one han
it's not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it's de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it's like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it's just a common bias.
you can't get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can't eat grass. that's right we can't. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I'm sorry but it won't. too bad if it's boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
but most people don't want to eat what we feed to livestock. and a lot of what we do feed to livestock is actually parts of plants that we have already taken what we want from. another significant part of livestock food is just grazed grass, which takes almost no effort on our part and which we can't eat anyway.
Well the main flaw in your reasoning is thinking that it's an issue addressed at the individual level rather than a greater systemic issue that cannot be addressed by the choice of individuals. And on top of that you colpevolise would-be allies whose life you don't know, ironically playing right into oil tycoons and meat industry's hands
And that's cool and all but ain't no way you will convince everyone to quit eating meat. Especially given that it's not always a matter of choosing. Even then acting morally superior ain't helping.
It's the same discussion with cars, people will do whatever is most convenient and available, if you don't want people to use cars you don't go around telling tjem not to use it, you act on the city's design and public transport to make it so it is convenient to use the alternatives and then you start banning cars from city centers, then move towards the periphery, etc etc. All these are actions taken at the source. Sure telling people to mot use cars as much, to carpool, etc will help a bit but it ain't gonna solve your issues chief.
Maybe we can't convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.
That's the OP's point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.
But you're still pushing the responsibility to individuals, which is literally an oil company tactic.
"You eat meat? Guess you aren't a real environmentalist after all!" Is not the way we'll get more people to quit eating meat. In fact you can't even know why they eat meat despite knowing it's bad for the environment. And it still won't address the problem.
Your are assailed by many threats: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged "collectivists". Extreme authoritarian "leftists", A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violently authoritarian as their religious, corporatist, and fascist competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party”. Repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.
These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death - of the mind and the body. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.
They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. Make these pigs squeal.
I actually liked the lockdown. The whole world was put on pause. No armed conflicts or anything. The zero sum game took a long vacation. For a few months, I had no misanthropy in me. But as they say, all good things die hard.
Cars > public transportation. I forget things & often have to turn back, and I like the freedom to change my mind at any point, stop where I want, and go wherever I want. I also hate being forced into shared public spaces. I also hate the idea of trusting the government to make any of it in any way near efficient. Fuck public transportation.
Parents who purchase animal products care more about their “personal choice” than the world they’re leaving for their children. Bacon is more important to them than their own kids.
C and C++ are awesome and I hope they survive for another 50 years. Sorry Python folks. I just can't get past the strange syntax. Gimme my curly braces, away with this function block spacing crap.
The machine learning models and developments we see these last years called "AI" for some reason, is as big, if not bigger than the IT and internet revolution, and has applications on a broader spectrum than anyone can currently imagine.
You're not really arguing against the whole crowd there, a lot of people (wrongly) hold the same opinion. The problem is thinking of the door swap as an independent event when it's not; the result is directly related to the original choice of door. If we label the doors A, B, and C and put the prize behind door A, here's the possible options:
Edit: I see you added a table to your comment, but you're miscounting pretty badly there. You're giving double weight to initial choice being correct.
It is technically true that when you pick A the presenter can open either B or C, but then you need to account for that in your odds; it's 50% either way so the win/loss rate is halved. In other words:
As shown, including which door the presenter opens does not affect the odds. When sticking, you win (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%) and lose (33% + 33% = 66%), when swapping you win (33% + 33% = 66%) and lose (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%).
I was stubborn about this for so long, and I'm still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.
Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The "choice to switch" is really just a second round of the game, but with a 1/2 chance of winning (wrong, your odds change only if you "participate" in round two).
If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the 1/2 odds of the "second round".
Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don't understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn't be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.
With 100 doors switching should give you a 99% win rate.
You're essentially concentrating the entire thing into this one vs not this one, and when you initially chose there was a 99% chance it was not this one.
After Monty opens all the other doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one is still 99% except that now the entirety of not this one is represented by that single other door. The Grand Prize has nowhere else to be, and the odds that you picked it first is still only 1%.
So, to bring it back down, with three doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one 66%, and we end up exactly where we expected to be.
but I don’t understand the math of how to get that answer
There's four total outcomes of the problem:
Scenario 1: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and don't switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 2: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and did switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 3: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and don't switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/3
Scenario 4: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and do switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/3
Now consider scenarios 1 and 3 together, these two are when you don't switch. P(S1) is 1/6 and P(S3) is 1/3, meaning S3 is twice as likely than S1. So if you don't switch, you are twice as likely to lose. And now consider scenarios 2 and 4 together. P(S4) is 1/3 and P(S2) is 1/6, meaning if you switch you are twice as likely to win than to lose.
The "second round" of the game is always just, "flip your odds of winning if you swap". That's all it is.
Monty will always open the proper doors to ensure this happens every time. Did you pick the winning door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all other doors but leave one of the losers. Did you pick a losing door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all the other losers and only leave the winner. It's always the opposite of what you picked. Therefore, if you swap, you will simply get the opposite odds of the first round.
100 doors to pick from, only 1 winner? 1/100 chance to win if you just picked at random and ended it there. Now Monty offers a swap. Without the swap, you have 99 different ways to lose this. But with the swap, all 99 of those ways become winners, because Monty will always swap the opposite with you.
Say there are 100 doors, you choose one, then 98 are knocked out randomly (likely including the prize) - Now each of the 2 doors has the same chance of winning, so there is no reason to change
But starting with 100 doors and a knowledgeable Monty Hall, once you've chosen a door, the only reason Monty Hall leaves your door alone is because you chose it, whether it is the 1/100 winner, or one of the 99/100 losers
Either you chose the right door the first time (1/100 chance) or the other door has the prize behind it - those are the only options - the other door literally represents the 99/100 other doors in a single choice
I'm not cut out for this politically correct shit. I say one historical fact people act like I'm making shit up and they delete my comment and call me dumb even though it's a universally established tradition of ancient states.
I really can't deal with this "you have to be sensitive about others' feelings" so much so that you can't talk about real historical facts! I say fuck you to all.
Here's something about American politics to provoke a lot of people, especially on this site:
Donald Trump should be elected in 2024 purely to serve as an exam to the left. Liberalism clearly doesn't work anymore, there's a lot of discontent in the world and a shift towards far-right politics, while left is almost non-existent in almost any country, it doesn't have an answer. With Donald Trump getting elected for his revenge term and demolishing democracy, hopefully it's a catastrophe strong enough for the left to wake up.
Death is fine and jail is mental torture. People with downs syndrome and similar are forced to live a tortured existence by people who think they're good for subjective them to that.
