lincon127

Eugh

Tell me where any of that happens (dislike for YA, dislike for adults, conflation between YA and children's books, conflation between anti-lgbt with anyone reading young adult literature). Like, you're getting close to the actual premises, but I feel like misinterpreted the entire article on purpose just to make it sound very ridiculous. Yes, it's weird to assume that some people that read YA are the people that don't want kids reading LGBT content. but that's why the author sets this up by talking about how these people are just as immature as the audience the books are supposed to be targeting. These people that only read YA want a say regarding what gets put into libraries as if they're some sort of authority despite being at a grade 7 reading level is what the article leads up to. Now whether or not you want to follow that slippery slope with the author is your perogative, but it seems completely unfair to misrepresent them as crudely as you have.

That doesn't apply to books though. As books aren't advertised the same way as any other media. Most books are advertised just through reviews and word of mouth. People decide to read juvenile media because their juvenile friends recommended it to them.

Well that makes sense if you think the author dislikes YA, as she obviously does not. She just very much dislikes the idea that grown adults can co-opt a genre not made for them and then police it by only taking into account their own stunted values. Most importantly though, it seems that she mostly hates that there's so many excuses for these people's behaviour, and that adults partake in YA circles so unapologetically. The connection, knowing this, is then quite clear.

To be fair, I also cringe at LinkedIn links. If you're using that site for anything else other than fulfilling social obligations, you're likely in marketing eugh

Why don't we give them a pair of calipers while they're at it; maybe while they're logging all this info, they can assess how how well I fit into Musk's dystopian nightmare world he's attempting to establish.

Large cars can suck my many pickled cocks, they are absolutely worthless.

Sounds like you're one of the idiots

The study they so heavily cite completely removes meat eating from the equation and supplements the US's need for meat with alternative methods in every scenario. It's obvious that, with such a drastic change, the change in emissions would be minimal, since many of these industries that would be replaced would have been the most optimal industries for these products. But if we consider instead, that meat can still be consumed instrumentally, for required nutritional needs, or perhaps even omit some of those needs entirely; we could end up in a scenario much better off than 2.6% reduction of emissions. So simply taking 10% of the proposed reduction of emissions won't cut it. It's really lazy, as the study cannot account for that in its current form.

Not to mention that "green water" sounds like the most invented term I've ever heard. Like, c'mon, rain water doesn't grow on trees, whatever you don't use goes back into the ecosystem. So of course using it would be more impactful than not.

So if Michael Yeadon were to push out a paper filled with observations on the correlation between vaccines and autism, you wouldn't instantly disregard it? Some people don't deserve the time of day.

Lol, Loeb

Well yah, anyone could have told you that. Relying on consumers to change the world through "market forces" is hardly going to work, because "market forces" are dictated by major market players. Not to mention that if these credits are transferrable then the government is essentially subsidizing companies for being polluters under a certain threshold. Meanwhile the companies that can afford a lot of credits buy them up and offset the cost via consumers, thus the pollution is still made, it just becomes more focused. Plus, they can no doubt hide exactly where that money is going, since they have all this capital to invest in these offsets in the first place.

The only way to fix climate change is with real legislation. Not through governments attempting to manipulate the market.

Where's the idea?

Cool.

Also what, Ehtséo Ayah didn't see a great mushroom in the distance? That's pretty disappointing

Do you mean ideally? Because obviously modern science and academia is mostly steered by external interests and public opinion. I know many scientists who entertain research projects from companies only because they're fully paid for, meanwhile they struggle with funding and publishing projects they want to do because there's so few opportunities available for funding. To then conclude that companies or government entities may want to do certain research according to what best serves them is not too hard of a stretch to make. It's happened numerous times before, especially within climate science, medicine, and tobacco.

I'm not saying one should distrust science, especially papers published by reputable sources, done by reputable labs, or otherwise have good methods and sensible conclusions. But that's the problem, right? One has to contend with what's "sensible". If someone published a paper tomorrow actually showing a strong causal effect between consuming fluoridated water and the calcification of the pineal gland, not only would it be seen by no one except weird fringe communities, but the scientists involved would be ridiculed. The area has been politicized, and in that case it's hard to see how it couldn't be, it's a ridiculous idea, but it does make a clear example of this politicization if you understand the context. Something similar happened with the origins of SARS-CoV-2, where the assumption is (from my personal experience) that only certain political machinations could convince someone to come to conclusions that SARS-CoV-2 origin could be a lab leak. Now maybe this isn't the case anymore. I haven't thought about this in like... a year, nor looked at public discourse for about that long either. But regardless I feel like public opinion is still largely the same, and judging by the article, the politicization of the topic is still in full swing. Thus, we're not only dealing with reality, but a manufactured reality as well.

Depends on context, obviously. The police officer has the responsibility to constantly assess the situation in order to determine if violence is warranted, as well as if that violence needs to be potentially lethal, regardless of whether or not a person is complying. As an office, one doesn't have the right to commit bodily harm, nevermind kill someone, without good cause. Hence why people talk about it so much, and also why people like to talk about police brutality even when it's regarding people that don't comply with officers (eg. protesters, bystanders, people filming, etc.)

