![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?"
I think that the whole DNS syntax system was poorly designed, that the original division in seven top-level domains (.com, .net, .mil, .gov, .org, .edu, .int) was short-sighted, government/country-based top level domains have some reason to exist but in practice everyone picks whatever (e.g. ".ml" URLs often have nothing to do with Mali, ".it" with Italy or ".ee" with Estonia). But it's damn easy to say that in two thousand bloody twenty four, so I don't blame the people creating this mess. (Plus fixing it would make an even bigger mess).
But I digress. I typically associate the original seven with old businesses. I have some weak suspicion towards services using country code TLDs to spell obvious words (like, say, "among.us"), but otherwise I associate ccTLDs with local stuff. No strong opinion towards newer TLDs.
Yup. If you're asking this due to granny's saying, it is that old "mente vazia é oficina do diabo".
But the point is not the ‘to be’ part but the ‘feels like’.
I neither said nor implied that the point is that "to be". I highlighted that, no matter how you interpret it (because it's vague and meaningless), the conclusion is the same because of the rest - because experiences do not exist in the physical = real = material sense.
It’s quite undeniable that what ever this existence is feels like something.
"Experiences" includes what we feel (in both senses). What exists is that bloody mess of matter and energy, that's it.
[NB: I'm no programmer. I can write some few lines of bash because Linux, I'm just relaying what I've read. I do use those bots but for something else - translation aid.]
The reasons that I've seen programmers complaining about LLM chatbots are:
- concerns that AI will make human programmers obsolete
- concerns that AI will reduce the market for human programmers
- concerns about the copyright of the AI output
- concerns about code quality (e.g. it assumes libraries and functions out of thin air)
- concerns about the environmental impact of AI
In my opinion the first one is babble, the third one is complicated, but the other three are sensible.
A kid hugging a kid is always a nice thing to see.
Hohenheim, in the meantime: "visiting my children? Teaching them how to cope with loss? Nah, too busy chitchatting with the souls granting me immortality."
You made me notice a revision error in my own comment ("stop dropping" is supposed to be simply "drop"). I'm glad that the meaning is still retrievable though, due to the analogy.
I wasn't the one who created the analogy, by the way, but it's damn useful/didactic. Specially because there's also a sealioning equivalent of DDoS, far more effective than when done by a single entity.
I'm not changing definitions. I'm stating that what he defined does not exist.
To go a bit deeper: regardless of whatever that "to be" is supposed to mean, the "subjective experience of what it feels like to be" is still an experience. And experiences do not exist in the physical = real = material sense; they're solely abstractions. Like valence holes, software, or so many other things that are not real but convenient to explain the behaviour of real things.
The same applies to concepts like "mind", "soul", "spirit" and similar.
[No idea on why people are downvoting your comment though.]
Consciousness is as a convenient abstraction to explain the behaviour of human beings, but it doesn't really refer to anything real. As such, I think that the claim "consciousness is not an illusion" is technically correct but misleading, since it implies that consciousness exists.
Nagel's quote is extremely vague, since that ontological "to be" that he uses doesn't really mean anything.
Just the two cents of some materialistic nobody.
I'll reply to myself to avoid editing the above. The other user made me realise that what I said about pass-aggro is unclear - since the expression is used with multiple meanings.
In this specific context, by passive aggressiveness, I mean "an utterance showing politeness as a disguise for rudeness".
I'll give you guys an example. Imagine that Alice says "I saw a potato tree today". And Bob replies to Alice one of the following:
- "Potatoes do not grow on trees."
- "Potato tree? Are you braindead or what?"
- "Yeah sure, and I saw some unicorns today. Because you know, potatoes totally grow on trees, right?"
- "Oh dear perhaps you're a bit confused, so let me enlighten you. Potatoes do not grow on trees. I understand that this might be a bit too complex for you to understand, but put on some effort, okay?"
The first three are not pass-aggro. #1 is simply dry (no attempt at politeness or rudeness); #2 is simply rude (I'm typically OK with that within limits). #3 uses irony and sarcasm in such an obvious way that it comes off as simply rude, there's no attempt to use the irony to disguise the insult. Only #4 is pass-aggro, as it calls Alice stupid and lazy in a disguised way.