Hear me out, I don't want to be Musk. I want to be in a situation where I don't have to work and I don't have to worry about money for the rest of my life. If today I want to lay in my bed until 11, get up and play games until 3pm, start binging a new series until 10pm, and then go clubbing until 4am, I wouldn't have to worry about whether it's Tuesday or Saturday, whether I have a project due tomorrow, whether I have food in the fridge, whether I can afford to pay my bills, all because I get a stream of money coming into my account every month, enough to cover all my expenses and then some, so if I want to start a project that can develop into a successful business, I can do that. And if I just want to tinker with some random piece of hardware I found on eBay, I can do that. And if I just want to go through the routine above, I can do that. That's what I seek. That level of freedom. Money is just a way of achieving that freedom.
Pointless luxury can have different meaning for different people. Some people use money to amass power. For such people, controlling multiple businesses in multiple vital industries is key. For a person who wants to use money to achieve freedom (lile me), buying up media companies would be pointless. For someone aiming to amass power, it would be key.
If you want a source for a claim, Google it yourself. This isn't the 70s where you have to go to a library and flip through a card catalog to find information. The answer is literally a few seconds away.
NFTs are an interesting and valuable technology that will be useful in the future as a means of digital media 'ownership' in place of 'perpetual licensing' like we see when we 'buy' media from servers today.
There's more to it than monkey pictures, and if people saw that, we would have greater control over media libraries than in the present.
I’m American and have worked in the service industry in the US and Germany. I fully support tipping in the US, because waiting tables is one of the few jobs in the US where you can actually earn a good living without breaking your body (as much as construction, as a comparison) and without a training program. In a place where unions actually make a difference, it’s just a nice thing to do, and that’s obviously a better solution generally, but that’s not currently the case in the US.
That this meme is low effort content and it's spamming everywhere
Aren't ask lemmy posts "low effort" in general as well in the sense that it's just a question? My point isn't that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it's low effort doesn't mean it's bad.
Memes are low effort in general
The more effort a meme takes to make, the less likely it will become well-known.
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don't already do and we don't require them not to in order to keep their vote.
Hawaiian pizza is good.
Not that it's the best pizza, or even my favorite. It's just a fine option.
Any comment that gets more than one upvote fails the subject.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as "Vegan cultures" in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I don't eat meat or dairy, so i technically i'm a vegan, right? But i wouldn't identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i'm at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don't support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn't have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don't think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you'll always be a childfucker.
Eh... Okay, i'll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
*Some vegans
I've never seen a vegetarian bully someone for not being purist enough. Vegans however do it constantly and even harass vegetarians
perhaps
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it's not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it's more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
it's due to cognitive dissonance.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It's always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
For me it is the wholesale - "Everyone can do this, it is a moral failing on your part that you aren't already vegan" that irks me.
I have a combination of diseases that mean I could never go vegan, but every single time I have interacted with a vegan online they take the stance that I am lying/wrong and just justifying my choices. Well - My choice is to not die of malnutrition while being tied to a toilet 24/7.
Like yes, random internet vegan - You certainly know my dietary needs better than my doctor and I do...
It's about decreasing demand not decreasing waste. The purpose of flexitarianism is to reduce the demand for animal byproducts. Food waste is a much bigger issue at chain restaurants, especially fast food as it's often thrown out at the end of the shift as spoilage.
By not eating food that has already been bought and prepared you do not decrease demand.
Food waste in American homes is miniscule compared to the food waste in chain restaurants and fast food. You eating or not eating that steak is a mouse fart in a hurricane. There aren't enough mice to turn this train around. Food waste needs to be tackled in a very different way than demand. A vegan restaurant is just as likely to waste food as an omnivore restaurant is.
https://www.businessinsider.com/solving-food-waste-in-americas-restaurants-2016-5
That's probably one in 100,000 vegans
Woah this got dark.
I eat whatever I am able to afford and local to me. And I continue to eat what tastes good to me.
Would you eat human meat? Enslaved toddlers, probably killed at roughly 1-4 years old. Cannibals say it tastes like ham. If it was nice and packaged up for you at the grocery store.
Thanks. I've always wonder what you ate.
I've had debates with vegans on something similar:
I'm not vegan, I'll never be vegan. That's a complete non-starter for me.
What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I'll be all over that. I still won't be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They're never interested. It's all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It's as though they're a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn't have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
"Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3"
"Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now" (in reference to meatless Mondays)
I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don't.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat "humane" meat. I put "humane" in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don't personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
I find it so crazy when i stumble across a post of yours in the wild! Hi!
I've never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I'm a vegetarian just because it's the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn't feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It's not even for ethical reasons. It's literally a "I want to save money" motivation.
Yeah the only animal I'm tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
Once governments stop or reduce funding for the meat and dairy industries, prices will continue to go up and more people will be like you. At the end of the day, animal products (especially those from bovines) aren't super sustainable and cost a lot more than we pay at the supermarket.
It's pretty nuts what they're asking for meat. I don't do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef... holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
The prices for beyond/impossible are 1:1 with real ground beef at my local grocerywhore.
The choice is so easy.
"the prices are 1:1 with real ground beef"
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you're comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I'll stick to my vegetarian diet
I wish those worked for me. It's an autistic texture thing for me, so anytime I try substitutes I nearly gag.
I think as something like a burger it's not that great but stuff like shepherds pie or meatballs where I'm adding other ingredients and seasoning it's indistinguishable. I even fooled my whole family with some homemade beyond meatballs.
Now I kinda wanna try a hamburger lasagna.
Honestly I feel like the idea of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is so lame. Like I understand that you could find something technically ethically wrong with everything, but that statement just feels like a way for people who don't want to give up certain things to justify themselves.
Capitalism, especially modern day capitalism where the government and companies collaborate, does lead to a lot of ethical issues. And yes, I understand that it is not liveable to give up everything that is unethical. But you can still have boundaries.
I mean like, buying oats and grains from a grocery store, which are typically grown domestically, compared to buying dead abused animals or bananas from a company that uses slave labor. Those are totally different things.
If you prioritize buying things that are made in countries that have better labor laws, and avoid animal products, then that's a pretty damn good start.
You absolutely can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don't just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That's too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn't keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I'm taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I'm supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
human are omnivore, it's a biological trait not a diet. Being omnivore doesn't mean that you need to consume animal products, in the contrary, it means that you can avoid them and still strive, as opposed as carnivore.
own your choices, plain and simple. don't blame other for taking action to reduce suffering, CO2 and waste of ressources.
I think our ancestors also hunted large game which is why we evolved to be endurance hunters. Not that we are bound so tightly to our evolutionary as all that. But still.
I support vegans and respect their decisions, I just have little interest in being one myself.
Although when I buy leather products (belts shoes) I tend to buy ones that last decades. So there's that. And yeah I try to reduce meat consumption and I strive to do better.
Humanity has changed a lot over the years, much of it by choice.
There's no such thing as the diet police. No one not terminally-online really gives a shit about movement-purity. Just eat as ethically as possible.
