Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
Chick-fil-A isn’t that great.
I would never eat there because of their bigoted politics, but I am always shocked at how many people act like they can’t live without it. Weird.
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
It shouldn’t be taken as scientific truth but it can help you know yourself and others better, and it’s an insult to compare it to astrology because at least it’s not based on completely random things like the position of the planets when you were born. The issue is that most people only know MBTI as online tests, which are self-report and have extremely vague and stereotypical questions that can very easily be manipulated to get whatever result you want, with the worst offender being the most popular one, 16personalities, which isn’t even an actual MBTI test but a BIg 5 one (which is not to say Big 5 is bad, but it’s very misleading to map it to MBTI types). In reality to use MBTI somewhat effectively is going to take studying Carl Jung’s work, how MBTI builds on that, lots of introspection, asking people about yourself, and lots of doubting and double checking your thinking. And very importantly you have to accept that in the end this all isn’t real and just a way to conceptualize different aspects of our personalities and it’s in no way predictive, you have to let go of stereotypes, anyone can act in any way, it’s just about tendencies.
I think that’s actually been proven at this point hasn’t it?
That doesn’t stop an absolute fuck ton of people believing in it. One of my friends is quite deeply into it, she’s in FB groups about it, and decides what everyone’s type is upon meeting them. According to her I only think it’s nonsense because I’ve only done the free online tests, not the proper one. She wouldn’t listen the other day when I tried to put her right about flouride in the water, either.
Sounds like the test itself isn’t the problem but how it’s used and how much people attach to the results, like with IQ tests. Neither that nor Myers-Briggs should be part of interviewing for a job either but apparently some US companies do it anyway.
No, the test itself is definitely the problem. Regardless of whether you believe a personality type test can be effective, the MBTI is particularly and provably ineffective in just about every measurable way:
It’s not reliable. It has terrible test-retest reliability. If I’m X personality type, I shouldn’t test as X type one time, and Y type the next, and Z 6 months laters.
It’s not predictive. If a personality test accurately judges someone, it should mean you now know something about someone’s behaviours, and can extrapolate that forwards and predict behavioural trends. MBTI does not.
It fundamentally doesn’t match the data. MBTI relies upon the idea that people fall neatly into binary buckets (introverted vs extroverted, thinking vs feeling, etc). But the majority of people don’t, and test with MBTI scores close to the line the test draws, following a normal distribution. So the line separating two sides of a bell curve ends up being arbitrary.
And finally, it’s pushed very hard by the Myers-Briggs foundation, and not at all by independent scientific bodies. copying straight from wikipedia:
Most of the research supporting the MBTI’s validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center’s own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT),
I risk sounding very “AKSHUALLYY” here, but online tests do a huge harm to the credibility of MBTI, no wonder it gets such a bad rep when the tests are so unreliable and people nevertheless base their entire personalities on it… Originally it’s not supposed to be based on the binary choices of the 4 letters but the “cognitive functions” as defined by Carl Jung, which a lot of people will find to be just as much non-sense but with the right attitude I think they’re a useful tool to learn about ourselves and others.
I used to think this, but I think the new posh astrology is mental disorders in general. It costs thousands of dollars to get professionally assessed, whereas MBTI is a free quiz online. Crippling anxiety, depression, OCD, panic attacks, etc., are the new ENFP
Jesus this is a bad take
This should be a popular opinion honestly, because it’s correct.
This is insulting to astrology, but yes lol
Humanity cannot and will not change its practices fast enough to avoid running out of resources we keep ourselves dependent on because it’s “profitable.” We are a doomed species and won’t be around for very much longer. We are likely living in the flash of bright before the long dark. I don’t think the world my grandchildren live in will be remotely like the one we have now.
I’m perfectly fine hedging my bets and living life normally, but I think our longevity is an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face.
deleted by creator
Any comment that gets more than one upvote fails the subject.
I disagree. Lemmy is a very small group of individuals and these type of threads are going to have similar minded people finding eachother. In the grand scheme of things we are next to nothing in scale of the billions of people on this planet.
I gave your comment its second upvote.
Upvotes ideally don’t equate to agreement though.
That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
Memes are low effort in general
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Can I borrow the rock you’ve been under?
