EndOfLine @ EndOfLine @lemm.ee

Posts

3

Comments

104

Joined

2 yr. ago

Out of curiosity, what is the topic that you are discussing?

I'm discussing TikTok making grandiose, inaccurate and unfounded statements in an attempt to manipulate their users. And I'm attempting to shed light on that attempt.

This will damage millions of businesses

I don't think that shifting conditions and fluctuations in a market place are damage, I think that it is just business.

destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country

I believe that any creators making a livelihood from social media are not doing it solely from TikTok, they are (or at least should be) diversified across multiple platforms for stability and increased earning potential.

deny artists an audience,”

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to even mean. TikTok is a platform, not an audience. The audience is still there. The artists are still there. A vast multitude of options that are not TikTok exist for connecting those 2 groups. Nothing is being denied.

Basically, as it was before TikTok, so shall it be after TikTok.

Really this is just a big handout to Meta and Google with nothing beyond that of merit

That may be, but TikTok did not argue against the consolidation of social media platforms. That would be a different discussion.

“This will damage millions of businesses, destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country, and deny artists an audience,”

That sounds like an overestimation of their importance.

My understanding is that TikTok did not introduce anything new nor does it offer anything truly unique. They did a major marketing push about 6 years ago to grab market share of an existing and crowded arena, which they have continued to grow. If they go away, the others actors in this space are already poised to fill any "void", without hesitation, until the next social media trend emerges.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the United States invade Iraq despite the objections of the UN Security Council? That happened, right? Without reprocutions?

If that's the case, I'm wondering who cares about the UN objecting to laws a country passes, within their own borders, that are not human rights violations. What are they going to do? Write a stern letter?

It's not clear why the man wanted so many vaccinations or how he obtained them.

Schober and the team compared the man’s immune responses—measured by his blood antibody levels, the first line of defense against a virus, and T cell levels, which are responsible for the body's longer-term response—to those of a control group of 29 people who had received three COVID-19 shots.

“His immune system was neither positively nor negatively affected," says Schober.

I fixed the article. Somebody accidentally added a bunch of crap that provided no meaningful information.

Yeah, kinda. Except that the laws already exist. So somebody ineligible could fight to be on the ballot (or somebody else could fight to have them removed), which would result in a court case. Which is what just happened.

If SCOTUS had decided to hear Trumps immunity arguments sooner rather than later than there would be a chance of him being ejudicated of insurrection before the election. Until that verdict, he remains eligible since Congress failed to impeach him when they had the chance.

The constitution lists the following 3 criteria for running for president.

• Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
• Be at least 35 years old
• Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

Your kid could run if / when they meet these criteria, but not your dog.

The constitution also defines citizen as "persons", which would further disqualify your dog.

I'd like to know more about how this is supposed to work.

What is considered a wage? Is it net worth, increase in worth from one year to the next? Liquid capital?

Are benefits (insurance, child care, etc) counted towards this wage cap? What about company cars or housing? What about profit sharing through bonuses and / or stock grants?

Would loans be counted towards the wage cap? If not, can you borrow more than the wage cap?

What happens if you own a home or business that is worth more than the wage cap? Would you only be able to sell that commodity for the wage cap or would any excess of the wage cap be spread over multiple years?

Would inheritance or "gifts" be tallied towards the wage cap? Would donations to charitable organizations offset the wage cap?

Would companies be subject to these caps? What if a person incorporated, had all of their wealth and earnings go through that incorporation which they had sole discretion and control over the use of those funds?

What about foreign entities? Would people, companies, or even governments from other countries who exceed the maximum wage be allowed to buy / sell goods, direct / manage corporate interests, invest in land or stocks, or even reside in a country with a maximum wage? What authority or oversight would exist to even identify such a wage of a foreign entity? Or

Every single one of those questions represents a potential loophole that could be exploited to circumvent a "maximum wage" and I'm sure that somebody who has studied or worked in finance could think of others.

I don't think that sex can be determined until after the 7th week. Did Alabama just embrace non-binary identifications for children?

I think this line hints at it the underlying motivation.

A national poll conducted in late 2022 found that 4 out of 10 Americans believe society has become too "soft and feminine."

Basic mysogyny to have a negative and / or "less than" mentality around women. I think a lot of males don't consciously realize how much they marginalize and dehumanize women but are desperate to avoid being treated or thought of in the same manner. But that's just an opinion based on zero research on the topic.

That's the most beta thing you can do.

I've never heard anybody I would consider "manly" identify behaviors as "beta" or "alpha". Only a bunch of scared little boys who are still overly obsessed with their penises.

The link to the cartoon is in the last paragraph.

There are studies that show introvertion is not a "preference", but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/

There are other studies showing a "high reactive" or "low reactive" response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it's correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of "nature" rather than "nurture". Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/

Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.

Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.

they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.

Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.

Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.

Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.

A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.

Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.

Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.

If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I'm always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.

I would consider that definition to be overly simplistic and failing to capture an important point that is often referenced when describing traits of an introvert. Introverts find social interactions, especially in large groups, to be draining. I believe this to be a key distinction between people that avoid social interaction out of misanthropy or frustration or fear or depression or any of a myriad of other reasons that a person might seek solitude over the company of others.

The reason and motivation behind the desire to avoid social interactions plays a role in determining a course of action in responding to them and ending them early. If you find them draining, a simple "sorry, I gotta get going", when you start to feel drained, is all you would r really need. However, if social interactions trigger a negative emotional response, then more tools would be needed.

Here are a few references on the topic of introvertion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/introversion

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/introvert-definition

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-introvert

Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.

Thanks. Fixed my comment.

What you described is being antisocial asocial, not introverted.

To be fair, both of his daughters are adults, and more than capable of speaking out against their father's abhorrent behavior. Additionally, they stand to benefit, directly or indirectly from their father's actions. They are also likely to be among the very small group of people that Brett Farve would listen to and could be shamed by. I would not consider them innocent bystandards.

I'm just guessing here but I would think that cooking would kill off anything picked up from the thawing process.

It's nasty, but not necessarily unsafe.

... the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.

Sooooo the same failed guidelines that are not enforced and carry zero consequences for selling their judgements? That's what they think will restore trust in their court instead of deepening the image of rampant corruption and politicking?