What moment from a video game made you cry?
ShaunaTheDead @ ShaunaTheDead @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 243Joined 2 yr. ago
ShaunaTheDead @ ShaunaTheDead @kbin.social
Posts
0
Comments
243
Joined
2 yr. ago
I had to look this one up. Basically "awwtysm" sounds like "autism".
Ezarr is a pretty great little project for getting started. Just clone the repo and follow the README and it should just be plug and play.
It means "if you are able to stop safely, you MUST STOP. Otherwise, you must go through the light quickly".
Who the hell would have guessed that we'd have to deal with not one but two potentially civilization ending threats in our lifetimes? I want off this crazy ride please!
You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of Existential Nihilism which is a school of thought within Nihilism, but is different in it's interpretation as I described in my original post.
Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no objective meaning or purpose... The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".
... Friedrich Nietzsche further expanded on these ideas, and ... has become a major figure in existential nihilism.
There are also some quotes of note in the main Nihilism Wikipedia article
Nietzsche distinguishes a morality that is strong or healthy, meaning that the person in question is aware that he constructs it himself, from weak morality, where the interpretation is projected on to something external.
As such, the self-dissolution of Christianity constitutes yet another form of nihilism. Because Christianity was an interpretation that posited itself as the interpretation, Nietzsche states that this dissolution leads beyond skepticism to a distrust of all meaning.
I think Absurdism is more what people are generally describing when they use the term Nihilism in popular culture. Here are a couple of excerpts from the same Existential Nihilism Wikipedia article I linked.
The supposed conflict between our desire for meaning and the reality of a meaningless world is explored in the philosophical school of absurdism.
With Kierkegaard, the concept of absurdism was developed, which explains the concept of humans trying to find meaning in a meaningless world.
I'm so tired of people thinking that nihilism (Nietzsche's main philosophy for those unaware) is depressing. It's not at all, it's actually very hopeful and liberating. Nihilism can basically be boiled down to "nothing matters" which sounds depressing, but what it really means is that "nobody can tell you what matters from your perspective, only you can decide what matters to you". It was considered depressing and was railed against by the public at the time because it goes against religious teaching which tells you that religion matters objectively and unquestioningly.
It's extremely liberating even today despite religion not having a choke hold on society as much as it did during Nietsche's time. It's liberating because if what truly matters to you is shitposting on Lemmy, then that's great! Go live your most meaningful existence! Enjoy yourself and be proud of your accomplishments in that field! You choose your own worldview and what matters to you, and that's obviously a very a positive thing, it's not depressing or morose or narrow-minded and I'm tired of people just boiling it down to "Nihilism is for depressed people".
This isn't about male bowlers though. The physiology of transgender people changes very quickly after starting Hormone Replacement Therapy. Do you have data on transgender women and bowling in cricket? Because data relating to male bowlers is not applicable.
I just want you to know that the study that was posted is trash. Here's link to a comment on that same study by 3 professors from the same journal https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8
And here's a quick TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study's scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn't been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
Not only do I think this study is complete non-sense, but 3 other professors at the same journal published their comments and concerns with this study and how it's being spread around as though it's fact when in truth, the "science" in it is rubbish.
Here's a link to the article in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37726582/
PubMed unfortunately doesn't have a transcript, but you can read the transcript here (or click on the link next to DOI in PubMed that I linked above): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8
Here's TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study's scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn't been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
And besides, even if the original study were true, wouldn't transgender athletes would be winning at a rate higher than their prevalence in sports? Considering about 1% of people are transgender, they should win 1% of the time, but that doesn't happen, because any advantage is entirely fictitious.
And even if there was an advantage, there are lots of people who have a biological advantage. That's just a part of sports that's impossible to eliminate because we're not all robots running on the exact same hardware and software.
I apologize if you're not a transphobe, but you reposted a singular study whose findings are trash at best and outright bigotry at worst. I think it's natural for me to assume you're a transphobe trying to troll considering I specifically said:
...anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it's face to uninformed people and so it's a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don't care about the sports they're "trying to save", they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.
So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.
Of course trying to continue the discourse would make me assume that you're transphobic. You should have been more clear if that's not the case. Regardless, it shouldn't take away from my point. Again though, I apologize if you posted it from a perspective of honest discussion, but I hope you understand that this topic is often a target of trolls who seek to muddy the water by "just asking questions" in bad faith.
It makes sense to either go general to specific or specific to general. MM-DD-YYYY is neither.
