You have to remove the plastic label if you want to recycle this plastic bottle.
force @ force @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 458Joined 2 yr. ago
force @ force @lemmy.world
Posts
1
Comments
458
Joined
2 yr. ago
Yeah I mean that's what happens when a new innovation threatens to replace (or reduce/minimize) peoples' jobs. Especially in a society where your job equals your ability to survive & live, people do NOT like getting their jobs "taken away" from them.
Yea I'm "anti-Israel" by many metrics but this is just a misleading and seemingly propagandic take... Judaism comes in many different forms and can range from extremist, highly conservative-orthodox beliefs which believes itself to be the superior race and all the others go to some burning hell (as seems to be described in this post which represents a minority of jews in the US at least), to any of the apolitical beliefs that lack any sort of hell-equivalent or even afterlife at all in some cases, where the entire point of the religion basically boils down to "be a good person to everyone around you". Judaism is an extremely diverse religion, hell you could even make an argument about Christianity and Islam just being highly derived forms of extremist Judaism (since Christianity originated as an offshoot of fringe jewish beliefs and Islam developed most of its unoriginal beliefs from Judaism and Christianity). Very few Jews actually have extremist/Christian-like beliefs about their religion (I don't know about in Israel though, they very well could)
Sorry but this comment is completely ignorant of the chemistry & manufacturing... you can make some shitty unusable glass with it, but unless you waste an unsustainable amount of resources to try to make the problems less apparent, a majority of desert sand is too low-silica to work. It's a problem with the material, no new glass processing method will change that.
And if you do decide to use desert sand, it's practically a logistics nightmare, especially considering you'll likely have to be centered in one of the few deserts made of sand (most of which are in North/South-East Africa and the Middle East, but also Central Asia, Australia, some parts of the Americas). But even if you did it's not sustainable or practical, and it most probably won't be in the future, there's a reason glass manufacturing plants smack dab in the middle of sandy deserts have to import their sand.
Both sound dumb
It can mean either flammable or not flammable (although the latter meaning is less common and it's often prescribed not to use it). You have Latin to thank for the confusion between "in-" for "in/on/within" as in "incinerate" or "involve" or "imbue", and "in-" for "not" as in "incapable" or "imbalance" or "individual"/"indivisible".
Although in English the word "flammable" actually originated from removing the "in-" from "inflammable", specifically for the purpose of avoiding confusion with "non-flammable". I guess that happened enough for "flammable" to become the common one. Ha!
Generally though "inflammable" still means the same as "flammable" if it's on a label or something. You could use "unflammable" to mean non-flammable to remove any ambiguity.
Imagine a world where we say "flammatory" and "unflammatory" instead of "inflammatory" and "non-inflammatory"...
non-binary
The grammar rules make no sense and sometimes have more exceptions than cases it applies to.
said the native speakers of like half the languages on this planet
Dutch grammar is about as regular as most West Germanic languages (Germanic grammar tends to be relatively irregular compared to the norm though) but something that may make it less complex in many respects than languages like Icelandic or German is the total lack of cases (in the modern standard) and only 2 grammatical genders. of course, when looking at that part of the language, languages like English and especially Afrikaans are much more straightforward, with a complete lack of grammatical gender, as well as Afrikaans being very regular.
Althoughhh Dutch, and English, do have extremely opaque orthographies in terms of reading, trying to figure out the pronunciation of a word based on the spelling is pretty much useless most of the time, which isn't super common among writing systems. But that doesn't mean anything about the languages themselves.
But pretty much every language has a lot of speakers who think it's super hard and a lot of speakers who think it's super easy, when in reality no language is inherently hard or easy to learn – 99% of what makes a language easy or hard to learn for someone (other than motivation/passion/necessity/exposure of course) is how familiar it is to their native language(s) and other languages they speak. English speakers will go around saying "English is the hardest language to learn" or "English is the easiest language to learn", same with Dutch, Hungarian, Hindi, Armenian, Tamil, etc. But English will generally be one of the easier languages to learn for people who speak e.g. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French (although the spelling is a completely different matter). Hungarian and Estonian will be relatively easy to learn if you speak, say, Turkish or Finnish. Ukrainian is pretty easy to learn for Belarusian & Polish speakers, Arabic will be easy to learn for Hebrew speakers. Japanese speakers usually find Korean extremely easy, and vice versa, while both may find English extremely hard, and vice versa.
