Warl0k3 @ Warl0k3 @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,180

Joined

2 yr. ago

People with stage 4 cancer usually don't have estates once they pass. It's fucking expensive to die in this country.

Tf? No it hasn't. People have been persecuting gays for hundreds of years, and those churches are still going strong. Look at... well, every single church.

But it can't be wrong, it's confirming my preconceptions!!

ChatGPT for tailoring resumes and writing coverletters, for one

Fuck, are we going to have to crowdfund this? At least with CNN reporting on it there's enough awareness they might secure alternative sources, but this is getting fucking insane.

I fear that would just turn into a system for forcing surprise dick pics onto people

So you say you're autistic... <3

You're right that its the framing here that reads as very rude - if someone is expressing their desire to do something, coming in and presenting something else as a clearly morally superior choice and denigrating the thing they wanted to do is considered quite rude; both because it assumes they're somehow ignorant of the alternative choices and thus couldn't have made an informed decision, and because it comes across like you're asserting your own preferences as "more valid" than theirs.

Much as with all other forms of encoding (limerick, haiku, .mp4, web packets, semaphore, all written languages, etc) the format in which a lemmy comment is left is as critical to the communication of it's idea as the actual content of the words themselves.

Needlessly judgemental, wow.

It's a pretty recent one that seems to be gaining popularity in more and more subcategories as youtube's hypersensitive demonization bot rolls out to more and more videos. Using the words 'suicide', 'pedophile' or any terms related to self harm reportedly set it off, regardless of their use in context. People are retaliating by using "youtube" as a euphemism in place of the censored terms, hoping it will catch on. So far it seems to be working, as no matter your political, ideological, social or cultural baises we can all band together and agree that youtube are just the worst.

For the sake of her family's closure, I hope we find out. I can't imagine what it's like to have speculation like this about something so horrible.

Oh hell sorry, "youtubing" oneself is a current euphemistic slang term for self-harm/suicide. I wish I was young enough for it to have meant something less depressing.

My thought as well, though this is in texas so why would they be bothering to cover it up? It's not like they'd be convicted anyways.

Even then it must have been really abnormal, normally they just don't release the officer's name and give them a month of paid time off. What the hell....

Yeah, all of my real guesses are too bleak for me to want to type them up. This is just awful.

I had whooping cough as a child (vaccine resistant strain) and it got so bad I tried to youtube myself just to get some rest. It's truly horrifying how bad it can be. I just wish there were recordings of what it sounds like, so anti-vaxxer parents could at least begin to understand why its so awful.

Only the brown ones, if they're white it's technically poaching unless they're in-season.

It's extremely strange that no details have been released in this case. I kinda doubt it's actual full-bore corruption, that's still fairly rare here, but man for a case involving a foreign citizen it's sure suspicious they're so quiet about it. And even in texas there's so few situations where a fatal shooting doesn't merit charges. It seems a little far fetched for her to have, say, been mugging someone who then shot her in self-defense. Was she shot by some kind of trained combat armadillo? A senile centenarian who passed away during the investigation? A very small child? (actually those last two are feasible, though in both cases the owner of the firearm they got ahold of would probably have been charged, though it's texas so that isn't 100%). Those are the only sort of examples where this might be justified, but lets be honest it was probably the cops.

Just fucking weird. Her poor family.

This is a public forum. You started this discussion, again, on a public forum. While I'm not particularly interested in winning (I can sate that desire by playing helldivers (lies I suck at that game)), I am interested in educating and reasoned discussion. I know you're not, but you keep coming back despite that, and I'm curious why? What do you gain from this? If you didn't want responses, why did you put your ideas out there? Was it just an excuse to vent, and if so, why did you come out to pick fights in the comments afterwards? Just... walk away, if that's what you want.

Trying to get to the root of a commonly expressed anti-intellectual bias, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "science" and (exhaustively) explaining that what mythbusters has done with human remains is absolutely inline with the normal treatment for human remains in science is fair justification to argue a semantic point. Fundamentally though, mythbusters is science. Even by the definition you provide for hard science, it 100% fits with the process mythbusters used. Formulation of hypothesis, bias-controlled experimentation, reporting of process and results. That's all science is (and even including 'bias control' is possibly too restrictive to meet the common definition).

If you use the definition from the non-simple wikipedia article,

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. In general, the formal sciences and natural sciences are considered hard science, whereas the social sciences and other sciences are described as soft science.

the presumably accidental misuse of a highly colloquial term is quite evident. That obfuscation of meaning is one of the primary criticisms of Simple Wikipedia, in fact. This is again a commonly repeated piece of anti-intellectual rhetoric, wherein one assumes that science can only be done by those with accreditation, grant funding and a sterile white lab (obviously this is a slightly hyperbolic exaggeration of the specifics for comedic effect). Mythbusters is undeniably science, just as much as it is undeniably entertainment. The two are not mutually exclusive, and flashy editing does not impact the rigour (or lack thereof) of their methods nor the validity of their conclusions.

Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?