Donkter @ Donkter @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

827

Joined

2 yr. ago

Who is Jane Fonda.

Alternative : save your grease in a jar and heat it up and pour it down the sink the moment your slumlord increases your rent and prices you out of the building.

Mmmmmm... Borderline raw cookies.

To your exact point about us being biased because we pay more attention to politics. I think people who wait till 72 hours before to decide don't do so because they are politically ascended and have chosen to wait until 3 days before to make sure all of the facts are in on either candidate's political positions so they can fill out their voter decision matrix to calculate the exact candidate for them.

Of course not. They wait until 72 hours or less because they haven't given a single thought to the election and are just going to vote based on their gut feeling at the last minute. Unless a debate happens the day before election day (I want to see that happen lol) it's in and out of the political consciousness too fast to matter. The same voters who don't make up their mind until 72 hours before are the same voters who debates don't affect in the slightest. The venn diagram overlaps.

To my initial point. The reason for a debate would be the old school reason of actually having the candidates posing hard-hitting good-faith questions to each other to show why their side has thought about the arguments and the issues more. That hasn't happened in decades though of course.

I mean, Donald Trump's a chicken and everything but he's right. All that a second debate would do is have Harris wipe the floor with him. And that would be fun to watch but I wouldn't be watching the debate to see which nuanced point each candidate is bringing to the table and to make up my mind on whose foreign policy positions are better so I can finally decide who to vote for.

Unfortunately because of the stigma and the defacto ostracization from certain aspects of society, not the least of which is financial, people in these industries are usually really callous when it comes to extracting money out of the clients. Not to mention the fact that most of society doesn't need porn or doesn't need it enough to consider paying for it.

I suppose it's tit-for-tat. The client objectifies them as a sex object, they objectify the client as a cash cow. But now I'm just describing most capitalist exchanges.

Like Disco Elysium

I don't really believe anything Putin says, I believe what he does...

So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit...

I think you're picking when to listen to Putin to support your preconceived notion that NATO started it.

You're saying two different things. Him attacking Ukraine is him doing something but the only way you could read the motivation as something done to stop Ukraine joining NATO is either basing it off of what someone in the regime said (hypocritical) or projecting what you want onto the situation to square a pre-conceived narrative in your head.

You'll always find an article about violence at waffle House that makes the jokes too soon.

The media blows this out of proportion for you to even consider this an option. If you think that's an idea that makes sense then re-evaluate where you got that talking point.

There are laws banning trans people in states that affect like 5 people (I want to say there was a state law that literally affected one trans girl in the entire state.)

You should examine your definition of intuitive. Yes, technically nothing is intuitive it's just based on what you know because intuition is also based on what you're used to.

By your logic, if you compare a machine that powers on by pressing a big glowing red button labeled "ON" and one that turns on by you performing the haka in front of a camera while reciting a Shakespeare sonnet backwards you might say that there is no "more intuitive" way to turn on a machine, just one you know better and can perform quicker!

You aren't reading what you're replying to because I said in a previous post that it's easy to get used to Celsius and fahrenheit and there's no difference to either and I also already said that Celsius is better for science because it's based on water.

Everything you said can be said about Celsius scale as well.

At this point you're just lying or further proving that you didn't even read the post you tried to respond patronizingly to. I said that the Fahrenheit scale is intuitive because it's a 0-100 scale which is similar to other scales we use all the time and works well for our base 10 counting system being a scale essentially between two powers of 10. Neither of that can be said for Celsius and that's so obvious I think you just didn't read it before replying.

And hell, on top of all this, I think we should all switch to using Celsius! Because as I mentioned it's easy to grasp both scales and using Celsius makes understanding a lot of science easier which I think is the only real argument in this arbitrary choice between the two! But I'm out here explaining the use of Fahrenheit because people here can't grasp my explanation for why people might use it and are acting like they've got the defeater to a post they didn't even read!

Never said either one can't be intuitive, just that the scale of farenheit has a precedence outside of it being an arbitrary temperature measurement by being a scale that goes from about 0 - 100.

If you had never used either scale and some one asked: "which is more intuitive, a temperature scale where -10 is really cold and 40 is really hot or one where 0 is really cold and 100 is really hot?" I know which one I would pick because I've done things before like calculate percentages and work in a base 10 system so it makes sense for the scale to be between two orders of magnitude.

I disagree that either would be just as intuitive. Fahrenheit being 0=cold and 100=hot is intuitive because there are a lot of things we do in the world that exist on a scale of 0 - 100. Percentages, just off the bat. Also, fahrenheit has a higher degree of fidelity in the temperature range that we use.

Celsius's general temperature scale is like -10 - 40 which is absolutely not intuitive because it doesn't look like any other scale we use as humans. I agree that we get used to Celsius fast and it's a fine it's not like it's super confusing (and Celsius is so much more useful scientifically).

The edges curve in 3d space, but not relative to the sphere.

this party electoral system.

Trump also caved to billionaires immediately despite all of his rhetoric.

Edit: it's kind of whataboutism but I'm just pointing out the real problem.

Yes.

Seems like a fun tongue-in-cheek thing to give one of your players inside another campaign to determine how their time with lors Byron went.

It's basically skibidi toilet for scientists.

I really really like Quorn (or however it's spelled) as a chicken substitute. The flavor has to be added artificially but I think the texture is pretty satisfying and reminds me of chicken.