Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

1,022

Joined

2 yr. ago

I’m unconvinced that Shakespeare is a particularly good exercise in reading comprehension given the vocabulary, phraseology, spelling and grammar is 500 years out of date.

Hrm I'd argue that regardless of the parlance used in the work, it's still an exercise of reading comprehension, as one is still comprehending the work while reading it.

What exactly would you want to remove, and what would you propose in its stead, and why?

We learn certain general subjects like this in science mainly to learn critical thinking, analytical/logical reasoning skills, how to apply the scientific method (which, yes, can come in handy in many areas of life besides science).

Given your previous claim:

No high schooler is EVER gonna pay even the slightest bit of attention if we incorporate a “taxes and accounting” class. No shot.

What makes you think that they'd be any more likely to pay attention to any other subject matter?

[…] No high schooler is EVER gonna pay even the slightest bit of attention if we incorporate a “taxes and accounting” class. No shot. […]

Assuming that some high schoolers aren't going to pay attention to the lesson, wouldn't it still be better to at least try to teach something that has real life practical use rather than something that doesn't? At least the people who do pay attention will gain something useful — it doesn't make much sense to me to reduce the overall usefulness of what's taught simply because some may not pay attention.

An issue that I often find is that misinformation is often spread under the guise of innocent humor. If information becomes oversimplified to the point of becoming incorrect, and it's shared as such, I think that some people may not internalize that it's incorrect and will take it at face value. I do think that people have a responsibility to be skeptical of what they read, but I think that the people sharing information also have a responsibility to ensure its accuracy to the best of their ability to, at the very least, reduce the burden on those consuming information, and to reduce the impact of the extremes of people that consume and spread information without any thought given to its accuracy.

I use KDE Plasma on my desktop and GNOME on my laptop — though, by my experience, GNOME has been mildly annoying. I just find it too "restrictive" when compared with KDE. I'm also not super fond of how some apps seem to integrate rather poorly with GNOME. I do think that GNOME's interface works well with a laptop, but the UX hasn't been the best for me. I have few, if any, complaints regarding KDE.

Would it be better to do less of each kind of exercising or just to fixate on one kind?

Hm, I think it's important to assess what your exercise goals are, and to analyze your full workout routine to prevent this being an XY problem. Addressing the latter, given the following:

my ideal workout means stair climbing, running-walking and stretching. It can well last 2 hours.

If you are saying that that is your full workout routine, I would say that, imo, I don't see any problem with splitting those up: Stair climbing and running are both cardio ^[3], assuming that you do them both to a high enough intensity ^[2]; they just focus different muscle groups ^[1] — depending on your goals, this could help you decide on which on to keep as a focus. As for stretching, a recommended minimum is 2-3 times per week ^[4]. Depending on your total stretching routine, you could potentially cut out some stretches if they have considerable overlap with other stretches.

I think it's important to note that any amount of exercise appears to be better than none at all ^[1][2][3].

TIL!

This meme seems to be logically flawed — essentially, it's an example of a faulty generalization: Let A be a set containing "Elites", "Oligarchs", and "Plutocrats", let B be a set of things that are considered "bad", and let C be a set of things that are considered capitalist; if A is a subset of B (ie all things in A are "bad"), and A is a subset of C (ie all things in A are capitalist) (assuming that those are correct subsumptions), that doesn't imply that C is necessarily a subset of B (ie that things that are capitalist are bad, or, more generally that capitalism is bad) — there could be elements of C not in B. C is a subset of B if and only if all elements of C are in B (ie all things that are capitalist must be bad). So, for the meme's logic to be sound A would have to equal C (ie capitalism only contains elites, oligarchs and plutocrats).

Of course, to avoid forming an argument from fallacy, I would like to clarify that this isn't to argue that the final implied claim of "capitalism is the problem" is wrong, nor the explicit claim that "socialism isn't the problem", or, rather that "socialism is the problem" is wrong, but, instead, simply that the argument used is unsound.

Could it not just sorta flex the tube? Like couldn't one part of the tube pull on or press off of the next?

Why are there what looks like Lemmy comments attached to what looks like a Reddit post…?

I wonder if a heart could still beat/function when it's unrolled in this way 🤔

[…] lemmy is a bunch of teenagers […]

The average age of lemmings has actually been found to be around late 30s ^[1][2].

I've never understood the "bug conspiracy". Let's assume that there is a movement of people that wants everyone to eat bugs, and let's ignore any pros or cons about their consumption. How would that affect one's life? Without legislation mandating it's use (which I'd wager would be illegal, anyways — unless, ofc, there was a large enough majority of people in a democratic country who are in favor of forcing bugs on everyone to overrule said laws), one couldn't be forced to consume it; those who'd want to consume it will consume it, and those who don't won't. Where exactly is the issue?

This might be tricky, given that Lemmy is federated ^[1]; there's no guarantee that deletions will be federated to all instances — eg an instance could defederate from the rest of the network after your content's been pushed to it.

If you don't mind answering, out of curiosity, why do you want to mass delete your old comments?

Plus I cringe at the thought of 75% of the CBC budget being spent on content moderation.

Theoretically, could they outwardly federate only? For example, they make a post which gets pushed out to other instances, but they would set their instance to not allow any external posts or comments to be federated into their instance, and they could close registrations. That way, the rest of the Fediverse could follow and interact with their content, and they wouldn't have to deal with moderation. I'm not sure if that's really how federation works, so please correct any inaccuracies.

I don't really understand why people are downvoting this post. I think this might be a symptom of the, imo, rather nebulous interpretation of the use of upvotes and downvotes.

[…] treat each Lemmy community as a community, not an audience.

I think it depends on the community in question, and the nature of the post. If, for example, one is looking for an answer to a question, or help with something, I would argue that one would, generally, want to target the largest relevant audience to maximize the surface area of potential people who can help. At any rate, more specifically, I don't think it's one or the other, but rather both — one would want to find the largest and the most relevant community. By my experience, another common behavior is to cross-post to multiple communities. This seems to be especially more common in a federated forum like Lemmy where there could be any number of duplicate communities.