What? You're saying that because we needed leather in the past, we can't wear cotton now to keep warm? At one point we didn't have easy access to plant-based proteins so we should continue eating animal products? By that logic, we didn't have vaccines in the past, so does that mean we can't use them now? Our ancestors also didn't have the internet, so why are you here?
The past was a completely different world. Don't let it hold you back from doing better now.
I exclusively eat meat but I consider myself Vegan because my species comes from the Vega star system.
the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.
you choose what you consume, but don't put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it's fair to state this fact.
once again it's your choice. own it.
Sorry, but I just don't think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It's rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.
This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.
No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It's our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.
no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.
we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.
don't return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it's not debatable.
you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it's totally ok. but own your choices, you don't need to justify them.
we all are full of contradiction, and it's more than ok. but don't make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.
Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they've crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
Religions are mostly just popularized conspiracy theories. Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
That pedos shouldn't be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don't think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed "statistical data" on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
Lilo and Stitch is the best Disney movie.
Many, many spoilers below. But, seriously, this movie is 21 years old. Get over yourselves.
Check it: a young girl adopts an illegal alien (killing machine from deep space) and protects him from the U.S. (and galactic) government (Military-Industrial complexes), while keeping her incredibly depressed sister (slices both ways) from giving up completely as they keep their Indigenous Hawaiian family together in their co-opted homeland. One sister works a series of dead-end tourism jobs; the other has anger issues. The hate each other and love each other fiercely, though they are about 12 years apart in age.
Oh, yeah, and their parents are dead.
Meanwhile, the alien is a political refugee and freedom fighter fleeing from his own people who want him dead for —get this— existing. A lab-grown, indestructible terrorist, he seeks asylum on an island — but he can't swim.
He does learn to surf.
The only downside to this film is that Disney produced it. And Elvis.
"Ohana means family. Nobody gets left behind or forgotten."
TikTok and YouTube shorts are brain-rotting garbage, and if you use them regularly you need to stop now. Yes, even if you claim you only watch educational stuff.
Also giving a child under the age of 8 or 9 a personal internet-connected device should be seen on a similar level as neglect if not full-on abuse.
You don't need to get married or have kids to have a happy and fulfilling life
Teachers should be paid 50% more. If you want good teachers to stay, you have to walk the walk, otherwise you'll get a perpetual cycle of overwhelmed grads being bossed around by rusted-on bottom teer heads.
Piracy equals culture preservation in an age of subscription services.
The vast majority of humans are actually nice, altruistic and not selfish if you treat them with respect. And hence anarchism would not resolve in everyone killing each other.
Copyright should have stayed the original initial 14 years with possible renewal to 28 years. But like in France back then, also include the original authors (last one alive, if several) lifespan. Hence, a copyright would last either the authors lifespans or 28 years, whichever is longer.
Moreover, the patent system is being abused and does not serve the original goal of "any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement there on not before known or used." It granted the applicant the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used" of his invention.. It needs major changes, including the requirement to have the "invention" be under examination by reputable third-party laboratories (such as Intertek, SGI, Underwriters Laboratories, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technischer Überwachungsverein, SGS - Société Générale de Surveillance, etc…) before being granted a patent. Nowadays, patents are given almost willy-nilly to anyone no matter how vague or obvious the supposed invention.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Those math questions that rely on purposeful ambiguity in order to drive engagement are annoying as fuck. It's like "congratulations, you just proved that in math (and questions in general) if you're not clear with what you're asking, people will get different answers". What fantastic value! What a novel hypothesis! Now fucking knock it off. I'm tired of literally everyone screaming about how their way is right when it doesn't fucking matter, the question was asked in a bullshit way in order to piss everyone off.
Bonus, PEMDAS, BEMDAS, PE-MD-AS. It's a goddamn terrible mnemonic that twists itself in knots to make the acronym work, rather than to make the order of operations clear. Screaming it doesn't make your shit any clearer anyways.
Air fryers are only popular because Americans have been using microwaves to cook for decades, which are possibly the worst cooking devices ever created.
If they had decent fan ovens during that time, they wouldn't be anywhere near as popular
Conversely, air fryers are seen to be popular in the UK, because nobody will admit they fell for the advertising, and now only use them for chips
Not a single one of the Marvel movies are good. They just use dopaminergic techniques to teach brains to enjoy them.
Force damage in D&D 5E is too poorly-defined to be a good part of the game and exists solely for when the designers don't want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question. Either we need an actual description of what happens to a thing that gets hit by it or it should be cut; the vast majority of the things that deal it could perfectly easily be magical bludgeoning / piercing / slashing. Spiritual weapon and Bigby's hand are particularly egregious
Timezones are fucking stupid. Everyone should just use UTC or Zulu
Zelda BotW and TotK are not fun. The stamina system is pointless and the weapon durability is frustrating. On top of that, the world's are just sooo empty. There's really nothing in them. Oh look, an interesting ruin... it's another repetitive shrine. Oh, that geological formation is really unique aaannnddd it's another fucking korok seed. That's all you ever got for exploring. Shrines and korok seeds.
I did like slapping random shit onto my weapons in tears of the kingdom though. All in all to me the games are fine but not really Zelda games.
What we're currently calling AI isn't AI but just a language processing system that takes its best guess at a response from it's database of information they pilfered from the internet like a more sophisticated Google.
It can't really think for itself and it's answers can be completely wrong. There's nothing intelligent about it.
If you actually want to do some about climate change, step 1 is to stop having kids.
All drugs should be legalized. Not quiet the whole World but a large portion.
Doing drugs should be decriminalized, but not legal. Ideally when someone is found addicted to drugs they would be provided help rather than punishment. Selling drugs should remain criminal but consequences should be determined based on the amount found selling and to who (like a child or someone who's pregnant would be a higher penalty at the discretion of the court), legalizing would just give a tax incentive for pushing drugs similar to gambling.
Edit: I want to clarify, I'm talking about addictive drugs with known negative health effects like meth. Weed can be legal, who cares.
What you are saying ia only half true. While you can get addicted to let's say your phone, it's still natural. You can put it down and pick it up any time, you just have a harder time reasoning with yourself, and will do it sometimes out of habbit.
However drugs manipulate your brain, and getting addicted to drugs is on another level of addiction. The "harder to reason with yourself" part becomes near impossible. Without help you borderline can't stop.
With a "natural" addiction your impulses are still in a healthy range. You are in control, it just guides you to something that you like subconsciously.
I oversimplified and I'm also not a professional at this topic, but I did some research. I was curious about why can't ppl stop playing some videogames, while others are just an activity, nothing more. (Also why the tiktok formula is so addicting)
Yeah, but we already have laws against specific drugs so this wouldn't be any worse than what we already have, instead it's an approach to make it safer without just saying it's okay. But yeah the decision of if it should be a controlled substance should be left up to a board of medical professionals rather than politicians as it is now.
