You're right. And IMO they should be legally banned from doing so - because the people who signed up for this crap agreed with 23 and Me's ToS, not with someone else's.
But, well... as you said, capitalism going to capitalism. The "right thing to do" is often out of the table of options.
I have a relative who considered doing this test. I'm glad that the family talked him out of it. (Surprisingly enough, not just me.)
Anyway, my [hopefully not "hot"] take: for most part the data should be destroyed, as it involves private matters. If there's data that cannot be reasonably associated with an individual or well-defined group of individuals, perhaps it could be released into the public domain, but I'm not sure on that.
Yeah. There's some good stuff there, like 8:32, but it's full of so much crap that... urgh.
"And you'll know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Give the whole chapter 5 a check, specially 5:14; crippling people is apparently their god's punishment for sinning. Or 3:36, someone gets really pissy if you don't believe him!
It depends on your tastes. It's effective for me as I enjoy quite a bit of the popular content here (like Linux stuff), but we need far more activity for other topics.
I don't think that there's a specific term for picking a religious figure solely as a behaviour standard, with no regards to the beliefs. But you could describe yourself as "morally Christian", I guess?
I do know enough of the context to back up what I said, because the poster did provide enough details through the post. Like this:
"and have done my fair share of talking to people as well as toward people" - or, roughly, "I'm used to expose what I think". This strongly hints "random" (i.e. non-specific) topics; either casual monologues or casual discussions. Either way it's hinted that it isn't a single topic.
"some talks being more passionate than others" - i.e. multiple discussions. "Passionate" reads like an euphemism for "heavy disagreement"; and while this utterance isn't enough to confirm that reading, it gets confirmed later on.
"so I guess having my odds of this reduced is a factor here" - there's some edition error here but, alongside the adjacent utterances, it conveys roughly "so I guess that my odds of being wrong in this claim are reduced by a factor" or similar. OP found a pattern that they claim to believe to be true.
"when I say occasionally “projecting” will be brought up during a conversation." - further confirming that OP is talking about multiple discussions.
"It’s always in an accusatory kind of context" - confirms #2 ("passionate" as an euphemism, it's basically name calling). And that "always" confirms multiple occurrences.
What OP did not say: anything that even hints topic-dependence, further reinforcing #1.
Parse the above and you get the context - OP is talking about debating multiple topics with different people, and found what they believe to be a pattern on the usage of the word when there's a fight.
Remember - just like the context provides information to interpret the text, the text also provides information to determine the context.
because OP didn’t provide any details of what was being discussed. [i.e. the topic]
As shown above, OP is claiming to have found a pattern across multiple discussions. As such, "what was being discussed" is not relevant here.
It’s entirely possible that it was a valid call in some or all of those situations.
Yeah, nah.
Outside psychoanalysis this "waaaaah ur projectin" shite is on the same tier as name calling, "NO U", whataboutism and similar crap. It's fallacious, and it assumes shit about the other person. It is not a valid argument, it's condensed idiocy.
Side note: while anecdotal I can confirm, independently from OP, that people often use this "waaah projection!" pseudo-defence a bit too often when discussing.
It is an actual phenomenon in psychology, where you assign a set of your attributes that you consider undesirable to another person. It works like a defence mechanism to stabilise the psyche. It is not that commonly discussed though - except perhaps in psychoanalysis.
And that's exactly why those "keyboard psychologists" (who are neither psychologists, nor informed laymen) repurposed the term into the "no u!" defence that I mentioned. It's simply too good of an excuse when someone criticises them, an easy way to turn the criticism against the critic.
2:10 "I assumed that, if I couldn't beat the system, there was no point on whatever I was doing": that's the old nirvana fallacy. The rest of the video is about dismantling it for the individual, and boils down to identifying who you're trying to protect yourself against (threat model), compromising, etc.
It's relevant to note that each tiny bit of privacy that you can get against a certain threat helps - specially if it's big tech, as the video maker focuses on. It gives big tech less room to manipulate you, and black hats less info to haunt you after you read that corporate apology saying "We are sorry. We take user safety seriously. Today we had a breach [...]".
And on a social level, every single small action towards privacy that you do:
makes obtaining personal data slightly more expensive thus slightly less attractive
supports a tiny bit more alternatives that respect your privacy
normalises seeking privacy a tiny bit more
and so goes on. Seeking your own privacy helps to build a slightly more private world for you and for the others, even if you don't get the full package.
In this context "projecting" is a fancy "no u", used to imply that you're claiming that someone has an attribute not because the person has it, but because you do.
It isn't quite a meme, just one of those "catch-all" idiotic defences. Typically given by people who care more about appearances than the validity of a claim (i.e. stupid thus harmful people).
EDIT: it's relevant to note that I'm being fairly specific when I say "this context", the context specified by the OP in the first paragraph: people discussing, and one claims/implies that another is projecting in an accusatory way. I am not criticising the actual psychological concept that this pseudo-psychological crap comes from. Is this clear?
So after rereading the original post (which could have been written clearer)
Okay... I'll stop reading here.
The original post is clear as day, even with the spelling mistake.
There's a certain level of lack of basic reasoning that I'm still willing to play along with; but this comment is past that. Not bothering further with you.
So basically your source is "trust me" = "I expect you all to be gullible"???
Put yourself in the situation of everyone else. From your PoV if you're being honest or bullshitting is obvious; for us (reading your comment) it is not, all we see is someone on the internet claiming something about a population with almost no Lemmy demographic (so it's easy to bullshit and get away with it). In those situations caution is advised.
For a loose equivalent, imagine someone claiming in a Chinese language forum "I'm from UK/France/Germany, I can confirm that I see a mass shooting here every day, the king/president/prime minister has been almost shot but they're silencing news about it"... it feels fishy, right?
If your comment is 1) honest and 2) true then I apologise, but we [people in general] shouldn't take something as true simply because someone else said.
Ok, call it an equation or a function, it doesn’t matter what it is called
What it is called does matter because a function obligatorily maps one set of values into another set of values, and that is not what I was doing because IDGAF about a full set dammit, but a single value that symbolises a price where OP's statement is true.
However if 4 is used instead (x=4) then we have ( 4 = 1 + ½[4] ) which results in an inequality (4=3) which is false.
As even 11yos know, but apparently not you, you don't solve an equation (or a set of equations) by arbitrarily assigning values to the variable.
If you prefer to only put the value of x on the right side on the equal sign and not the left side, then a common notation for that is f(x) = 1 + ½x, which is also referred to as function notation.
Congrats for not getting a value but a slope. 👍 /s
Juuuuuuuuuuuuust in case that your confusion is related to my usage of "→": it's clear by context that the symbol is being used for "implies".
"As a" right off the bat, no effort to back up the claims being made (instead assuming that people will automatically trust them), coming from an account that has no previous interaction with the platform, from a user who's clearly used enough to Lemmy to know where to post questions and how to format them...
The fun part isn't even what Apple said - that the emperor is naked - but why it's doing it. It's nice bullet against all four of its GAFAM competitors.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
You're right. And IMO they should be legally banned from doing so - because the people who signed up for this crap agreed with 23 and Me's ToS, not with someone else's.
But, well... as you said, capitalism going to capitalism. The "right thing to do" is often out of the table of options.