teichflamme @ teichflamme @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

212

Joined

2 yr. ago

They have literally no chance to win while causing great suffering on everyone around them.

I don't know how a sane person could advocate for HAMAS to continue their terrorist actions.

Try CS2

I have never encountered a single situation where having more resolution would have done anything for me.

There's some tendencies, but a ton of exceptions. I wouldn't call It strict rules.

I'm just saying it's obviously not how they feel about it, but rather what they like gullible people to believe.

To put your quote into context.

Who is more believable than actual terrorists?

We've seen in their recent attacks that they do very much differentiate between Zionists and normal people before they kill them. Oh, wait...

You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?

Because your statement offers no viable alternative and basically condemns following scientific literature unless you are a trained professional on the grounds that some studies might be flawed.

Which is what I tried to point out in both of my prior comments to no avail.

My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don't actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.

That question is impossible to answer. Even if we were only talking about the US, but much less globally. What we can agree on is that it's probably not enough in most places.

Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.

And the attitude of "one study has been flawed so I won't trust science ever again" is something that you predict to be a better viable alternative?

If the study has major flaws it's relatively easy to spot if you have an idea what to look for. You don't need special education for that.

It's not even a problem if you consider reputable sources in the first place, which, again, is relatively easy to do.

Looking at the alternative, even a flawed study is better than a simple opinion piece.

So yeah, I disagree with everything you said basically.

It's still better than relying on literally anything else. Doesn't have to be perfect.

Couldn't have said it better

Germany it's 8 am

Same

Also dist upgrades. There's always some shit package that's breaking at probably a dependency for some others

I like Linux but if you do more with it than just internet browsing then "just works" isn't how I would describe it

Have fun getting to that artery. If someone is not holding still for you it's extremely lucky to do that.

Especially while getting stabbed.

That is one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen.

Normandy was an strategic attack at a high cost.

This conflict is so one sided that people here like to call it genocide.

The reason the region became the USSR was Russian imperialism and military power.

important thing is that Russia is clearly entitled to the area that has always been Russian, in some form or another.

That's not at all it. If anything Ukraine has not only the better claim to Crimea but also to some of the western parts of Russia than Russia itself.

Historically speaking.

The main part of it was on the part that is Ukrainian today, which is why the name is derived from Kyiv.

It was a multi ethnic state though. Russians of course wouldn't agree, but they are not exactly a reasonable voice on such things.

If you go back further you had the Kyiv Rus there and it was Ukrainian plus parts of Russia were too.

The main takeaway is this backwards country cannot be fixed by anyone and shouldn't be supported