I mean learning a language well enough to use regularly at all isn't easy by the slightest measure, and it takes thousands of hours of frequent study & usage, so when I say "easy" I'm speaking relatively. I find Russian knowledge far easier to get/retain than my German skills for various reasons even though German is more similar to the languages I know the best (learning material and liking the language obviously plays a huge part in this).
Florida Cop Empties His Gun, Runs For Cover After Acorn Falls On Car and Mistakes It For Shots Fired
Jump
I guess fancy red-dot sights don't improve skills like they show us in vidya games?
Training solely with red dots is a detriment to your skills, at least. A red dot can make even the most inexperienced bozos look like a sharpshooter at the range, but under stress the lack of "low-level" practice/skills would severely limit your gunmanship. That's not to say to not practice with red dots, you should put a lot of time into the tools you're likely to use and in a similar way to how you're likely to use them, but it's also important to practice a lot with iron sights and whatnot if you want to develop and maintain... actually good aim. A lot of people tend to not do that, though, because fancy sights make shooting practice targets easy and can make you feel like you're way better than you actually are.
There are plenty of browsers. Dillo, NetSurf, surf, w3m, Lynx, Links, Via, Midori, Pale Moon although it's based on a fork of Gecko, Tunnel, qutebrowser. And there are even options for a search engine, although the only one worth considering that isn't just a layer on top of other search engines is Kagi which costs $10 a month, and I wouldn't exactly call it minimalist.
The problem is that no browser can allow you to escape the horror that is web standards & practices that have been developed over decades and are almost unchangeable, without sacrificing basic web functionality and just making it a worse experience than it needs to be at least. The fact is that practically the entire web is reliant on JavaScript, on top of HTML and CSS which take a lot more resources to utilize/display than it looks, meaning 3 interpreters constantly running that must be sandboxed to each tab you have open with a lot of overhead to manage security.
In an ideal world we'd all just be using provably-safe high-performance compiled WASM-but-stronger (from functional languages or more likely Rust or something less boiler-platey but similar), without having such a complex and fucked dependency situation, where we wouldn't need to sandbox interpreted languages and slaughter performance. Of course, in an ideal world, we also wouldn't have to be concerned about aggressive tracking, ads, clickbait, SEO abuse, scams, or even malware, so there's not much use in imagining a reality where we actually have quality web browsing.
The actual answer to using the web without the fucked-ness of browsers is to not use a web browser at all for sites you use frequently. Use stuff like this instead.
seriously, you can write the most basic website with JavaScript and it'll probably rely on tens of thousands of expressions of code which realistically should just be expressable in like a small page or two, you do webdev and you'll probably accidentally be implicitly committing a sacrifice to some Aztec God in order to check if a number is even or odd
Also just imagine if all of web dev was just ML/Scala/Rust/Swift/Erlang without compiling to JavaScript 🤤 That is the definition of a perfect universe
Does it really cost money though? I would think that it's far more expensive to just store & maintain our massive pile of outdated equipment. I imagine the military would be relieved to finally get rid of their hundreds of shitty A-10s rather than constantly pay for their existence at least, it seems like it'd save a lot of money. hint hint
I mean I wouldn't wish using the A-10 upon anybody (eugh), especially Ukrainians. But it would be good for money
Define "actual music". Does it become real music when it's part of a movie sound track? Or when it's played on pop radio stations? When it gets performed by middle schoolers in band classes? When the London Philharmonic performs it? When it reaches Billboard 100? When the artist wins a grammy? Do you need to be in ASCAP to make music? I'm a little confused as to what would differentiate music made for digital entertainment from any other music.
war thunder, destiny 2, what other games are there for the sole purpose of milking multiple payments of money out of people over a long period of time
gta 5 online probably counts too
your username is giving me ptsd
everything. everything about it sucks. it's like the chastity cage of OSes, even moreso than Apple OSes
Okay, you're just copping out of the conversation and ignoring pretty much all the points you don't like but I'll give you what you want.
You fucking shut the conversation down any time it goes there. You define men's issues as being impossible to discuss.
No, we just have the reaction anyone would have if we were talking about problems we face and someone else was like "yeah but what about these other issues I face". You're honestly telling me you think someone who just says "oh yeah your broken leg is bad but what about my broken arm? that's bad, if not worse, and i'm tired of people talking about your leg when nobody is talking about my arm" is doing so in good faith? When do feminists shut down such conversations about men? Why do you insist on just making shit up about feminists saying not to discuss men's issues?