I guess I just unsubscribe from communities where there are a lot of low-effort memes?
But seeing it here is fine, it’s started some discussion.
Timezones are fucking stupid. Everyone should just use UTC or Zulu
As a seafarer who moves through the world, arguing out of timezones is an uphill battle. (Minus the half hour timezone insanity.)
Daylight savings on the other hand, can be dropped like the smelly turd it is.
Wait am I supposed to upvote this or down vote if I agree?
Yes.
Timezones are stupid and using European as the reference is imperialistic. Every clock should be set to the time calibrate where I live.
correct. also daylight savings and the 12-hour clock is bullshit. we should at least have Greenwich/UTC as a secondary clock, kinda like how some regions have their own calendar and have the Gregorian calendar as a secondary.
Removed by mod
@CARCOSA@hexbear.net can we make this entire post a tagline
As soon as you have any actual answer on how to demonstrably improve peoples’ lives and do this either within this system in a way that they’ll let you, or without this system in a way that they won’t assassinate you, I’m with you. I’m serious about that. But you don’t have an answer, I already know, because all I see is posturing and arm chair theorizing.
Edit for Michael Parenti who ofcourse has absolutely amazing things to day on the issue: https://youtu.be/6gtUaGV6mNI?feature=shared
Removed by mod
At least those people are looking at places where actual revolutions happened and were sustained. Contrary to the US, where unions get busted, action groeps cointelpro-d, leaders assassinated, police violence used, and only the threat of the USSR to gain any social progress. And where QoL is on a steady decline? Please give me a better example.
Furthermore, historically, no one socialist nation has ever existed without being under continuous attack from those very forces - religious, fascists, corporatists, so I don’t know what your on about. You’re clearly passionate but I read your comments as incredibly idealistic to a fault.
Edit: and what’s happening now is the very likely possibility of a 2nd Trump administration and this insane 2025 plan they’re cooking up. So I don’t even know where you are getting your information.
Ah yes, as if anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism or really any other human ideology and methodology centered entirely on egoism don’t engender some strange communal cargo cult behavior. It’s almost as though they too are full of shit?
It is funny to believe in ‘self-determination’ when you can’t even recognize that all the important decisions have already been made for you. It is rich to pretend to fight against the nihilist when you only believe in yourself. So go egoist, live your life as you please, blissfully unaware that you are just as stuck the very herd of individuality that we all find ourselves in.
Removed by mod
How do you intend to make such a reality happen?
Removed by mod
You can be as smug as you want about it, but the people who benefit from capitalism as it exists aren’t just going to let you change things.
Removed by mod
So you admit it will be violent revolution then?
Sarcasm and posturing? How do you honestly plan to diplomatically redistribute power/wealth without this happening? When has meaningful change ever happened without those in power engaging in violent retaliation against the often peaceful and nonviolent exploited classes? And here you sit and smugly discard all the movements that actually managed to get something done as ‘fascist’ and ‘corporatist’’
this is the mainstream view on the far-left
Removed by mod
i didnt voice any opinion on what the extreme or far left are, so i imagine you either didnt understand my comment or are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian
Removed by mod
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
They have a lot less lead poisoning today than those kids from 20th century past, too.
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
Force damage in D&D 5E is too poorly-defined to be a good part of the game and exists solely for when the designers don’t want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question. Either we need an actual description of what happens to a thing that gets hit by it or it should be cut; the vast majority of the things that deal it could perfectly easily be magical bludgeoning / piercing / slashing. Spiritual weapon and Bigby’s hand are particularly egregious
exists solely for when the designers don’t want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question
Broach of shielding grants resistance to force damage
There’s also armour of resistance and potion of resistance in the DMG, which can be force resistant. But that’s very few items, and in 5E the magic items you get are entirely dependent on your DM giving them to you. Note how they’re all in the DMG, after all. Compare this to, say, fire damage. Three player races have resistance, the 1st-level absorb elements spell gives most casters easy access to fire resistance, and two barbarian subclasses and two sorc subclasses can get it regularly. With force damage, I think the only option presented to the player is one of the aforementioned barb classes and a couple of abilities that give general resistance to all damage.
