markovs_gun @ markovs_gun @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

369

Joined

4 mo. ago

I say no because vampire myths developed in a time and place where only a tiny minority of people were even allowed to own property and almost everyone lived on land they didn't own, and in those stories the vampires are invited by the resident, not the owner.

Here are some related questions that inform the answer to this one

1. Can a vampire cross a country's border without approval from that country's government? This relates to how a vampire's inability to cross thresholds relates to governments and concepts of control, occupation, and ownership as they relate to this rule. My gut instinct says yes, a border doesn't count as a boundary in this case because a vampire can only not enter your house but can go on your yard. Disregarding that, I would lean towards no a vampire would need permission, especially at a defined boundary like a border crossing checkpoint. I don't think it would necessarily have to be from the government, though, based on concepts I will explore later
2. Can a vampire enter your home if you're a tenant and give them permission? I say yes, because during the time period when vampire myths developed barely anyone actually owned their own homes or the land they lived on, and said myths don't state that the vampire must receive permission from the local lord to enter the homes of his serfs. This establishes that residence is sufficient and ownership isn't required.
3. If you are at a friend's house for a party and a vampire shows up and you say "come on in!" Does that count as an invitation? I would say yes, but there is some argument to be had here. The answer to this question determines if residency is not only sufficient, but required. If you say yes, then, it seems that merely occupying a space is what gives one authority to invite a vampire in, not residence or ownership. If you say no, then it seems that residence or control over a space is more important.
4. If you give a worker a garage door code and tell him he can use that while you're not home and he turns out to be a vampire, can he enter your home? I would say yes, because you explicitly gave him permission. If you say no, then it seems that the relationship of the threshold is what's important. Someone on one side has to be inviting the vampire to cross, and the invitation can't be given if both parties are on the same side. I say yes, because I feel that the criteria are as follows - A person must have control over a space in some sense (but not necessarily legal authority over it) and they must explicitly give permission to the vampire to enter. The explicit permission requirement is because a vampire theoretically wouldn't be able to break into your house by smashing a window.

Now as all of this pertains to a warrant - I think that yes, a vampire with a warrant would be able to enter a home with a warrant because the issuing authority has the ability to control access to your home via warrants and you have implicitly delegated that authority to them via the social contract, and the warrant is explicit permission to enter your home.

Depends on what you mean by "high." I have scored between 130-140 on IQ tests I've taken of various quality, which is considered high by most. Idk how it would be different from anyone else's experience of the world. I did extremely well in school and I work as a chemical engineer with a focus on machine learning implementations and capital expansion. I don't know if I would consider myself "smarter" than the average person, just better at certain types of tasks. I also grew up in a stable two parent upper middle class household that valued education and academic success, which is a huge leg up that can't be ignored.

Ah yes the breakup of the USSR went incredibly well, good thing there's no ongoing conflicts over disputed territory from that split up going on in Ukraine

Ah yes partitioning by foreign powers has always gone so well in the past! Why don't we try that again? I mean just look at Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan! What great success stories 🥲

These are all the exact same views that Francis held, almost to the word. The truth is that the Overton Window of the Roman Catholic Church is incredibly narrow. When we talk about a Cardinal being "liberal" or "conservative" that is within this context. In terms of the secular world, the Roman Catholic Church is extremely conservative, even among the most "liberal" cardinals and Popes. Catholics all believe in Catholic dogma, even if they are lenient in how it is applied.

Female deacons- https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/257757/pope-francis-on-female-deacons-no

Euthanasia and abortion- https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255459/you-don-t-play-with-life-pope-francis-condemns-euthanasia-abortion-on-papal-plane

Death penalty (not sure why this is listed as if it's a conservative/bad thing to be against)- https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/10/04/pope-francis-closes-door-death-penalty-fratelli-tutti

"Gender ideology "- https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-gender-ideology-is-the-ugliest-danger-of-our-time.html

Homosexuality- https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-clarifies-remarks-about-homosexuality-and-sin

https://apnews.com/article/pope-gay-priests-francis-vatican-92ee291bbeef00a898a10a8a45afd32c

Depends on what you mean by "low." At a certain level low enough IQ is associated with intellectual disability, and a difficulty functioning in society. IQ is normalized so half of people have, by definition, an IQ lower than 100, and half have an IQ above 100. 15 points is a standard deviation, so about 68% of people fall between 85 and 115, and the remaining 32% fall within the "tails". I assume by "Low IQ" you would mean the ~16% of the population below 85 IQ, and probably the ~13.5% that fall in the range of 70-85, as below 70 is getting into intellectual disability territory.

Statistically, people in this band do worse in just about every metric for social success. Lower income, higher crime rates, higher rates of drug addiction, poorer health outcomes, etc. However, it is difficult to disentangle these impacts from poverty. Populations' IQs raise when they become less poor, and people regardless of income tend to be less poor if they have higher IQs. The cycle of poverty is deeply intertwined with IQ, and poverty causes a lot of the social issues associated with low IQ. There is a lot of evidence that as access to education and a more "intellectually rich" upbringing increase IQ, and such things are less available to poor people for a variety of reasons.