The metric system should be redone in base 12, and RPN should be the norm for teaching arithmetic.
Modern "wellness" has gone too far to where people experiencing any hardship or adversity of any kind is "trauma" .
Negative reinforcement is a massively powerful motivator, but it doesn't feel good while it's happening.
Ideally there's also positive reinforcement in your life to make a nice balanced stew, but we need to be able to survive off negative, especially in professional pursuits.
Every emotion you experience isn't a condition, even if you feel it often.
If you feel it CONSTANTLY, then yeah something is wrong.
There's no public debt crisis. People don't understand how government debt works. One casualty of this is the slow green transition which will cost us dearly in the future.
Less than 50% of the opinions in this thread are in any way unpopular.
There. There's my opinion.
ITT: people with actual unpopular opinions are being downvoted whole the popular ones are upvoted.
Here’s mine: unpopular opinions should be upvoted in this context.
Leadership has the capacity and capability to change things for the better and continue to fail to do so because true leadership means making decisions that at times may hurt and may not be universally liked.
This is as true in politics as it is in business.
In short our leaders are not leading out of the fear of repercussions of leading.
Privately owned cars are fine, but we should abolish minimum parking requirements in zoning codes and outlaw on-street parking. Keep your car, but finding somewhere to park it is your own problem, not society's.
We should also do this for commercial trucks. They cause the vast majority of road damage because of their weight and should pay for the vast majority of road maintenance costs. Charge the true price for freight and then see how profitable it is to ship things to houses.
We the people are subsidizing the for profit trucking industry and that is wrong.
a "civilization" that involves "money" is simply not civilized.
shut up, you're fucking wrong. it said so in the post.
All DST and time zones should be removed and we should only have one global time. People in different locations would just get up at different times on the clock. Communication about times would get so much easier, communication about schedules would get so much easier. "The same time every week" would have an actual meaning all year around regardless of any notions about getting up later relative to local sunrise in the darker time of the year.
"Andor" is the best Star Wars series.
Large corporations are, indeed, soulless and thankless. No amount of their pandering to the masses with charity campaigns and outreach programs ever end without them making money.
Knowing this, I prefer to take everything at face value. If I start concerning myself with the ulterior motives of these people that don't believe in class equality, I will very quickly want to put a lightbulb in my mouth.
For those familiar, Destiny 2 (a video game by Bungie, the originators of the Halo franchise) has come under scrutiny lately due to mass layoffs, and the following PR nightmare it has turned into. With every day that passes, we learn more thanks to the diligent work of journalists doing their job.
I appreciate knowing to help me make informed decisions about who I fiscally support, but I will spend my money on entertainment based on the value it gives me. Not the morals I'm told I should have by people bickering on the internet, and content creators that use these situations as clickbait.
And that all goes for any corp, I'm just largely invested in this one example. I am aware that Nestle is garbage ass company, but due to me not existing in their world view, I will buy a KitKat when I want one, thanks.
Lore is not story. Sekiro is the best From Soft game. Sekiro's second half doesn't fall apart or disappoint. The puzzle boss is acceptable. The combat actually feels like Seven Samurai and Star Wars: a flurry of blocks and parrys, culminating in a coup de grace.
Chipping hit points with a light sabre or a battle axe is dumb as shit and it's been normal so long we don't notice.
All streets should have a speed limit of 20 mph. All roads 35 mph. Highways 50 mph. Stroads should not exist.
Darth Vader is a very bad guy and saving his son at the end changes none of that. He shouldn't be idolized the way he is by fans.
Console gaming has its benefits over PC gaming and often times is better.
Humanity cannot and will not change its practices fast enough to avoid running out of resources we keep ourselves dependent on because it's "profitable." We are a doomed species and won't be around for very much longer. We are likely living in the flash of bright before the long dark. I don't think the world my grandchildren live in will be remotely like the one we have now.
I'm perfectly fine hedging my bets and living life normally, but I think our longevity is an uncomfortable truth most people don't want to face.
Racial profiling isn't based off anything legitimate
I was gonna write something political but nah.
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon are some of the best Pokemon games, better than most of the (especially newer) main series games. I started with Pokemon Mystery Dungeon so I may be biased though.
pineapple goes on pizza but everyone who likes it is doing it wrong. it needs to be fresh pineapple, grilled, with red onion.
The song The Piano Man fucking sucks.
All forms of communication that promotes any level of division between the general population, and the idea of payback or revenge is very wrong and toxic and are some of the main reasons for the shit we all go through these days, yet most people either don't think it's a big deal or think it's necessary. We're gonna end up killing ourselves and we're all gonna lose, but at least you got to punch the guy that punched you first, right? Or kill all the ancestors of the guy that punched your great great great granddad, then their ancestors killing yours for killing their ancestors, right? You deserve to kill them all, they had it coming, so did your ancestors, right?
Until the childish ideas of revenge and division is gone from our adult society, i don't see us surviving as a civilization before we kill each other first.
I'm tired of hearing people justify either. It's all nonsense, illogical, and childish.
Postcredits scenes in movies are bad, always were and always will be.
Oh no. Not falling for this one again.
We are trying to solve computer/rocket-age problems with a caveman brain. If we don't start genetic engineering humans soon i'd wager we'll eradicate ourselves before we colonize other planets and stars.
Assembly language is fun to learn, fun to use, and still relevant professionally.
That capitalism is not the cause of most societal grief. Pathological self preservation is a fundamental human problem. It’s the reason we’re okay with seeing hordes of homeless people, or with killing people to resolve geopolitical issues. Greed can optimize any system to work for itself, people who are or will be adept at such optimization would thrive under any kind of socioeconomic or cultural system, including extremely leftist systems. Just spit ballin’ tho, haven’t thought about it much tbh.
8÷2(2+2) comes out to 16, not 1.
Saw it posted on Instagram or Facebook or somewhere and all of the top comments were saying 1. Any comment saying 16 had tons of comments ironically telling that person to go back to first grade and calling them stupid.
Let's see.
8÷2×(2+2) = 8÷2×4
At this point, you solve it left to right because division and multiplication are on the same level. BODMAS and PEMDAS were created by teachers to make it easier to remember, but ultimately, they are on the same level, meaning you solve it left-to-right, so....
8÷2×4 = 4×4 = 16.
So yes, it does equal 16.
Depends on whether you're a computer or a mathematician.
2(2+2) is equivalent to 2 x (2+2), but they are not equal. Using parenthesis implicitly groups the 2(2+2) as part of the paretheses function. A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4 and evaluate the expression left to right, but this is not what it written. We learned in elementary school in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn't know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn't know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do.
Of course, modern mathematicians work primarily in computers, where the legacy calculator functions have become standard and distinctions like this have become trivial.