On the DM’s side, of the literally several thousand creatures published for 5E, there are 5 with immunity, 12 with resistance, and 2 with vulnerability. 19 total creatures out of over 3,000 have any unusual interaction with the damage type. Compare this to 90 for radiant, another very low one; 552 for fire; 671 for bludgeoning (including the ones that only interact with mundane bludgeoning). 19 creatures is so vanishingly rare that I don’t think my description is an unreasonable one.
8÷2(2+2) comes out to 16, not 1.
Saw it posted on Instagram or Facebook or somewhere and all of the top comments were saying 1. Any comment saying 16 had tons of comments ironically telling that person to go back to first grade and calling them stupid.
2(4) is not exactly same as 2x4.
2(4) is not exactly same as 2x4
Correct! It’s exactly the same as (2x4).
No. No. You choose to be ignorant.
Ummm, I was agreeing with you??
Anyways, I’m a Maths teacher who has taught this topic many times - what would I know?
8÷2(2+2) comes out to 16, not 1
No, it’s 1, and only 1. Order of operations thread index
P.S. this is Year 7 Maths, not Year 1.
Let’s see.
8÷2×(2+2) = 8÷2×4
At this point, you solve it left to right because division and multiplication are on the same level. BODMAS and PEMDAS were created by teachers to make it easier to remember, but ultimately, they are on the same level, meaning you solve it left-to-right, so…
8÷2×4 = 4×4 = 16.
So yes, it does equal 16.
Depends on whether you’re a computer or a mathematician.
2(2+2) is equivalent to 2 x (2+2), but they are not equal. Using parenthesis implicitly groups the 2(2+2) as part of the paretheses function. A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4 and evaluate the expression left to right, but this is not what it written. We learned in elementary school in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do.
Of course, modern mathematicians work primarily in computers, where the legacy calculator functions have become standard and distinctions like this have become trivial.
It seems you are partly correct. You are correct in saying that this is how it used to be done (but that was 100 years ago, it seems) and you are correct that in modern times, this would be interpreted as I did it, above.
Link: https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2019/07/31/what-is-8-÷-22-2-the-correct-answer-explained/
I’m old but I’m not that old.
The author of that article makes the mistake of youth, that because things are different now that the change was sudden and universal. They can find evidence that things were different 100 years ago, but 50 years ago there were zero computers in classrooms, and 30 years ago a graphing calculator was considered advanced technology for an elementary age student. We were taught the old math because that is what our teachers were taught.
Early calculators couldn’t (or didn’t) parse edge cases, so they would get this equation wrong. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted rather than reprogram every calculator on earth, which is a rational decision I think. But that doesn’t make the old way wrong, anymore than it makes cursive writing the wrong way to shape letters.
it was decided that it would be easier to change how the equation was interpreted
No, it wasn’t. The claim that the rules were changed is a debunked myth.
No, that video is wrong. Not only that, if you check the letter he referenced Lennes’ Letter, you’ll find it doesn’t support his assertion that the rules changed at all! And that’s because they didn’t change. Moral of the story Always check the references.
A computer will convert 2(4) to 2 x 4
Only if that’s what the programmer has programmed it to do, which is unfortunately most programmers. The correct conversion is 2(4)=(2x4).
in the 90s that if you had a fancy calculator with parentheses, you could fool it because it didn’t know about implicit association. Your calculator doesn’t know the difference between 2 x (2+2) and 2(2+2), but mathematicians do
Actually it’s only in the 90’s that some calculators started getting it wrong - prior to that they all gave correct answers.
Under pemdas divisor operators must literally be completed after multiplication. They are not of equal priority unless you restructure the problem to be of multiplication form, which requires making assumptions about the intent of the expression.
Under pemdas divisor operators must literally be completed after multiplication
Not literally. It’s only a mnemonic, not the actual rules.
They are not of equal priority
Yes, they are. Binary operators have equal precedence, and unary operators have equal precedence.
Okay, let me put it in other words: Pemdas and bodmas are bullshit. They are made up to help you memorise the order of operations. Multiplication and division are on the same level, so you do them linearly aka left to right.