African women out perform lots of athletes in nearly all sports, should they be banned from competing? No, of course not, that's bigotry. Trans women don't out perform cis women or there would be overwhelming evidence that they're winning tournaments constantly over cisgender women. Where's the evidence? Good luck finding it, because it doesn't exist, because it's not true.
And as I pointed out, sports are inherently unfair. It's not cheating to have a biological advantage. It's only cheating if you break the established rules of the actual game. Being more intelligent than your opponent in chess is not cheating, but moving a piece during your opponents turn is. See the difference? One is a biological advantage which is fine, the other is breaking a rule within the sport itself which is not fine.
That study is irrelevant and their findings don't change anything about my answer. That study could say "African women have more lean muscle mass and are taller than the average athlete" and you wouldn't be sharing that study around saying that African women shouldn't be allowed to compete with other athletes because that's racist and stupid.
And besides, taking an extreme example and comparing it to the average is dishonest. The best way to determine if transgender athletes are actually dominating in sports is their top level tournament wins. As I said, about 1% of people are transgender, so about 1% of tournament winners should be transgender if everything is even. Anything above, means an advantage and anything below means a disadvantage.
So where are all the transgender people absolutely dominating tournaments above the average of transgender prevalence?
You can't show me that because it doesn't happen, and even if it did happen, that's just sports! You simply can't ban people for a biological advantage in a hobby where biological advantages are literally everywhere. Height, vision, reflexes, agility, intelligence, etc.
In Canada (and I think in most of the world) it's illegal to randomly test employees unless you have reasonable cause.
Testing of an individual employee may be allowed in specific cases where there is reasonable cause to believe the employee is impaired by drugs or alcohol while on duty or is unable to work safely due to impairment from alcohol or drugs.
I'm kind of surprised it took Thailand so long to do this, but good for them!
https://media.tenor.com/HwKKdU25CQAAAAd/good-for-her-arrested-development.gif
The ultimate reason it's wrong to ban transgender people from competing in athletics competitions is that the implication is that testosterone can be considered a performance enhancing drug -- even if the athlete in question is well within hormonal levels of any other cisgender athlete in the same sport.
If that's the case, then it opens the door to banning other athletes for exceeding the testosterone limit, and guess what? Cisgender women with African heritage naturally produce more testosterone than the average woman world-wide. So banning transgender athletes leads to potentially banning African women which is obviously racist and wrong to do.
Also, poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a condition that affects about 1 in 10 women and a very common side effect of PCOS is elevated testosterone levels. So 1 in 10 women would be banned for medical reasons outside of their control. And banning people for a medical condition is ableist and obviously wrong to do.
And, ultimately, sports aren't fair. We try to make them equitable by making the rules universal, but biological advantages are just part of sports. If we start banning athletes for hormones, why not ban athletes for being taller than average? Why not ban athletes for having better vision than average? Or better peripheral vision? Or faster reflexes? If only the absolute average, or below average people were allowed to compete then nearly half of all people would be unable to compete.
Plus, the vast majority of athletes say that they don't want transgender people to be banned from their respective sports.
And not to mention that it's just rude to exclude transgender athletes, and if it were truly such an advantage to be transgender then why aren't transgender people winning tournaments left and right? About 1% of people are transgender, so if transgender people are winning 1% of all tournaments then that would mean that they're exactly on exactly equal footing with their competitors. But I suspect that less than 1% of tournament winners are transgender which means that transgender people are actually at a disadvantage, which again, is fine because sports are inherently unfair as I outlined above.
At the end of the day, transgender athlete bans hurt everyone, and anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it's face to uninformed people and so it's a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don't care about the sports they're "trying to save", they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.
So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Yeah, either put quotes around it '/like this/you can incorporate/spaces/into your paths' or /just escape/your spaces/like this
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
But then why is it available in my command line terminal as a command that I can use? Like when I type do and then hit TAB twice to list commands that match the output is do done dofsck etc... but when I just enter do in the command line or do --help I get bash: syntax error near unexpected token 'do'
I would assume that since I can run sudo apt update that I could also run do apt update where it would run it not as a super user. I know just apt update would do that too, but I'm just so curious if it's possible to use do as a user-level sudo or what else it might be able to do.
Ugh yeah, FF7 when Aeris is killed by Sephiroth. And the scene where Cloud carries her into the water... I was bawling. Afterwards I think I just sat there dumbfounded, staring at the empty spot in my party until after like 5 minutes I turned off the game cause I needed a break to mourn. I know the graphics don't really hold up these days, but it was all to real to me as a child and it was one of my first experiences with death even though it was just a video game character.