It seems you are partly correct. You are correct in saying that this is how it used to be done (but that was 100 years ago, it seems) and you are correct that in modern times, this would be interpreted as I did it, above.
Link: https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2019/07/31/what-is-8-%C3%B7-22-2-the-correct-answer-explained/
I'm old but I'm not that old.
The author of that article makes the mistake of youth, that because things are different now that the change was sudden and universal. They can find evidence that things were different 100 years ago, but 50 years ago there were zero computers in classrooms, and 30 years ago a graphing calculator was considered advanced technology for an elementary age student. We were taught the old math because that is what our teachers were taught.
Early calculators couldn't (or didn't) parse edge cases, so they would get this equation wrong. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted rather than reprogram every calculator on earth, which is a rational decision I think. But that doesn't make the old way wrong, anymore than it makes cursive writing the wrong way to shape letters.
No, it wasn't. The claim that the rules were changed is a debunked myth.
No, that video is wrong. Not only that, if you check the letter he referenced Lennes' Letter, you'll find it doesn't support his assertion that the rules changed at all! And that's because they didn't change. Moral of the story Always check the references.
Only if that's what the programmer has programmed it to do, which is unfortunately most programmers. The correct conversion is 2(4)=(2x4).
Actually it's only in the 90's that some calculators started getting it wrong - prior to that they all gave correct answers.
But that's not the same thing as 8÷2(2+2). 2x(2+2) is 2 Terms, 2(2+2) is 1 Term. 8÷2×(2+2)=16 ((2+2) is in the numerator), 8÷2(2+2)=1 (2(2+2) is in the denominator)
No, 2+2 = 🐟 so it would be 8÷2🐟 and since 🐟 is no longer a number it becomes 4🐟. So the answer is 4 fishes.
It's still a pronumeral though, equal to 4, so the answer is still 8÷8=1.
Great explainer on the subject: https://youtu.be/lLCDca6dYpA?si=gUJlQJgfDxi-n_Y6
And a follow up on how calculators actually implement this inconsistently: https://youtu.be/4x-BcYCiKCk?si=g5pqwXvBqSS8Q5fX
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/lLCDca6dYpA?si=gUJlQJgfDxi-n_Y6
https://piped.video/4x-BcYCiKCk?si=g5pqwXvBqSS8Q5fX
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Both of those Youtubes debunked in this thread.
And both you and people arguing that it's 1 would be wrong.
This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication sign between 2 and ( is often interpreted as having priority. This is all matter of convention.
I see what you're getting at but the issue isn't really the assumed multiplication symbol and it's priority. It's the fact that when there is implicit multiplication present in an algebraic expression, and really best practice for any math above algebra, you should never use the '÷' symbol. You need to represent the division as a numerator and denominator which gets rid of any ambiguity since the problem will explicitly show whether (2+2) is modifying the numerator or denominator. Honestly after 7th grade I can't say I ever saw a '÷' being used and I guess this is why.
That said, I'll die on a hill that this is 16.
If it involves Maths, then it's Maths rules.
It's 1
Yes, the rules of Maths, as I was already saying. I'm a Maths teacher. I take it you didn't read the link then.
Precedence is the term usually used for this (at least anywhere where computers have to parse expressions)
Rest in peace
No, they're correct Order of operations thread index
It's not ambiguous, there's no such thing as implicit multiplication
...following the rules of Maths.
Back in gradeschool I was always taught that in Pemdas, the parenthesis are assumed to be there in 8÷(2×(2+2)) where as 8÷2×(2+2) would be 16, 8÷2(2+2) is the above and equals 1.
Not quite. It's true you resolve what's inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Now this is what gets most people. Even though Multiplication technically comes before Division the Acronym PEMDAS, that's really just to make it sound correct phonetically. Really they have equal priority in the order of operations and the appropriate way to resolve the problem is to work from left to right solving each multiplication or division sign as you encounter them. Giving you 16. Same for addition and subtraction.
So basically the true order of operations is:
Source: Mechanical Engineering degree so an unfortunate amount of my life spent in math and physics classes.
Absolutely, its all seen as equal so it has to go left to right However as I said in the beginning the way I was taught atleast, is when you see 2(2+2) and not 2×(2+2) you assume that 2(2+2) actually means (2×(2+2 )) and so must do it together.
Ah sorry just realized what you were saying. I've never been taught that. Maybe it's just a difference in teaching styles, but it shouldn't be since it can actually change the outcome. The way I was always taught was if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there.
So you were taught that 2(2+2) == (2(2+2))
I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)
Interesting difference though because again, assuming invisible parentheses can really change up how a problem is done.
Edit: looks like theshatterstone54's comment assumed a multiplication symbol as well.
No, it means it's a Term (product). If a=2 and b=3, then axb=2x3, but ab=6.
2(2+2)==(2*(2+2)). More precisely, The Distributive Law says that 2(2+2)=(2x2+2x2).
Basically the normal arithmetic operators are all left-associative which means if you have more than one you solve them left to right.
Not "inside parenthesis" (Primary School, when there's no coefficient), "solve parentheses" (High School, The Distributive Law). Also 8÷2(4)=8÷(2x4) - prematurely removing brackets is how a lot of people end up with the wrong answer (you can't remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside).
Yes, it's The Distributive Law.
2(4) is not exactly same as 2x4.
Correct! It's exactly the same as (2x4).
No. No. You choose to be ignorant.
Ummm, I was agreeing with you??
Anyways, I'm a Maths teacher who has taught this topic many times - what would I know?
Math should be taught with postfix notation and this wouldn't be an issue. It turns your expression into this.
8 2 ÷ 2 2 + ×
It already isn't an issue if people just follow all the rules of Maths.
No, it's 1, and only 1. Order of operations thread index
P.S. this is Year 7 Maths, not Year 1.
OJ did it.
US Senators and congressmen are underpaid. Their salaries should be doubled. The president should make at least a $1 million a year, directly paid by taxpayers.
Reason: If I, the taxpayer, pay them, then they have to work for me. The payment makes that service relationship explicit. I pay you, you work for me. And, yes, the current pay is too little, $174,000 - barely comparable to tech workers.
Only taking $1 is an invitation for corruption. (Not claiming it happened, but it is an invitation.)
Blue Cheese is the king of cheese
Inverted controls are just better.
An opinion so strongly shared by a vast majority is worth being sceptic about.
I believe a vast majority of people would strongly share the opinion that pigs don't have wings
Tapes a chicken wing to a pig.
What now athetits
proves that the egg came before the chicken and indeed all birds
Checkmate, creationists!
That's worthy to be sceptic about indeed, because its a fact rather than an opinion
The main story of Baldur's Gate 3 is pretty bland and mediocre.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a phenomenal game! The companion arcs, acting and overall presentation are still next level, some sidestories are very good, and it’s great how faithfully they adapted the D&D rules. But the main story ...
