_NoName_

Folks 👨‍🌾

upvoting because this is definitely unpopular. tone is not conveyed in text and various sarcastic phrases need the intonation to be understood as sarcastic.

Also Freetube has these features.

It is a sad day.

Musta been a cold day in North America.

I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.

I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.

Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.

I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a ‘good guy with a gun’ stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.

This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it’s needed for that case.

They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).

Reminder about Henry Lee Lucas, who would just confess to any murder because he kept being provided amenities in prison for doing so.

Do we have any significant evidence that Sam Little definitely committed these murders? To be clear, Little is definitely a serial killer. I just have my doubts that he isn’t just being used as a scapegoat since HLL.

From Oxygen

The FBI confirms Samuel Little is “the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history,” and says he has been “matched to 50 cases” of the 93 murders he claims he has committed. The FBI also releases a timeline of Little’s life and crimes in hopes of identifying more of his victims.

So half are still unconfirmed, and the other 50 are ‘Matched’ to him by some unknown criteria, which involves sketches

Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.

Do the pieces look different or are they just called a different thing? Like what’s a ‘jumper’?

What’s a smog?

Answer provided by chatGPT /s

It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.

Bruh i’m bald. I don’t use shampoo period. I use what’s supposed to be a healthy-skin face wash, and i just apply it by hand (no sponge or anything).

If anything I’d guess diet is the biggest thing, but I’m climbing regularly and not eating my current protein-heavy diet leaves me hella sore and out of energy, so i don’t feel like experimenting with my diet ATM.

Title’s hard click bait. It leads up to talking about Arrow’s Impossibility theorem, which sets forth some explicit rules for defining a fair election, and communicates that all finite-vote systems are dictatorships that fail to meet those criteria, including ranked choice voting. Arrow’s theorem also uses ‘dictatorship’ in a pretty weird technical fashion, meaning that one individual can technically sway any election with their sole choices.

Directly after, though, Veritasium does acknowledge that Duncan Black pokes holes in the actual value of Arrow’s theorem, by showing that many ordinal voting systems will still favor majority preference, and that Arrow’s theorem does not apply to rated voting systems like approval voting and STAR voting.

It’s pretty bizarre that he decided to make such a click-baity title and front-load only skim over the better solution at the end, right near election month.

I’ll trust that’s true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.

Different bodies different care. I constantly ooze thick oily sweat and if I don’t shower I start getting bad acne. Also, just massive amounts of musky BO if I don’t reapply deodorant every day.

It’s nasty but it’s just how my body do ATM. Gotta shower daily.

Voter intimidation sounds exactly right here. Like he’s telling his voters to stay away so anyone they attack is probably a non-follower of his

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it’s not really ‘your fault’. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The ‘right one’ will come along when you are more socially able an mm you’ll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get ‘bought’, you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing’s kind of terrible in general because of that. I’ve tried bumble and it’s pretty much a similar thing.

There’s this thing sometimes called the ‘predator/prey relationship model’ by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and ‘pounce’ them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman’s approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It’s a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.