They would be better off not judging people for any selected difficulty then.

Others have already pointed out that her distress calls were most certainly not ignored. But even if it were true that others did casually allow her to die, their disregard for her life wouldn't have been because she was a woman. Her navigator, Fred Noonan, was a man on board and also suffered the same fate as her. Inventing a sexist conspiracy over an unfortunate tragedy accomplishes nothing productive.

I always took the phrase "She is someone's [whatever]" not to suggest that the recipient isn't thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, "How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?". It's still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn't go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.

Without knowing more about your life, this kinda sounds like burnout to me. It is very common is tech fields especially. I would recommend trying to dial back on work if it's killing your soul like this.

I worked at a high-paying dev job right out of college that consumed my life and put me in a very bad place mentally. I could not sustainably output what I needed to, and evetually I got fired. But walking out of the meeting I could not stop smiling from the tremendous relief I felt (this was when Covid was big so I had a mask on fortunately). It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I was unemployed for a few months afterwards which is probably the happiest I've ever been. I didn't travel or do anything noteworthy besides starting a small passion project. Finances weren't an issue since I had a lot saved up and low expenses covered by unemployment.

After applying to places in no rush whatsoever and stressing my newfound appreciation for work-life balance in interviews, I ended up getting a job at a nonprofit government-adjacent company with full work-from-home and basically no time tracking. I make less but I can go through things at a pace I can handle and it makes a world of difference.

So if you have felt this way for a while I would recommend taking a break before committing to abandoning civilization. People with tech jobs like us tend to have options so don't feel like it has to be misery or the wilderness. Because I can promise you there are places that will allow you to live as a human being. And it may just reignite your passion too. If you still feel like it after stepping away for a time, you can always escape society more dramatically later instead.

Also, I don't want to diagnose you or anything when I don't even know you but there could be some overlap with depression here when you lose passion for life and just generally become jaded at the world like this. Make sure you are communicating how you feel with people you feel comfortable around. Remember that things can always get better, although it sounds like you have been thinking about how to achieve that plenty already. But if things aren't getting better, you might need to be the instigator for that change so I wouldn't be afraid to go for it after exploring easier stuff first. Maybe just give camping a shot while you figure this out.

I didn't mean for this to get so long, but your post resonated with me a lot I guess!

Actually, the devil demonstrated considerable skill with his fiddle. Johnny himself admitted he was pretty good. This poster needs to read the Bible.

World hunger, global literacy rates, number of people living in extreme poverty, deaths to malaria, investment in renewable energy, the hole in the ozone, homicide rates, etc.

Things going well just don't get talked about as much.

The original tweet's claim is false.

TLDR: It referenced an oral interview from a French think tank called The Shift Project. They have since acknowledged it as an error after a fact check from the International Energy Agency. BigThink originally tweeted this in 2019 along with a corresponding article. They have since issued a correction on the article and deleted the tweet. The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.

We spec'd for stamina, which turned out to be a hard counter to the current meta. We also have a flexible diet, fine motor control, excellent heat regulation, intricate vocalizations, and arguably best-in-class intelligence (although neanderthals did have larger brains, and other apes have better working memory).

But we are suffering from our success really. We were able to dominate even with an unoptimized build. So we have things like an appendix and other vestigial structures. Our spines are serviceable for bipedalism but are prone to developing issues and stress points. And our teeth don't last nearly as long as much of the rest of our body without frequent external maintenance. And our young take a very long time to develop, to the point the actual birth happens basically as late as possible without being a guaranteed death sentence for the mother rather than when the child is ready for the world. Also, humans have a tremendously high ratio of penis to total body mass among primates, making you wonder what kind of freak was behind our character creation.

I remember seeing a video of a rubber arm experiment that goes through a series of exercises to convince someone's mind that a rubber arm placed against their shoulder is theirs, while the real one is blocked out of sight. Once these phantom sensations are in place, the organizer then hits the rubber hand with a hammer, causing great shock in the subject but no real harm. The immediate panic is exaggerated by the fact their mind can't actually move "their" hand out of the way when they see the swing coming.

Another study had organizers shine a harmless light on participants' arm for a few minutes and see how they react, allegedly for some sampling purpose. The twist was that they would have the real subjects stay in a waiting room beforehand and watch actors leave while appearing to be in considerable pain from the session where the light was targeting. They then experienced a significant burning sensation from the "laser" despite the organizers insisting it was harmless. Some would go as far as to raise their voice and demand the experiment stop.

The idea is that people can be convinced that something is painful just from others' reactions to it. This may have been what the organizers were actually testing for, and the electrical shock wasn't real or was barely large enough to felt. But OP was just immune to being influenced. I would expect the ability to follow cues from others has strong correlation to success at socializing, so considering they use 4chan OP might actually just be built different.