Pemdas and bodmas are not bullshit, they are a standard to disambiguate expression communication. They are order of operations. Multiplication and division are not on the same level, they are distinct operations which form the identity when combined with a multiplication.
Similarly, log(x) and e^x are not the same operation, but form identity when composited.
Formulations of division in algebra allow it to be at the same priority as multiplication by restructuring it as multiplication, but that requires formulating the expression a particular way. The ÷ operator however is strictly division. That’s its purpose. It’s not a fantastic operator for common usage because of this.
There are valid orders of operations, such as depmas which I just made up which would make the above expression extremely ambiguous. Completely mathematically valid, order of ops is an established convention, not mathematical fact.
They are order of operations
No, they’re not.
Multiplication and division are not on the same level
Yes, they are.
they are distinct operations which form the identity when combined with a multiplication
In other words, they are the inverse operation of each other - welcome to why they have the same precedence.
order of ops is an established convention, not mathematical fact
It’s a mathematical fact.
This comment is the epitome of being confidently wrong on the internet.
For one misinterpretation? Are you sure about that?
There was 3 misinterpretations - see my reply to them.
confidently wrong on the internet
I made a hashtag for people #LoudlyNotUnderstandingThings :-)
8÷2×(2+2)
But that’s not the same thing as 8÷2(2+2). 2x(2+2) is 2 Terms, 2(2+2) is 1 Term. 8÷2×(2+2)=16 ((2+2) is in the numerator), 8÷2(2+2)=1 (2(2+2) is in the denominator)
Math should be taught with postfix notation and this wouldn’t be an issue. It turns your expression into this.
8 2 ÷ 2 2 + ×It already isn’t an issue if people just follow all the rules of Maths.
And both you and people arguing that it’s 1 would be wrong.
This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication sign between 2 and ( is often interpreted as having priority. This is all matter of convention.
I see what you’re getting at but the issue isn’t really the assumed multiplication symbol and it’s priority. It’s the fact that when there is implicit multiplication present in an algebraic expression, and really best practice for any math above algebra, you should never use the ‘÷’ symbol. You need to represent the division as a numerator and denominator which gets rid of any ambiguity since the problem will explicitly show whether (2+2) is modifying the numerator or denominator. Honestly after 7th grade I can’t say I ever saw a ‘÷’ being used and I guess this is why.
That said, I’ll die on a hill that this is 16.
I’ll die on a hill that this is 16
There is another example where the pemdas is even better covered than a simple parenthetical multiplication, but the answer there is the same: It’s the arbitrary syntax, not the math rules.
You guys are both correct. It’s 16 and the problem is a syntax that implies a wrong order of operations. The syntax isn’t wrong, either, just implicative in your example and seemingly arbitrary in the other example I wish I remembered.
Do you not understand that syntax is its own set of rules?
Do you not understand that syntax is its own set of rules?
Yes, the rules of Maths, as I was already saying. I’m a Maths teacher. I take it you didn’t read the link then.
both you and people arguing that it’s 1 would be wrong
No, they’re correct Order of operations thread index
This problem is stated ambiguously and implied multiplication
It’s not ambiguous, there’s no such thing as implicit multiplication
This is all matter of
…following the rules of Maths.
A matter of convention: true
Unless you specify you aren’t using pemdas, that’s generally the assumed order of ops.
This is not one of the ambiguous ones, but it’s certainly written to be. Multiplication does indeed have priority under pemdas.
A matter of convention: true
False. Actual rules of Maths
This is not one of the ambiguous ones
There aren’t any ambiguous ones - #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous
No, 2+2 = 🐟 so it would be 8÷2🐟 and since 🐟 is no longer a number it becomes 4🐟. So the answer is 4 fishes.
since 🐟 is no longer a number
It’s still a pronumeral though, equal to 4, so the answer is still 8÷8=1.
Great explainer on the subject: https://youtu.be/lLCDca6dYpA?si=gUJlQJgfDxi-n_Y6
And a follow up on how calculators actually implement this inconsistently: https://youtu.be/4x-BcYCiKCk?si=g5pqwXvBqSS8Q5fX
Both of those Youtubes debunked in this thread.
