fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @lemmy.federate.cc

Posts

7

Comments

843

Joined

1 yr. ago

That's not really what I'm saying.

Yes, potential customers use their directory to look up businesses that provide services that those potential customers need.

Businesses need to pay to be listed in said directory.

If the directory did not exist, those potential customers would look up businesses that provide the services they need somewhere else, like they might google it and be directed to my awesome website.

Therefore, because the directory exists, you need to pay for it if you want those customers. If it did not exist you would still have access to those customers and would not need to pay.

I tend do agree. This is very "preaching to the choir". No Trump supporters are going to watch this and change their mind.

I do think that "Trump only cares about himself" is a kind of powerful message but they only touch on that tangentially.

I was listening to a BBC podcast Americast yesterday. They went to a Trump Rally, and interviewed people afterwards. After all this time, it still surprised me to hear people talk about Trump as though he's a godly person. It was very confronting to listen to, a real demonstration of how different our perspectives are on what makes a "good" person.

Thanks. Does the article show the ad? What's the point of an article about the ad if it doesn't show the ad.

Anyone who says preserving the status quo

This is an epic straw man. Usually I avoid calling out straw man arguments because you can frame almost any assertion as a straw man and ultimately it doesn't further discussion. In this case though, you started it.

If you're into logical fallacies, I will say that your argument is a false dichotomy. Between "societal collapse" and "status quo" there's an obvious third option: "try to fix all the broken things", which is what most people are trying to do. Both societal collapse and status quo are absurd propositions that no reasonable person would subscribe to.

takes a special person

No, it really doesn't.

When someone brags about their wealth, and offers you free stuff without stipulation or limitation, the recipient is going to accept that offer. Any recipient.

It takes a special person to offer financial support to a grieving mother because it's looks great on television, and later withdraw that support.

Oh look at this terrible calamity that has befallen you, why don't you take this very nice thing that you can't afford to make you feel better wink, I'll surprise you with the bill for it once it's too late and you can manage the burden of crushing debt as well as your grief at the loss of your child.

Yeah. That's pretty much what it would be here too, I'm sure.

Yeah I want to admit up top that I have no fucking idea what the right approach is here.

I'm a new parent, but thankfully my kids aren't old enough for me to encounter complicated questions yet.

This might change, but right now my plan is to do my best to avoid cover stories for things. If you're open (as much as is appropriate) and honest (in the context of the delicate situation), that might be better than trying to hide this aspect of the kids ancestry.

As an adult I know that it's possible to simultaneously live a child while acknowledging that an abortion would have been a better option.

I honestly don't know whether a child can understand that.

The thing is, it's not just a conversation with a child. It's lived experience. I'm absolutely confident that my children (we have twins) will know that I love them because of my actions - the time I spend with them every day.

I'm thankful I don't have to navigate this. I would talk to a child psychologist or something to figure out the best way forward. I suspect that will always be communication, but an expert could help you know the best timing, things to watch out for, et cetera.

My point is that it wasnt an act of generosity.

He did it because it made him look good.

Well, there's probably people in my city that would say the same about our CoC. I'm sure I have a skewed perspective. They do have networking events but that's just not how I roll. I honestly don't know how helpful they'd be in other ways.

Oh man.

This sounds like this shitty "Chamber of Commerce" we have in my city.

They're a non-profit, and they publish a directory for local businesses.

I find it infuriating because if they didn't exist, nothing of any value would be lost. But because they do exist, you need to pay to be listed in their book, or else you'll miss out on some customers.

I stopped paying for the listing many years ago because obviously I don't want customers that need to look things up in a phone book, but they still grind my gears.

Well, I don't care at all if you think I'm sad, but you may have missed your point.

If my neighbour offered to buy me lunch I would politely insist on contributing in my own way. I don't really want people to buy things for me. That said, I dislike Trump immensely, he brags about his wealth, and if he offered to pay for something for me because the optics look good, I would absolutely abuse that offer. If it were for my daughters funeral presumably that would occupy my thoughts and I wouldn't politicise it by using my daughters funeral as a way to steal from trump, but there would be no fucks given about the cost.

My point is, "someone" offering to buy me lunch is not at all the same as Trump offering to buy me lunch while interviewing me on TV in the whitehouse because it makes him look good.

Yeah not sure how I feel about BRI. It's telling me my BRI is fine, but I'm rounder than I'd like to be.

You haven't annoyed me. I'm sorry if my manner offends you.

No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate that human extinction is likely.

I'm not so confident.

They seem to have a penchant for just expecting that everyone will pay by the rules, and just giving up when they do not.

I didn't say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you're just strawmanning.

Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn't really understand what societal collapse entails.

I also didn't suggest that capitalism will save us - that's another straw man.

Your metaphor is disingenuous.

This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it's inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that's a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you're just not very bright.

"much higher extinction probabilities" doesn't really mean anything.

The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.

This is where it says that:

Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.

So, a "much higher probability" might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn't consider those factors, they're out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.

Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.

It's impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who's just making stuff up and claiming that it's a plausible assertion.

You're not being realistic, you're being dramatic.

Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.

Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.

Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.

Let's all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.

Oh sweetheart.

Did you google "human extinction science" and link the first result without reading it?

The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.

It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.

What a silly thing to say.

You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?

Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.

Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.

Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.