I'm always surprised to hear people unimpressed with others on dating apps. A couple of my friends have shared their "feeds" and I was struck by how many good-looking people are out there. But they would swipe away from just the smallest turn-offs becoming deal breakers. Like if I saw these people in real life, I would think of them as average looking at worst, many being remarkably attractive. This is in the 20s to mid 30s range like the tweet. I definitely understand deciding you're incompatible based on politics or religion or culture but most of the time it would be for minor quirks. It felt like they were spoiled for choice in my eyes.

But then again, they're in serious long term relationships with conventionally attractive and supportive partners now so maybe being picky pays off. At the time, their reluctance to settle was a very frustrating experience for them.

Here's the thing...if you get upset that a random woman that you don't know would take the hyperbolic position that they would rather be in the same room as a bear than with you, you're likely the exact type of man that these memes are talking about.

What the heck? Expressing resentment at the implication that you are more threatening than a bear based solely on gender is evidence that you are, in fact, more threatening than a bear? How does that follow? You don't need to have a fragile ego to recognize the unfairness of it.

They know how dangerous a bear is.

If they would rather be alone with a bear than a random stranger of any gender I'm going to say they don't.

The original post was a bad-faith engagement farm that became much more popular than it ever should have been. It ended up bringing up a bit of good discussion and a lot of insane takes.

That's the correct interpretation of that use of the word, and the quote in the post is meaning to use it in that way before pretending it's a gotcha.

The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

The exact cause of SIDS is unknown.[7] The requirement of a combination of factors including a specific underlying susceptibility, a specific time in development, and an environmental stressor has been proposed.[4][7] These environmental stressors may include sleeping on the stomach or side, overheating, and exposure to tobacco smoke.[7] Accidental suffocation from bed sharing (also known as co-sleeping) or soft objects may also play a role.[4][8] Another risk factor is being born before 37 weeks of gestation.[1] Between 1% and 5% of SIDS cases are estimated to be misidentified infanticides caused by intentional suffocation.[9][10] SIDS makes up about 80% of sudden and unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs).[4] The other 20% of cases are often caused by infections, genetic disorders, and heart problems.[4]

• Wikipedia, emphasis mine

Anon is insinuating that this is used as a cover-up or euphemism for mothers killing their infants intentionally, but that's only estimated to be 5% of cases at most, and those only because it couldn't be correctly determined as murder. The fact that it requires an autopsy first means presumably investigators try to find a better explanation before resorting to SIDS as a fallback.

It does seem strange to have a catch-all condition for a pattern of unexplained deaths that have a lot of things in common, but it seems like it's generally due to infants being accidentally put in a situation where they suffocate or asphyxiate in their sleep. Some situations like sharing a bed or exposing them to tobacco smoke do sound like the parents deserve some responsibility for negligence however.

Actually, I read further and it specifically says that it is a diagnosis of exclusion (meaning it's used as a default after failing to find a better diagnosis) and that suffocation and neglect can qualify.

If men are wearing them, they are men's clothing.

In the US, unsubscribing from email spam is legally required to be easy under the CAN-SPAM act. For paid subscription services, I believe they also are required to be as easy to leave as they are to join in the EU and California.

Somewhat related, many dark patterns are treated like fraud.

Actually, "earning a living" is an example of an idiom, and it is not meant to be interpreted literally. It just means aquiring the income necessary to pay for the basic expenses of modern life. You may also notice that people rarely find themselves inside of pickles or with butterflies in their stomachs, but before you get angry that someone is suggesting you should break your leg, remember that figurative speech is fairly common.

Job postings should not make the job sound overly appealing. They should give you an idea of if it would be a good fit for you as a potential applicant.

They do not. It is not income, so they can't claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I'm sure they really aren't worth tracking for an individual.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

This meme's text has figures about "now" but doesn't note that it is mostly a paraphrased quote from Deus Ex, a video game set in a fictional dystopian version of America in 2052. The speaker is not in fact talking about 2024 America. But even for the past figures, I would want citations.

The first part seems to be talking about tax sources as a portion of total taxes raised, which isn't easy to search for. I did find a table that cited whitehouse.gov and recorded income collections compared to total GDP at least. It did peak in 1945, but only at 7.1%.

The US Bureau of Labor doesn't seem to have records on self-employment before 1948. The only thing I could find talking about self-employment in 1900 was a blog post that said it was 50%. 90% self-employment sounds like a lot of subsistence farming and odd-jobs work, which isn't exactly the ideal economic model.

The Deus Ex part is part of a longer conversation, but here is the relevant section:

JC Denton: Just answer the question.
Leo Gold: Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people.
JC Denton: Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Leo Gold: Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent.
JC Denton: So?
Leo Gold: It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.