You seriously believe that never once in the history of any of these discussions, somone saying "but what about men" has wanted to add to the conversation rather than derail it?
I don't know every person in history who has done that, but when you respond to literally anything discussing women's struggles with "but what about men who have X bad" it is more often then not a quite obvious attempt at diminishing the issue at hand. There are people who say "I'm not a woman but here's my perspective as a man who's faced similar issues", who are adding to the conversation, and then there are people who instead take the opportunity to try to find some way to frame the problem as not as serious as men's problems, and then often devolve it into blaming women for men's problems and try to say "well actually women are privileged" to completely avoid the point. Feminists do not get in the way of issues affecting men and are usually the primary proponents of solving problems faced regardless of gender – most are not ones to go into discussions about how young men are facing loneliness to say "but loneliness isn't just a men's thing, women also face record high loneliness! and in fact women have it worse because nobody acknowledges their loneliness epidemic!" yet this is exactly the reaction you see droves of which are highly popular on social media every time women's issues get brought up.
Show me the feminist initiatives to get women into trades.
Yeah this is how I know you're talking out of your ass. How did you go through the entire 2000s-2010s without seeing all the initiatives to get women to work in traditionally male work places? Regardless I'll give you what you want, talking about the issues faced with women not working in traditionally male-dominated workplaces and encouraging women in trades and many others:
"The U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau has awarded $7.4 million in active grant funding to help recruit, train and retain more women in quality pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs as well as nontraditional occupations."
https://www.usaid.gov/engendering-industries/gender-equality-best-practices-framework
Show me the feminists working to get more male teachers.
Literally this entire Reddit thread is full of feminists discussing exactly that, and quite clearly having a higher amount of male educators than we currently have is pretty important to them, with the reception to the topic being overwhelmingly positive and linking many resources on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1776kfn/what_is_the_impact_of_the_lack_of_male_teachers/
Show me the feminists funding scholarships for men.
The origin in scholarships for historically disadvantaged groups is based in the fact that they faced many significant barriers in the past to attending college, and these scholarships were crucial to getting e.g. women, black people, to attend. Your question is a bit like asking about racial minority rights movements creating scholarships for white people. That being said there are a TON of scholarships for men (and for specific groups of whites), here's a list:
https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/scholarships-for-men/
https://www.aamn.org/scholarships
Plus you have things like this which are supported by people who think like you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/04/13/womens-scholarships-and-awards-eliminated-to-be-fair-to-men/?sh=519c6bd87fe2
Your point is assuming that men have disproportionately higher of a financial burden to going to college than women. Which they don't. In fact, women have significantly more student loan debt than men and are generally less financially independent in our society so it's the other way around. Men's college problems are more skewed towards the various other social issues that feminists work to improve, i.e. access to mental health services (which often disproportionally affects men) and harmful gender norms, like once again causes men to be perceived as not fit for child-related activities (like teaching). The result is that, in general, scholarships are a lot more effective for women than for men, so there is more initiative for scholarships for women, while college health resources are more directed towards men.
In general feminists aren't very pro-gender based scholarship to begin with, although there are a lot of scholarships for both women and men (for example MenTeach which is made specifically to get men teaching) which are supported by many feminists.
Also things like this are mostly just an American thing, scholarships like that are generally rare outside of the US... but in the US, Feminists are a LOT more concerned with completely reforming the broken education system that requires you to have to have scholarships to go in the first place.
Because not only have I never seen anything like that, I've never even HEARD of anything like that. And I've gone looking.
Lmao you obviously haven't. I was able to find all of these with actual seconds of searching. You are a liar.
But that IS part of feminism. Who is putting these women in check? Serious question. Link me to some of these good feminists please.
The entirety of the internet is putting people in check. You don't even have to go to specific feminists to see it, any times a misandrist freak-out goes viral there's immediately a visceral reaction to it by even the "woke" parts of the internet and a bunch of feminists being like "yea s/he's not one of us". Anyone can call themselves anything, and every movement has radicals, but every feminist knows that those radicals are a joke and just easy bait for anti-feminist rhetoric.
yeah this whole giant movement that says it's about women is actually about men...come on bro get over yourself lol. I think feminism is about raising women up.
Jesus christ you really did filter out literally everything you just read didn't you... every time "feminism" comes up it's literally feminists telling you "it's not just about women" but people like you just completely ignore it. What entity exactly is "this whole giant movement" that's saying it's about women? I explained where the gendered terms of the movement come from, the historical reasons why they're called that, so I would hope you're not just taking the name at face value. There is literally not a singular feminist that says "yeah this movement isn't about men at all, we only care about women". Many issues in this world primarily screw over women though, and those are often talked about, which I assume is where your confusion comes from.