Back in gradeschool I was always taught that in Pemdas, the parenthesis are assumed to be there in 8÷(2×(2+2)) where as 8÷2×(2+2) would be 16, 8÷2(2+2) is the above and equals 1.
Yes, it’s The Distributive Law.
Not quite. It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Now this is what gets most people. Even though Multiplication technically comes before Division the Acronym PEMDAS, that’s really just to make it sound correct phonetically. Really they have equal priority in the order of operations and the appropriate way to resolve the problem is to work from left to right solving each multiplication or division sign as you encounter them. Giving you 16. Same for addition and subtraction.So basically the true order of operations is:
- Work left to right solving anything inside parentheses
- Work left to right solving any exponentials
- Work left to right solving any multiplication or division
- Work left to right solving any addition or subtraction
Source: Mechanical Engineering degree so an unfortunate amount of my life spent in math and physics classes.
It’s true you resolve what’s inside the parentheses first, giving you. 8÷2(4) or 8÷2x4.
Not “inside parenthesis” (Primary School, when there’s no coefficient), “solve parentheses” (High School, The Distributive Law). Also 8÷2(4)=8÷(2x4) - prematurely removing brackets is how a lot of people end up with the wrong answer (you can’t remove brackets unless there is only 1 term left inside).
Absolutely, its all seen as equal so it has to go left to right However as I said in the beginning the way I was taught atleast, is when you see 2(2+2) and not 2×(2+2) you assume that 2(2+2) actually means (2×(2+2 )) and so must do it together.
Ah sorry just realized what you were saying. I’ve never been taught that. Maybe it’s just a difference in teaching styles, but it shouldn’t be since it can actually change the outcome. The way I was always taught was if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there.
So you were taught that 2(2+2) == (2(2+2))
I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)Interesting difference though because again, assuming invisible parentheses can really change up how a problem is done.
Edit: looks like theshatterstone54’s comment assumed a multiplication symbol as well.
if you see a number butted up against an expression in parentheses you assume there is a multiplication symbol there
No, it means it’s a Term (product). If a=2 and b=3, then axb=2x3, but ab=6.
I was taught 2(2+2)==2*(2+2)
2(2+2)==(2*(2+2)). More precisely, The Distributive Law says that 2(2+2)=(2x2+2x2).
Under normal interpretations of pemdas this is simply wrong, but it’s ok. Left to right only applies very last, meaning the divisor operator must literally come after 2(4).
This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.
Pemdas puts division and multiplication on the same level, so 34/22 is 12 not 3. Implicit multiplication is also multiplication. It’s a question of convention, but by default, it’s 16.
Incorrect, pemdas puts multiplication before division.
I always thought pemdas was more like P/E/MD/AS with MD and AS occurring left to right
This is how I was taught, but also people don’t really use the ÷ symbol in algebra beyond like 6th grade
people don’t really use the ÷ symbol in algebra beyond like 6th grade
Yes they do, just pick up a high school Maths textbook (in a country which uses obelus rather than colon).
And “Multiplication” refers literally to multiplication signs, of which there are none in this question.
Implicit multiplication is also multiplication
There’s no such thing as implicit multiplication. The answer is 1.
I don’t know what you’re on about with your distributive law thing. That just states that
a*(b + c) = a*b + a*c, and has literally no relation to notation.And “math is never ambiguous” is a very bold claim, and certainly doesn’t hold for mathematical notation. For some simple exanples, see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1024280/most-ambiguous-and-inconsistent-phrases-and-notations-in-maths#1024302
That just states that a*(b + c) = ab + ac
No, The Distributive Law states that a(b+c)=(ab+ac), and that you must expand before you simplify.
For some simple exanples,
Examples by people who simply don’t remember all the rules of Maths. Did you read the answers?
Please learn some math before making more blatantly incorrect statements. Quoting yourself as a source is… an interesting thing to do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property
I did readrhe answers, try doing that yourself.
Please learn some math
I’m a Maths teacher - how about you?
Quoting yourself as a source
I wasn’t. I quoted Maths textbooks, and if you read further you’ll find I also quoted historical Maths documents, as well as showed some proofs.