::: spoiler Spoiler ... is pretty bare bones and has no real twists and turns along the way.
im da king of da highway
C is not a great language but is the best language we have.
Basically any opinion I have about capitalism. 🤷
We should invest massively in longevity. Healthy longevity, fighting aging.
Why would you wanna fight aging when we reproduce in such a massive way that we are pretty much doomed? The last thing we need is a bunch of 120 year olds who rule the world.
Well the old people in power just gets replaced withother old people. Making people grow old and die isn't working against dictators either.
But your idea is that it would be better if we became ill even earlier then, like we should stop fighting aging the way we do it today (medicin, operations, transplants...)?
"Kill the old people because of their politics" is all I hear whenever someone argues against longevity.
How about we solve the quality of life issues with higher age first before we work on extending the lifespan even more. Nobody benefits from old senile people who have to stay in bed all day and can't see properly having a few more years of suffering in that state.
Reversing aging is exactly that (edit : making quality of life better, longevity is a mere byproduct). I think it's the best way.
But people don't seem to think so, and today we try to "make people stay alive as long as possible" which as you points out is just bad for everyone.
We agree. See Valmond's comment above:
So I can be overworked even longer? No thanks.
So you'd prefer be a decripit sick old person, today already?
Most people thinks they'd change their mind and sort of welcome death at old age, but barring a very small number, nah, they want to live on as much as you and me today.
I will take getting old and decrepit over having to work forever for soulless companies amd shit. Then again it's not like I'm gonna see a pension anyways so I'd rather not get that old in the first place and die earlier.
Our society ain't ready for this type of shit, get everyone to be young forever and most of us will be living sad lives working forever to make someone else richer. And furthermore you'd have a lot more old people, who grew up in a different context than young people and don't always tend to accept the fact the world is different now from when they were young, but they outnumber young people by such a huge margin that the voices of young people will be completely ignored and societal change will happen at a slow crawl, if at all, with a good portion of the population being unrepresented because "gotta cater to the majority if you want enough votes to win"... no thanks.
The world doesn't need more old people and I sure as shit don't want to live in an even worse world than I have now. With climate change and all.
Also I'm not sure if the wording in your first question is correct because, as it is now, it reads like if I don't like extending life to eternity (assuming you don't get shot, etc etc) then I must want to be old immediately which is a completely stupid jump to make so I'll assume it was misworded.
When you say "the world doesn't need more old people", I agree with that, I agree a 100% with that.
You seems to mix everything up, and also, life can be good, it's worth it IMO.
I'm not saying life can't be good but an infinite one is definitely overrated
That's not the thing either, it's just living in good health.
It won't protect you in a car crash or from some deadly disease either. Just not getting sick and decrepit.
Butter under Nutella
The HBO adaptation of The Last of Us sucks ass
That it's silly to reply with disagreements for a question that's asking for disagreeable opinions. 😉
World Peace is no longer an idea. It's happening, and will be the norm before most of us die. The United Federation of Humanity will happen, relatively soon.
Both Mario Odyssey and SMB Wonder are only innovative in a vacuum where Mario is the only platformer franchise. Which for a lot of people I imagine is the extent of their knowledge about platformers.
The things people call "innovative" about Mario Odyssey are just half Kirby and half Banjo-Kazooie. Yeah Odyssey's biggest maps are way bigger than Banjo-Kazooie, but SMO runs on hardware that can emulate the N64, and it still has quite a few maps on the smaller side
SMB Wonder... I don't actually know what people call "innovative" about SMB Wonder, but I've seen people call it "innovative." It's the best 2D Mario made in the 21st century and it has a pretty cool gimmick. What's innovative about this?
The Last Jedi is the best Star Wars movie since the OT. Then they "course corrected" after listening too closely to online discourse, and ended up really ruining the franchise.
All things, including human life experiences, are absolutely and completely predetermined as part of a chain of causal events.
Karma happens after death.
Josh Groban has an annoying singing voice.
Banana and Dijon mustard on toast is pretty good.
A lot of people have to die for the world to sort itself out. I see it starting now, soon there will be wars on every continent.
Bottom quoting in emails
From personal experience, hexbear isn't as bad as people claim it is
I don't want to get rid of daylight savings, because it's still a better option than keeping either summer or winter time.
Edit: another one: not having kids does not in any way contribute to solving environmental problems, we need MORE young, educated minds who have a chance to figure it out (as terrible as it sounds to push problems on the new generation), and we should ensure that in the event that we do manage to stabilize the situation, we won't instead have fucked up demographics to deal with.
The Last Jedi was the best movie of the sequel trilogy
Mad Max Fury Road was a boring, plotless waste of time
I have to agree with the plotless aspect. I will, however, defend it solely for its special effects. I think modern films should strive for the standard that movie set in my mind.
😱
Edit: Sure the plot is nothing to write home about but in this sense it's a pure action movie and as an action movie it's of a much higher quality than what the industry has given us for a very long time.
Dammit, I wanna argue against this so bad. I feel like Fury Road is among the rare, if not only, reboot or sequel or whatever you'd call it for movies that had a fresh entry after so long that holds pretty decent in light of the originals. It has awesome visuals, pretty good pacing, immersive characters, decent interactions.
Yet now I feel like the main plot is kinda stitch-together, "rise up people!" Marvel kind of garbage, with catchy "witness me" kinda stuff sparkled. Local settlement warlords in style of Farcry 3 and up.
“They hated him because he told the truth”
You’ll have to explain I just saw production design no plot
I'm not big into books - J.C. Denton
BG3 is too buggy in act 3 to win goty
Worker Cooperatives are better than traditional corporations or state owned firms.
Fallout 4 is a better game than New Vegas.
Quake Champions is by far the best modern shooter eSport
Rogue One sucks.
4e was peak D&D and anything before or after is a pale comparison.
Hear me out and this sounds crazy but
Use whatever system fits your group the best. Sometimes that results in some system that isn't dnd in the first place
Basically the whole reason Pathfinder exists. Or, ridiculiusly broadly, the reason ANY other system exists 😁
Selfishness is coded into us by evolution. It's genetic. Lots of people will agree with me on this.
What I get a lot of pushback on, is that selflessness is the same. It has evolutionary benefits for a familial group, and so gets selected for.
Being cold gives me a cold. Yes, I understand that the cold virus is correlated than causal. I just can't buy it.
However everyone touts the "you huddle more in winter areas together" as if that makes sense. Pretty sure we do that more and in better weather.
Neal Stephenson is a talentless hack.
Owning pets is not moral and I think it's strange how normalized it is to have pets
Starfield is fun.
When you enter the wrong echo chamber
Andrew Tate is a mysogonist fuck-up profiting from dumbasses and his "very legal" whore buisness.
Pineapple is good on pizza
Fractional measurements are better than decimal measurements for anything where the level of precision is important.