It just doesn't have any mechanism to (1) say "hey we did it! We achieved equality in this area!" (college admissions for example)
What is this even supposed to mean? You think feminists aren't happy and don't take pride in when a goal like more equal treatment in something based on gender or sexual orientation is achieved? That literally proves that you don't actually pay attention to anything that has to do with the movement and you're just making rage up lol.
(2) strive for equality in areas where men are at a disadvantage (dirty, dangerous, physical jobs for example)
Except they do. Literally one of the most important parts of the feminist movement is encouraging people to pursue career choices that societal perceptions discourage a specific gender from doing. Especially when it comes to dirty, dangerous, physical jobs. Do you know just how much women working trades/physical labour is talked about in various feminist groups? It is one of the primary workplace issues, generally women are completely bullied out of working such jobs and are seen as "incompetent" when it comes to professions like welders, mechanics, electricians, or any other form of physically demanding jobs. I have witnessed this firsthand, as well as my former best friend literally being a welder and constantly describing how awful women are treated by the people working these jobs, how they're constantly sexualized/objectified and harassed, how they have to always be afraid in their own workplace because of this. This is one of the most important things feminists are actively working on, equalizing trades and making it so both men and women are treated fairly and well. Feminism is also often intertwined with worker's rights, guarantees to employees, safety in the workplace, etc. which fits into this excelently.
address societal problems that uniquely affect men (lack of role models, for example).
What? I'm mentally facepalming right now... feminists are constantly encouraging positive role models, educators, leaders, etc. for everyone (including men), what are you on about? Additionally one of feminists' primary concerns is access to healthcare, and especially relating to feminists' concerns is mental healthcare, something that affects men a lot. They recognize what causes many of these problems, and they work to fix them. Feminists fight against negative influences like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate.
Many role models for men were/are feminists, and feminists actively are engaged in propping boys up and encouraging positive traits in them (as well as girls). I think one everyone can relate to hearing is Mr. Rogers.
This is the WHOLE POINT of "what about men?"
It really is not. The point is to say "women's issues don't matter because men also have other issues". It is a way to detract from any discussion about women's rights, to try to take over the conversation to say "we have it worse in some different way", to try to emphasize the idea they have that women are privileged and men are the ones that really have it bad. It is never done to add to the conversation, but to change the conversation.
Feminists do not care about male struggles. And I'm not talking about the ivory tower theorists that no one listens to. I don't know what they think because it doesn't matter. What matters is what everyday feminists think and do and say.
You are straight up just constructing a strawman and beating it to death. What feminist discussions have you attended? Any at all?
If feminism is about equality, then for the love of God please help men a little.
That is quite literally what we are trying to do. But people like you refuse it and try to turn it around as a way to disparage other groups and diminish discussions about women's struggles and gender in society. And you make strawmen constructed of some 2014 internet perception of a "feminist" pretending feminists actually believe in that, meanwhile "men's rights activists"/anti-feminists are represented by literal far-right sex traffickers (as opposed to the many positive role models who are feminists). Like can you name any popular, modern-day, prominent-among-feminist influencers that are even a small fraction of the absurdity of that? Feminist role model influencers are random often apolitical chill people like Technoblade
lmao.
It depends a lot on how we perceive "intelligence". It's a lot more vague of a term than most, so people have very different views of it. Some people might have the idea of it meaning the response to stimuli & the output (language or art or any other form) being indistinguishable from humans. But many people may also agree that whales/dolphins have the same level of, or superior, "intelligence" to humans. The term is too vague to really prescribe with confidence, and more importantly people often use it to mean many completely different concepts ("intelligence" as a measurable/quantifiable property of either how quickly/efficiently a being can learn or use knowledge or more vaguely its "capacity to reason", "intelligence" as the idea of "consciousness" in general, "intelligence" to refer to amount of knowledge/experience one currently has or can memorize, etc.)
In computer science "artificial intelligence" has always simply referred to a program making decisions based on input. There was never any bar to reach for how "complex" it had to be to be considered AI. That's why minecraft zombies or shitty FPS bots are "AI", or a simple algorithm made to beat table games are "AI", even though clearly they're not all that smart and don't even "learn".
i'm pretty sure most plastic isn't even recyclable
edit: relevant link