Opinionhaver @ Opinionhaver @feddit.uk

A contrarian isn’t one who always objects - that’s a confirmist of a differ

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

1,074

Joined

6 mo. ago

On average, there are far more people among vegetarians and vegans who generally pay more attention to what they eat and don’t eat, exercise more, and likely smoke and drink alcohol less as well. Obviously, there are exceptions - but I’m talking about averages here.

I would if it was a native feature. I'd tag people "Made sense once, don't block"

Why use an app for something that works perfectly fine via web browser as well? The less apps I have on my phone the better.

This one guy always hanged at our playground and really did seem to like children. Always had candy on the back of his van as well.

I don’t know what Squid Game is, but we let people do things like cave diving, wingsuit flying, and free solo climbing too. I doubt you’d advocate banning those either.

WWE absolutely is a sport but it's not a competition.

Well, it would - in the sense that an unbiased study might still find that a meat-eater (i.e. the average person) is less healthy than someone who doesn’t eat meat, and then falsely conclude that meat is the reason, rather than accounting for all the other lifestyle differences. Meanwhile, a study funded by Big Meat would obviously find that meat is good for you - which, let’s not forget, could also be true.

The issue with many of these studies is that they compare people who eat red meat to those who either avoid it specifically or don’t eat meat at all. The problem is, red meat isn’t the only variable at play. Vegans and vegetarians, in particular, are likely to have much healthier lifestyles overall than someone who eats red meat - which is more or less synonymous with the “average person.”

What I’d really like to know is the difference between red meat eaters with healthy lifestyles, compared to both the average person and those who don’t eat meat at all.

The people around you likely have a better understanding of it than you do. I’d argue that, deep down, you do know - but you don’t want to believe it if it feels like you’re not. Then a year after the breakup, you realize that you did, in fact, know all along.

Also keep in mind that "the right person" doesn't exist. Everyone has their flaws. It's a matter of what you're willing to deal with.

If those 10% were picked completely at random, then it’s not obvious to me that this would be a good thing. It would effectively increase wealth inequality in the world, where 10% of any population is given something the rest don’t have. That kind of disparity builds resentment and could, in the long run, end up causing more harm than good. If there’s a poor village where nearly everyone is struggling, and suddenly 10% of the population has their basic needs guaranteed, they’d instantly become the “rich guys” of that village. You’d need to do it for the whole village - but then the same issue arises when people in the next village start resenting yours, and so on.

Either way, I’d give 0–2 fingers. I could probably live a perfectly normal life without my pinkies, but I’m not going to pretend I’d definitely go through with it - even if, from a strictly rational perspective, it’s kind of a no-brainer.

I actually found pretty much what I was looking for. Not very active community and I don't know how well it's moderated but at least I can give it a chance next time such topic comes to mind.

!actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Crazy what amount of pushback I'm getting for even daring to ask such thing. It clearly must be fascism and pedofilia I want to advocate for in there because why else would someone want to have serious conversations..

If you don’t like how AI is being hyped or used in business, fair enough. But saying it’s all just “permutation-based coding” isn’t accurate - it’s not some hard-coded script shuffling words around. These systems are trained on massive amounts of data to learn patterns in language, and they generate responses based on that. You can be skeptical without throwing out the whole concept or pretending it’s just smoke and mirrors.

What does this have to do with politics? Anti-natalism isn't exactly a right- or left-wing ideology either.

What violent right-wing subs are they okay with?

The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn't refer to a single technology or a specific capability, but rather to a category of systems designed to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence. That includes everything from pattern recognition, language understanding, and problem-solving to more specific applications like recommendation engines or image generation.

When people say something "isn't real AI," they’re often working from a very narrow or futuristic definition - usually something like human-level general intelligence or conscious reasoning. But that's not how the term has been used in computer science or industry. A chess-playing algorithm, a spam filter, and a large language model can all fall under the AI umbrella. The boundaries of AI shift over time: what once seemed like cutting-edge intelligence often becomes mundane as we get used to it.

So rather than being a misleading or purely marketing term, AI is just a broad label we’ve used for decades to describe machines that do things we associate with intelligent behavior. The key is to be specific about which kind of AI we’re talking about - like "machine learning," "neural networks," or "generative models" - rather than assuming there's one single thing that AI is or isn't.

I don’t understand your reasoning here. You seem to be implying that if we allow people to have open, honest debates, they’d somehow end up on the logical conclusion that sexual violence is good or justified. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how that would happen. I’ve never in my life heard an intellectually honest, rational thinker make that kind of argument - though I have heard them argue the exact opposite.

I also don’t know why you seem to assume that ideas like these wouldn’t face any pushback. I’m not suggesting we create a space free of criticism - I’m suggesting we discuss ideas like civilized people, rather than shouting over one another and calling names just because we don’t like the tone of the sounds someone is making.

The only ones who need to fear open debate and discussion are authoritarian governments, because they don’t want people discovering the truth. And I seriously doubt that the moral rightness of sexual violence is some hidden truth the government is secretly trying to suppress.

Would you mind walking me through the steps of how a space like this becomes a breeding ground for fascists and sexual abuse? I genuinely don’t understand how you imagine that would happen - or why there wouldn’t be anyone pushing back. For that to be true, it would almost imply that fascists and rapists are the only ones capable of having good-faith discussions with each other, while everyone else with a functioning moral compass would’ve already been banned for incivility.

What I want to talk about isn’t the point of this thread - it’s about how I want to talk about it. Basic decency toward one another shouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to ask. I’m more than happy to discuss my underlying motives, but I want to do so in a civilized manner. These mental acrobatics - where, because I’ve said some “magic word,” I must now, with high probability, be a certain type of person - are absolutely ridiculous.

This looks promising. Funnily enough I'm even subscribed to it.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. I don't see why one community couldn't cover all these topics under the same set of moderation principles. I'm imagining something like a philosophers' conference, where you can seriously discuss even seemingly ridiculous topics - like "why can't we eat unwanted babies?" - and no one would be tempted to accuse the person of actually advocating for such a thing. We're just playing with ideas.

It’s not criticism of my takes that hurts me, but the mean-spirited responses when they target me personally rather than my ideas - especially considering the effort I myself put into being fair and decent, even toward those I disagree with but then seem to get next to none of it in return.

You’re right about me getting hurt, though. I’m a real person with real feelings, and I’m not immune to cruelty. Dealing with rude, indecent people here does make me feel pretty bad on a regular basis.

You don't need a huge wrench when working with the p-trap under the sink and water wont start spraying everywhere either as drains aren't pressurized.

Sprinklers react to heat, not smoke.

Not all spriklers go off at the same time in most systems. Only the sprinkler heads affected by heat.

The water coming out of sprinklers initially isn't clear but dark, rusty sludge. Sometimes even black as ink.