Decimal measurements can only increase our decrease in precision by a factor of 10.
For example if your precision is accurate to 1/4 of a unit, you can represent that with fractions no problem.
What is that in decimal? "0.25" implies precision to the hundredth of a unit.
What if your measurement is half a unit, but it's precise to 1/64 of a unit? Just don't reduce the fractions. "32/64ths" is more precise than .5.
The stock market should not exist. Investing in companies is fine, but we shouldn't be able to buy our sell investment shares like a commodity.
All subsidies should not exist. They only alter the supply/demand in unnecessary and damaging ways. This must come with ending commodities trading like stock market investing.
People divide America into South America and North America, just to allow themselves to call the USA, America.
Chick-fil-A isn't that great.
I would never eat there because of their bigoted politics, but I am always shocked at how many people act like they can't live without it. Weird.
George W Bush was right when he said that faith based charities should not be excluded from receiving federal grants just because they're faith based.
Elden Ring sucks.
Eating meat and dairy is not sustainable in terms of resources and greenhouse gases, and non-vegan environmentalists are clowns on the level of people flying private jets to climate conferences.
I mostly agree with you, with the caveat that industrial meat and dairy is not sustainable. Communal farms could be.
I saw it somewhere, and now I use it all the time. If you need an example of why capitalism is destined to fail, just look at the cheese caves. We have to bury cheese like nuclear waste just to be able to keep its market value up to a level that makes it worth producing.
This so much this. A mostly vegetarian lifestyle with the occasional meat IS sustainable. People forget that before industrialization, we ate meat like once every one or two weeks. You could count the number of times we ate meat in a month on one han
this argument that non industrial cattle is sustainable is totally moot. please check the literature available.
I apologize, but I'm struggling to catch your meaning.
it's not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it's de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it's like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it's just a common bias.
you can't get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.
some will argue that we can't eat grass. that's right we can't. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.
some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.
some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I'm sorry but it won't. too bad if it's boobs you were looking for.
etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.
but most people don't want to eat what we feed to livestock. and a lot of what we do feed to livestock is actually parts of plants that we have already taken what we want from. another significant part of livestock food is just grazed grass, which takes almost no effort on our part and which we can't eat anyway.
Still not worth it regarding the outcome if not for the dollar generated for the few.
We need to stop destroying our resources.
Please go read some papers on the subject.
Well the main flaw in your reasoning is thinking that it's an issue addressed at the individual level rather than a greater systemic issue that cannot be addressed by the choice of individuals. And on top of that you colpevolise would-be allies whose life you don't know, ironically playing right into oil tycoons and meat industry's hands
It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:
Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.
And that's cool and all but ain't no way you will convince everyone to quit eating meat. Especially given that it's not always a matter of choosing. Even then acting morally superior ain't helping.
It's the same discussion with cars, people will do whatever is most convenient and available, if you don't want people to use cars you don't go around telling tjem not to use it, you act on the city's design and public transport to make it so it is convenient to use the alternatives and then you start banning cars from city centers, then move towards the periphery, etc etc. All these are actions taken at the source. Sure telling people to mot use cars as much, to carpool, etc will help a bit but it ain't gonna solve your issues chief.
Maybe we can't convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.
That's the OP's point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.
But you're still pushing the responsibility to individuals, which is literally an oil company tactic.
"You eat meat? Guess you aren't a real environmentalist after all!" Is not the way we'll get more people to quit eating meat. In fact you can't even know why they eat meat despite knowing it's bad for the environment. And it still won't address the problem.
This isn't a race to moral purity.
Ok but remember this part?
Vegans oppose animal cruelty.
Vegetarians don't, as the production of eggs, milk, etc is cruel.
Subscription service is really convenient.
Your are assailed by many threats: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged "collectivists". Extreme authoritarian "leftists", A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violently authoritarian as their religious, corporatist, and fascist competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party”. Repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.
These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death - of the mind and the body. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.
They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. Make these pigs squeal.
I actually liked the lockdown. The whole world was put on pause. No armed conflicts or anything. The zero sum game took a long vacation. For a few months, I had no misanthropy in me. But as they say, all good things die hard.
Dancing is a fucking weird thing
Cars > public transportation. I forget things & often have to turn back, and I like the freedom to change my mind at any point, stop where I want, and go wherever I want. I also hate being forced into shared public spaces. I also hate the idea of trusting the government to make any of it in any way near efficient. Fuck public transportation.
Parents who purchase animal products care more about their “personal choice” than the world they’re leaving for their children. Bacon is more important to them than their own kids.
SQL is archaic, slow and nonsensical compared to MongoDB.
C and C++ are awesome and I hope they survive for another 50 years. Sorry Python folks. I just can't get past the strange syntax. Gimme my curly braces, away with this function block spacing crap.
Monogamy feels like an archaic social convention enforced by unhealthy possessive behaviors and jealousy
The machine learning models and developments we see these last years called "AI" for some reason, is as big, if not bigger than the IT and internet revolution, and has applications on a broader spectrum than anyone can currently imagine.
You're not really arguing against the whole crowd there, a lot of people (wrongly) hold the same opinion. The problem is thinking of the door swap as an independent event when it's not; the result is directly related to the original choice of door. If we label the doors A, B, and C and put the prize behind door A, here's the possible options:
Two out of three times swapping wins.
Edit: I see you added a table to your comment, but you're miscounting pretty badly there. You're giving double weight to initial choice being correct.
It is technically true that when you pick A the presenter can open either B or C, but then you need to account for that in your odds; it's 50% either way so the win/loss rate is halved. In other words:
As shown, including which door the presenter opens does not affect the odds. When sticking, you win (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%) and lose (33% + 33% = 66%), when swapping you win (33% + 33% = 66%) and lose (16.5% + 16.5% = 33%).
Dude you can't argue mathematics
Hell yeah I can. Why the fuck is Jimmy buying 35 watermelons on an average day???
Mathematics bro
Forget the 35 watermelons, why does he have 5 cakes at school?
That's mathematically correct!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
That's mathematically correct!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That's not an opinion, that's an incorrect statement.
You can have an opinion and still be factually wrong I suppose
I was stubborn about this for so long, and I'm still not entirely sure I understand it, but here is a perspective that made me doubt my belief.
Imagine the Monty Hall Problem, but with 100 doors and only one grand prize. You pick one; it obviously has a 1/100 chance of being a grand prize. Then Monty reveals 98 doors without grand prizes in them such that the only doors left are the one you chose and one that Monty left unopened. Monty obviously arranged for one of those two doors to have the grand prize behind it. The "choice to switch" is really just a second round of the game,
but with a 1/2 chance of winning(wrong, your odds change only if you "participate" in round two).If you stick with your door, you are relying on your initial 1/100 chance of winning. If you switch, you are getting the
1/2odds of the "second round".Apparently with three doors, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of winning, but I don't understand the math of how to get that answer and I wouldn't be able to calculate the odds of the 100 door version. I just know intuitivey that switching is better.