Example: this classic https://youtu.be/7Ooa7wOKHhg. Shit like this happens in the States all the time, it's just not usually as bad, nor televised. But situations with power mad cops crop up all the time. Cops that forget that they are an arm of the law, rather than the law itself.

I don't know how the case mentioned in the article holds up though as I'm not aware of details.

The only one from the list you gave that doesn't make sense to me is Shell, but it's also one of the lower ranked ones. The rest could make sense since they're all likely voted on with new frameworks in mind, which means new code bases. Also, since most of those appear in the most hated as well, it shows that there's a distinct factor between those that love these languages, and those that don't. The distinguishing factor is likely the framework they're on.

Also c'mon man, some of these arguments are just made in bad faith and you know it.

Username checks out

Solution: look for nice butts. Keeps my eyes away from my phone when I'm waiting for shit.

Did it? I don't think they did

Kinda crazy that people with the means to leave the US still live there

Carbon Capture from industrial point sources is extremely expensive and extremely ineffective. so I doubt that's going to be a thing. The only way I could see CC paying off is if big companies keep lobbying for government grants and taxpayers money to go towards their shite projects so they can abandon them halfway through anyway. This'll keep the prospect of "clean methods" of operating dirty industries in everyone's brain space through political and astroturfed mouthpieces, people will start to believe it and oil companies will once again reap the rewards of mass confusion

So what are you disagreeing with? Are you disagreeing that change detection is what mostly diffentiates the front-end frameworks? If so, what is that important factor that differentiates them if not the mechanism that modifies when change is detected? Why do you have such a strong belief that this factor isn't it?

According to SpaceX's original Mars timeline, they're going to start colonizing Mars next year. So color me unimpressed that people are reporting on SpaceX optimizing boosters.

Well, no legal rights, obviously. But that doesn't mean that's not what ought to be the case. Laws aren't infallible, especially copyright law. If you have to break them to do something, that's hardly a reason not to do it, it's a reason to think about what you're doing.

As for the emulation of old games, this article talkes about a pretty commonly understood point, many old games simply can't be played outside emulation. This is importent to the argument as a whole because it changes how we should view these games, as they literally have no value. Art is worthless while it's isolated, it has no meaning to anyone, nothing to provide to anyone. The work of those that made it has essentially been forgotton about, and if it hasn't been forgotten, it will be. Same is true for video games, a video game does not have value until someone knows what it is. Currently these games exist in this state, they have literally no value. You couldn't find people to buy these games outside of speculative reasons because no one gives a flying fuck about these things. So when someone argues that emulation is theft, it's moot in these cases, because there's no value there, nothing to steal.

There's also less altruistic arguments for emulation that are valid too, arguments for emulating games that do still have some value. One may do it as a form of protest, they want to edit the game, they want to play it more easily, or they want to put together a comprehensive list of emulated games that everyone can have access to. There are good arguments for all of these, despite the fact that they're often illegal and sometimes may even harm the original creators. Each argument should be considered on its own merits before the action is judged as something that ought not to happen.

This is a 20 year-old's blog post talking about how she hasn't quite figured out what she wants from dates. It's definitely not as introspective as the title makes it seem.

Reading the study (https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.158...) the questions don't sound overly morally charged. They're certainly what I'd imagine a normal person may find moral questions, but are otherwise fairly middling in terms of moral impact. Other than vegetarianism, I'd say many of the don't have moral weight, at least not how they were asked. And even if you had considered them moral, it would only be from a deontological, or possibly virtue, ethics perspective.

The behaviour is a little more damning, but they only show evidence from two different scenarios. One of those scenarios had to do with charity and once again I feel like donating to charity is not overly morally charged. And if it is, it's certainly not the way they presented it.

Ok, I misunderstood the difference between an autoimmune disease and immune dysfunctions. COVID can cause malfunctions such as cytokine storms which have a downstream effect of increasing GFAP and NFL, two biomarkers which indicate brain health. If you search long COVID and NFL and GFAP, you should get several studies linking the after effects of acute COVID to increases in these biomarkers. I don't have specific examples though since I didn't read this, I got this from a researcher that's confirmed it in her own (currently unpublished) study and using it to make other observations, I can link you that though when it does get published! That being said I believe articles (like these https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320425/) will confirm as much, I'm just not parrotting any of the findings.

As for variants, Omicron was not as bad I'm told, mostly because Omicron caused fewer people to get severely sick as it evolved to become less deadly. Thus there were fewer immune malfunctions. Vaccines should not have caused immune malfunctions as those malfunctions were induced by COVID making people severely sick, often to the point where they ended up in ICUs.

We've been seeing stuff like this with COVID-19. Long term, COVID-19 can increases susceptibility to autoimmune diseases, diseases which end up having dramatic impacts on brain health. I know some of the scientists that are having a field day publishing research measuring biomarkers that can predict brain health, and they are absolutely seeing an uptick after COVID-19, and have linked it to malfunctioning immune systems.