I didn’t say the distributive property, I said The Distributive Law. The Distributive Law isn’t ax(b+c)=ab+ac (2 terms), it’s a(b+c)=(ab+ac) (1 term), but inaccuracies are to be expected, given that’s a wikipedia article and not a Maths textbook.
I did read the answers, try doing that yourself
I see people explaining how it’s not ambiguous. Other people continuing to insist it is ambiguous doesn’t mean it is.
This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.
#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous if you follow all the rules of Maths (there’s a lot of people here who aren’t).
All DST and time zones should be removed and we should only have one global time. People in different locations would just get up at different times on the clock. Communication about times would get so much easier, communication about schedules would get so much easier. “The same time every week” would have an actual meaning all year around regardless of any notions about getting up later relative to local sunrise in the darker time of the year.
I’ve thought the same thing before. The time of day is a completely arbitrary number.
This solves making the statement “let’s meet at 5” be more clear globally, but doesn’t solve the actual confusion. Person A getting up hours before normal, being in the middle of person B’s day, and being when person C would go to bed still happens. All it does is destroy any frame of reference and make travel more difficult. You would still need a chart to know if any time was actually during waking or business hours at each location on earth.
All things, including human life experiences, are absolutely and completely predetermined as part of a chain of causal events.
Ah, the system of everything, didn’t that go out the window with quantum mechanics?
Nope, not really. But even if we did have 2 completely different solved sets of physical rules for minuscule quantum stuff versus everything else, all events would still be casual. It wouldn’t change anything.
Measuring quantun superpositions can have different outcomes under the same circumstances, right? So therefore, it cannot be deterministic (= what you described) because randomness is involved.
Sounds to me like we lack the understanding as to why there are different outcomes in what we perceive as identical circumstances.
A dice roll appears random too, but it isn’t if one understands all of the inputs and variables precisely.
It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we can’t know, via Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Iirc, hidden variable interpretations of quantum physics have thus far failed to explain what’s happening. It seems to be probabilistic.
We don’t need to know for it to be deterministic.
Fwiw I agree, the concept of “true randomness” never set well with me… often we use probability to model systems that are too complex to understand or calculate directly. However, in this case I defer my personal beliefs to genius scientists and mathematicians who have spent their whole lives exploring just this dilemma. So far we have no deterministic model for quantum mechanics, and no indication that such exists.
(not an expert or formally educated on the subject, but I recommend reading A Brief History of Time for an accessible overview)
Outcomes must be knowable/predictable if it is deterministic. Things could have played out differently at least at small scales, which often have large effects.
Some of these are lemmy-specific perhaps, more mainstream outside of this place:
-
Free markets work better than anything else we have practically tried so far
-
Neo-marxism is a problem
-
LGBTQIA+ activist are overcorrecting, especially for TQIA+
-
Palestine is a fascist state
-
USA and EU have problems, some of them big ones, but they are generally a force for good on this planet
-
Young people use smart devices too much, like older people
-
Internet services in general are fucking up our minds big time, including those that attempt to be benevolent like Lemmy and Mastodon. They all eat attention energy, which is an extremely scarce resource.
-
All drugs should be decriminalized, most of them should be legalized (paraphrasing Bill Hicks, some should be mandatory)
-
Karl Popper didn’t quite mean what antifa thinks he meant
-
Mainstream religions, even if factually and is some parts also ethically full of shit, generally work well in making individuals strive for the best they can
-
Piratism is unethical but can be excused when legally provided services suck
-
Open source is a vastly superior method of developing software in a global sense
Palestine is a fascist state
refuses to elaborate
leaves
Did you ask me to elaborate? I can elaborate.
It’s run by a fascist party, Hamas, who was voted into power by the people. It suppresses political dissent, restricts basic human freedoms, enforces conservative religious norms, rejects modernism, and thrives on military conflict. I’m going mostly by Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, perhaps yours is different.
edit seems like parent asked me to elaborate, suggested that I’m unable to, then blocked me when I elaborated
-
very curious how you came to the conclusion that i blocked you
-
people chanting “from the river to the sea” generally do not support the hamas government
EDIT: judging by the fact that parent did not respond to this comment (posted within an hour) but did respond to a different reply made a day later, it seems parent assumed I had blocked them and decided to block me
-
Grats on actually answering the question
-