I tend to block people who do this because they rub me off the wrong way - it shows a lack of dignity to be upfront that you don't see in plain rudeness.
Well said.
The one that I tasted was the red piranha, the same as in the video. The taste is... okay, not delectable but not awful; it's simply a bit too strong. It goes great on soups/stews though.
What are you using to tag users? I want to do this too.
EDIT: nevermind, you mentioned it in another comment (Boost). It wouldn't work for me as I'm using Lemmy from a computer. Still, it's some great functionality, I wish that it existed for the web interface too. (There was/is a Firefox extension for that in Reddit, and I miss it. It wasn't only useful to tag "bad" users, but also good ones - I used it all the time in r/linguistics to tag the expertise area of some laymen.)
Sealioning is the discussion equivalent of a DoS (denial of service) attack. In both, the content of the reply is irrelevant; the goal is to flood the person/machine with multiple requests, until they reach a limit and stop dropping drop the requests altogether.
And while the concept has some problems because it handles some esoteric babble called "intentions" (see: "goal"), it's still useful when you focus on the behaviour instead.
Funnily enough saying someone is sealioning falls within the passive-aggressive behaviour you seem to despise so much.
Pass-aggro is about tone, not content. You can state something like "you're sealioning" in a passive aggressive way, or a rude way, or under a bald-on record, so goes on.
[Edit reason: phrasing.]
Last woman I dated looked the best with light makeup. Just enough to highlight her eyes, I really liked them.
Although I liked the best when she had no makeup, an unruly bed hair, wearing nothing but her panties and my shirt. (She did it fairly often.) There was some obvious sexual appeal on that, but it was more about the intimacy, in a way that you don't typically get when the woman is wearing makeup.
That's some awesome effort for the sake of a silly joke.
Urgh, the complicated type. When the user is just plain bad you ban them, when the user is mostly good you leave them alone, but when it's mixed this way no matter what you do you feel like you did the wrong thing.
I get why you simply blocked him though - it feels sensible in this case.
I do wonder how much the pandemic encouraged trolling on the internet world-wide
My granny would say that "an empty mind is the Devil's workshop". I think that's the case with the pandemics, a lot of people were stuck at home with too little to do, too little to think about.
To be honest my own troll Reddit account saw far more activity during the pandemic. (I avoided making it personal against anyone there though - I had more fun taunting whole circlejerks instead.) But by then I wasn't a mod any more for years.
When it's just for your own peace of mind, or just some muppet downvoting you all the time, that's fine. However, harassment strictu sensu often causes social repercussions that harm the person being harassed, even if they're oblivious to that. And often harassers don't just stop at one person, they pick multiple targets; it is not the sort of people who you want in a community.
So often it's simply better for you and everyone else to report them instead.
No, they’re not
Yes, they are. And odds are that you know it, and why (again: because if they don't do it they fail to support people who need and want it).
laws and licensing standards actually vary widely by country
The principles and motivations behind those laws and licensing standards are still the same, regardless of government, so you're bound to see a convergence on the effect of those things.
And this is so blatantly obvious that your "ackshyually" is pointless.
I’m talking about the US, where we have a national accrediting body for social work graduate schools.
OP is likely from USA (due to reference of living in cars), so all your babble, implying that said "nashunal accreriring bory in muh caunrry" makes any practical difference, is just babble.
(Surprisingly consistent with both what I've attested myself, and what I've seen people across multiple countries complaining about.)
Nowhere in there is anything about “insistence,” quite opposite in fact.
Do you understand the difference between what's written in a paper versus reality?
OP’s experience that happened twice
Don't assume "twice". "Couple times" can mean anything between "twice" and "multiple times" depending on the utterance and context.
At this point you already misrepresented what another person said, then tried to pull off an "ackshyually", then changed the goalposts from practical reality to some bureaucratic organisation. As such I'm not wasting my time further with you or your comment.
I wasn't born yesterday.
I guess that it depends on context? Typically I wouldn't call it cooking, as it doesn't involve applying heat to the food. But if I were to teach a kid how to cook, then I'd consider it cooking - as teaching them how to prepare a sandwich would be a good start.