With 100 doors swapping wins 99 out of 100 times; the only time you lose is when your initial door (1 in 100) contained the prize.
With 100 doors switching should give you a 99% win rate.
You're essentially concentrating the entire thing into this one vs not this one, and when you initially chose there was a 99% chance it was not this one.
After Monty opens all the other doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one is still 99% except that now the entirety of not this one is represented by that single other door. The Grand Prize has nowhere else to be, and the odds that you picked it first is still only 1%.
So, to bring it back down, with three doors, the odds that the right answer is not this one 66%, and we end up exactly where we expected to be.
There's four total outcomes of the problem:
Scenario 1: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and don't switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 2: you originally pick the winning door (1/3) and did switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/6
Scenario 3: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and don't switch (1/2), therefore losing. Probability = 1/3
Scenario 4: you originally pick a losing door (2/3) and do switch (1/2), therefore winning. Probability = 1/3
Now consider scenarios 1 and 3 together, these two are when you don't switch. P(S1) is 1/6 and P(S3) is 1/3, meaning S3 is twice as likely than S1. So if you don't switch, you are twice as likely to lose. And now consider scenarios 2 and 4 together. P(S4) is 1/3 and P(S2) is 1/6, meaning if you switch you are twice as likely to win than to lose.
You can also consider this problem in terms of conditional probability like this:
P(win as long as no switch) = P(win and no switch) / P(no switch) = P(S1)/(1/2) = (1/6)/(1/2) = 2/6 = 1/3
P(win as long as switch) = P(win and switch) / P(switch) = P(S4)/(1/2) = (1/3)/(1/2) = 2/3
P(win as long as switch) > P(win as long as no switch)
The "second round" of the game is always just, "flip your odds of winning if you swap". That's all it is.
Monty will always open the proper doors to ensure this happens every time. Did you pick the winning door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all other doors but leave one of the losers. Did you pick a losing door in the first round? Monty will eliminate all the other losers and only leave the winner. It's always the opposite of what you picked. Therefore, if you swap, you will simply get the opposite odds of the first round.
100 doors to pick from, only 1 winner? 1/100 chance to win if you just picked at random and ended it there. Now Monty offers a swap. Without the swap, you have 99 different ways to lose this. But with the swap, all 99 of those ways become winners, because Monty will always swap the opposite with you.
But by staying on your door you're still making a choice relying on that ½ chance...
No, by staying on your door you're relying on the 99/100 chance of originally picking the wrong door.
This is worded better than what I said. The second round isn't 1/2 because the door you initially picked was 1/100.
Not if I bribe the people in charge of putting the prize behind the door it won't
Only if Monty Hall didn't know where the prize is
Say there are 100 doors, you choose one, then 98 are knocked out randomly (likely including the prize) - Now each of the 2 doors has the same chance of winning, so there is no reason to change
But starting with 100 doors and a knowledgeable Monty Hall, once you've chosen a door, the only reason Monty Hall leaves your door alone is because you chose it, whether it is the 1/100 winner, or one of the 99/100 losers
Either you chose the right door the first time (1/100 chance) or the other door has the prize behind it - those are the only options - the other door literally represents the 99/100 other doors in a single choice
There's a flaw in this problem, which is the fact Monty Hall didn't consider the possibility I may have a gun pointed to his head
Do you have a Monty Hall problem, or does Monty Hall have a you problem?
You can't have opinion on maths
Yes you csn, for example: math is what scientists do while on meth
Onions taste gross and have no tangible benefit to cooking. Fight me.
My opinion is this: if you can't be bothered to use proper grammar and spelling and express yourself clearly, you should shut the fuck up.
I'm not cut out for this politically correct shit. I say one historical fact people act like I'm making shit up and they delete my comment and call me dumb even though it's a universally established tradition of ancient states. I really can't deal with this "you have to be sensitive about others' feelings" so much so that you can't talk about real historical facts! I say fuck you to all.
Here's something about American politics to provoke a lot of people, especially on this site:
Donald Trump should be elected in 2024 purely to serve as an exam to the left. Liberalism clearly doesn't work anymore, there's a lot of discontent in the world and a shift towards far-right politics, while left is almost non-existent in almost any country, it doesn't have an answer. With Donald Trump getting elected for his revenge term and demolishing democracy, hopefully it's a catastrophe strong enough for the left to wake up.
all memes including this one are unfunny and lazy as hell type words instead
Andor was a garbage show, and The Batman (Robert Pattison) was a garbage film. Both are lauded and deserve less than none of the praise they get
Death is fine and jail is mental torture. People with downs syndrome and similar are forced to live a tortured existence by people who think they're good for subjective them to that.
Episode 7 is better than episode 6.
I don't know man, being poor doesn't seem great either.
Hear me out, I don't want to be Musk. I want to be in a situation where I don't have to work and I don't have to worry about money for the rest of my life. If today I want to lay in my bed until 11, get up and play games until 3pm, start binging a new series until 10pm, and then go clubbing until 4am, I wouldn't have to worry about whether it's Tuesday or Saturday, whether I have a project due tomorrow, whether I have food in the fridge, whether I can afford to pay my bills, all because I get a stream of money coming into my account every month, enough to cover all my expenses and then some, so if I want to start a project that can develop into a successful business, I can do that. And if I just want to tinker with some random piece of hardware I found on eBay, I can do that. And if I just want to go through the routine above, I can do that. That's what I seek. That level of freedom. Money is just a way of achieving that freedom.
Pointless luxury can have different meaning for different people. Some people use money to amass power. For such people, controlling multiple businesses in multiple vital industries is key. For a person who wants to use money to achieve freedom (lile me), buying up media companies would be pointless. For someone aiming to amass power, it would be key.
Yeah not having an existential crisis every other day seems nightmarish
it's fun that this accurately represent the image, as few people are filthy rich.
If you want a source for a claim, Google it yourself. This isn't the 70s where you have to go to a library and flip through a card catalog to find information. The answer is literally a few seconds away.
NFTs are an interesting and valuable technology that will be useful in the future as a means of digital media 'ownership' in place of 'perpetual licensing' like we see when we 'buy' media from servers today.
There's more to it than monkey pictures, and if people saw that, we would have greater control over media libraries than in the present.
Note I own 0 NFTs
Tipping is good.
I’m American and have worked in the service industry in the US and Germany. I fully support tipping in the US, because waiting tables is one of the few jobs in the US where you can actually earn a good living without breaking your body (as much as construction, as a comparison) and without a training program. In a place where unions actually make a difference, it’s just a nice thing to do, and that’s obviously a better solution generally, but that’s not currently the case in the US.