As for what it's like, from my understanding speaking to people I suspect are in this band the main things are a non-inquisitive world view, a sense of resignation around not understanding abstract concepts, and low self esteem associated with these perceived shortcomings. Society does not treat these people kindly as a whole, and I think that we could all stand to be kinder to one another. I also think that our economic system is geared in such a way that not only are low IQ people punished for that, but they are also made to feel that it is a personal shortcoming even though these things are defined statistically such that there is always a group of people at the bottom who are going to be left behind.

This is lawyer territory. Randos on the internet will not be able to help.

The only reason I'm here in the first place is because it's ridiculously obvious that they're killing old reddit soon. Every time they add some new bullshit feature it breaks our reddit just a little more and it becomes less and less usable. Meanwhile new reddit is also becoming less and less usable as they try to make it Facebook 2.0. It's all getting enshittified very quickly.

That's sort of what Ozempic does though. It reduces the desire to eat large amounts of unhealthy food.

This is largely untrue. I have worked in manufacturing my entire adult life and in my experience people are very eager to do manual labor type jobs if those jobs pay well and provide stability. The problem is that most of them don't. It would make everything more expensive to pay everyone doing these jobs better but it would be worth it longer term by making a society that doesn't just rely on there being a constant supply of an artificial second class of people that can be underpaid and exploited with impunity. When people say "nobody wants to work manual jobs..." the implied rest of that sentence is "...to make the same amount of money as someone working retail."

I hate Trump and his idiotic tariffs, but this argument that we need immigrants to do all the jobs Americans don't want to do is based on the racist idea that Americans are too good to do these jobs- the reality is, they are simply not desperate enough to take them for the amount of pay that is being offered. It's a blatantly false narrative and it only serves to harm anyone left of Mussolini.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with all of these comments talking about this as if it's a real photo and not AI slop looks like complete shit. Are the comments AI generated spam too? Are they just stupid? Am I AI generated spam?

I stopped using mainstream social media in 2019 but my accounts are still active so I can snoop on random people I went to college with and holy shit every time I get on Facebook it's so much worse on ways I don't even understand. Most recently I got on to look at something and my feed was completely unrecognizable because it was all AI generated slop from pages I have never heard of and not any updates from people I know. It's crazy what people will accept if it's done slowly enough I guess. I legitimately don't understand why anyone would use Facebook as it exists today. At least when I quit I could at least understand why people used it.

This is one of those bizarre Lemmy echo chamber things. I've never seen this sentiment that advertising is evil and should be stopped at all costs anywhere else but on Lemmy it's super common. Idk where it comes from. I get that advertising kind of sucks but it just seems like a weird thing to get so passionate about especially considering how many other things are wrong with the world. Sorry you're getting downvoted to hell, you're not crazy, Lemmy is.

I will say a lot of what you've discussed here is actually illegal but very rarely enforced. Pretty much every small business owner I know is pulling shit like this but it's basically never enforced even though it's illegal fraud.

Pretty much any tax avoidance loopholes. The more money I have the more I see how ridiculously skewed in favor of the rich everything is. My income is taxed at a lower rate than my capital gains, meaning that not only did I make several thousand dollars last year on stock sales I did literally nothing to earn, but I paid very little on taxes for it. There is also a scheme a friend of mine uses to reduce his tax burden even more by recording losses that only exist on paper by swapping between essentially equivalent assets. The system is designed to punish poor people for being poor and reward rich people for being rich.

Damn that's honestly kind of impressive I don't think I'd be able to shit on command like that so quickly

I like how he signed it off with the [Fourteen Words] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words)

That is a conspiracy theory that can easily be disproven if you look literally anywhere outside of Western Europe. Muhammad started Islam and composed the Qu'ran at the beginning of that time period, and the Islamic calendar begins in 622 AD. According to the Phantom Time theory, basically none of early Islamic history actually existed and it's a fabrication by... The Pope?! It's an absurd premise. The Abbasid Caliphate was founded in 750 and still existed in 911, with all sorts of written and archeological evidence in favor, and let's not forget about the other Roman Empire that existed in that time frame and have their own historical and archeological evidence, including about events that overlapped with Western histories such as Irene of Athens being pressured to marry Charlemagne. Again, it stretches credulity that the Byzantine Emperors and Eastern Church or any Muslims whatsoever would be swayed to fabricate so much of their own history by the Pope. This theory is absurd at best and racist at worst because in erasing so much Western European history it just kind of assumes literally nothing was happening anywhere else in the world either.

As someone who has used it for viewing legal copyright free content and nothing pirated, I will say that it definitely provides a service that regular torrents don't- ease and speed. It makes viewing legal and copyright free content just as easy as using Netflix to the point where you don't have to go onto various websites looking for what you want to watch, you can just get it all in one place. Further, if you have roommates or relatives who would like to view this legal and copyright free content as well, it's easy enough for them to use as well without having to learn how to find and download said content. I have done both, and I must say that the fee is well worth it to me compared to the amount of time it saves.