MeetInPotatoes @ MeetInPotatoes @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

441

Joined

2 yr. ago

Cheers from across the hellscape, friend.

Glad you noticed that lol, it's really the make or break part of the joke.

Don't you dare go ruining my joke with your reality-ism.

HTC Droid Incredible.

It kept telling me its storage was full when it was nowhere close, and then because it only allowed over the air factory resets, it couldn't even erase and reformat itself. It was the top rated Android phone at the time and it's why I've never gone back.

This, we moved from Tribes to towns to cities to be more efficient but lost the cooperative aspect of the tribe which made it more efficient in the first place. Now corporations do market research until they figure out exactly what we can afford to get our needs met and then charge that price instead of anything related to their actual costs. It's resulted in a situation to where most people live month to month and can't afford vacation or even an unexpected car repair.

Let's go with the atomic bomb...if you disagree, consider that we made a weapon too powerful to ever be used again, but nations that have them get taken way more seriously in diplomacy.

And let's be serious, it's pretty much tick-tock, tick-tock before they get used again when they get put in the hands of zealots. Let's be doubly serious, it will be religion that convinces some leader that they are within their divine rights to cleanse the world of their enemies.

For me, this post is right under the person who said "Agriculture" and the response "Because it lead directly to feudalism and other forms of autocracy?"

And if unqualified businessmen ruling instead of experts in their "given fields" isn't a perfect way to describe feudalism, I don't know if irony has survived.

Not true as I've often been born on January 1st in the early 1900's.

I hate to say it, but regardless of one's stance, on his back should be "Public perception of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island."

I say regardless of one's stance, because even if the public's perceptions are off...when we remember those incidents but not how much time was in between them or the relative infrequency of disasters, they can have outsized effects on public attitude.

Beats me, I live in Arizona and hearing other people speak Spanish is a daily occurrence. I don't get even the slightest bit upset by it and I feel like you'd have to be insane to care about such a thing.

So maybe you have it here, some people are insane.

Ahh yes, agreed. Like prosperity Jesus wanting you to be wealthy despite saying in the Bible "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Or a year round favorite: "Love thy neighbor" (unless they're people we don't like, such as LGBT, immigrants, liberals etc. )

Religion itself? Or man using religious dogma to justify the uglier natures of their internal belief systems and cherry-picking religious quotes to shoehorn their false righteousness into moral discussion? Religion is a powerful tool and it can be used to drum up donations for an orphanage, or leveraged and wielded by people who aren't seeking to enlighten themselves at all apart from learning how to use religion to control people.

ping 1.1.1.1 -n 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

You call my claim wildly wrong and have only this to say?

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of newsrooms. That you can point to the instances in which they were wrong does nothing to argue that they don't do their best to verify sources, you're missing the fact that it's hard sometimes, missing the fact that mainstream outlets retract statements that turn out to be false later and hedge their bets with wording. Dan Rather lost his career over an unverified source. The NBC headline about the beheaded babies literally says "Unverified reports" in the title.

I think you should read this article about the difficulties of getting the news right in the 24 hour news cycle and educate yourself instead of spewing knee-jerk nonsense which your argument fails to prove. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology

False equivalence between Twitter news and mainstream news. Mainstream news has to verify their sources and have a reputation to protect. They retract stories that turn out to be false. As you saw with Dominion, mainstream news has money to protect from slander lawsuits too. It's not perfect and there is certainly bias, but on Twitter there are no guardrails for misinformation besides community notes.

Ahh, sorry to shatter your beliefs further.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/12/13/edny-fbi-investigating-nypd-drug-planting-allegations

https://abc7ny.com/convictions-overturned-brooklyn-da-eric-gonzalez-nypd-misconduct-corruption/12212052/

On the one hand that's good and on the other it makes misinformation extremely easy. Misinformation spreads like wildfire on Twitter and the corrections don't. The corrections get buried in "nuh uh, YOU lie" bot spam unless it gets the community notes treatment.

And before someone gets up in arms about the research papers, the researchers don’t get paid by the journals for publishing with them. In fact, the researchers need to pay the journal to publish, and then the journal turns around and charges people to read it.

What you're describing here is called predatory publishing and is not the norm. It's the "fake news" of scientific journals. I'm not "up in arms" about the original topic of making info available to the public whatsoever, just wanted to correct this part.

https://beallslist.net/

I'll explain now why it's such a dishonest question. It's a false equivalence that sets the bar for agreeing with an opinion at being willing to die for it yourself. That is incorrect, logically speaking. The bar for agreeing with this opinion would be whether or not I'd be willing to fight and die for MY country if it was being invaded by Russians. That's the core dishonesty of your question, that if I support their cause, I should be willing to fight and die for it myself.

I also wouldn't personally say that every last able-bodied man should fight. Say we have a Ukrainian man whose brother was killed, his brother's wife is disabled, and she has 6 kids. I would have nothing to say about what that individual man should do, and if he chose to help his sister in law get her orphaned children out of Ukraine, away from the war, and take care of them, that's his honorable choice. That brings us to the second dishonest part of your question, it sets the implied bar at a point where if one supports a country that continues fighting for its freedom against a violent aggressor, that we must naturally support the notion that every individual in that country should fight as well. It's taking a macro level question and trying to apply it to every individual; attempting to turn a nuanced opinion into a black and white one by disregarding the contextual realities at the individual level.

Your dishonesty is embedded in the question.