nickburns

Sure is a line of inquiry worth pursuing either way, no?

Your comments feel like projection, which lead you to make an extreme (and, in my opinion, unfounded) assumption about GP. GP says nothing about self-confidence nor 'liking' onself. One can have a social interaction like GP comically describes—and still be mostly socially 'at ease and graceful', possess a positive and stable self-image, be otherwise antisocial, and not need therapy.

Matching your latter register: and what, in your mind, will 'seeing someone' do to change somebody's lack of social 'grace and ease'?

What is suffering?

It's never stupid to clarify what someone means if they communicate in a way that's unclear to you.

'Former' and 'latter' were in reference to the two questions I posed to you.

I disagree it was implied. Not to mention that in an honest conversation, I shouldn't have to point out that you've cherry picked a quote (which on its face doesn't mean what you apparently think it does) from its actual context.

You say I'm 'suffering inside', not me.

> And it tastes even better when it seems to cause distress to vegans.

Odd flex. Try not to worry so much about what other people think of you. It'll make you a better human.

> In the context of picking battles, martyrdom is (self) sacrifice, with no direct gain for the cause.

On the first clause, exactly. (The second clause appears to be a bit of ad lib.)

> Abstaining from meat, to me, will take away one of the not-so-many joys I have in my life

I don't think the concept of 'martyrdom' encompasses self-interest. It does however consider the cause/s of other beings. So I maintain, not a very cognitively consonant use of the term.

They don't call 'em cannon fodder for nothin'!

Hey, at my ripe, old age, I only started learning how to properly feed myself more recently than I'd like to admit. So I take your point about acknowledging one's baby steps once you successfully string a few together.

Thanks for the encouragement!

So you acknowledge the former but can't get past the latter. Got it. I wonder how the judges will score.

Do you think plants achieve the same degree of sentience as say, a pig? Or would drawing even that line be too arbitrary for you?

Equating eating meat with martyrdom in the year 2026 is, in fact, the same cognitive dissonance you personally deny.

I eat meat. And I'm highly, highly morally conflicted. I'll leave it at that to avoid sounding hypothetical—except to mention that the only logical reason I don't go vegetarian/vegan is the work and personal development that'd be required of me. (I'll take being called lazy over disingenuous any day, if we're ostensibly virtue signaling here.)

Nowhere did GP say animals eating animals is abnormal.

I can imagine this poster's chortle thinking to themself, 'they thought I meant the animals!'

I take your point about the 'abstract' nature of online privacy. But another angle might be suggesting to those that are ambivalent on the issue that the pervasive (and for all intents and purposes, permanent) recordkeeping nature of 'software surveillance' should be much scarier than some guy sitting outside. I mean, at the very least, even with some guy sitting outside, you'd still have privacy inside.

But again, I hear you. Most people unfortunately have come to view the issue as being just about targeted advertising (which some go so far as to espose as a good thing).

This is definitely a point that should be emphasized more in this discussion. Even still, where it ultimately falls flat (currently) is the lack of hard proof to show people that it's truly happening.

Also, the degree to which some are more comfortable with the personal privacy/'feeling of personal safety' tradeoff notwithstanding, the examples that do get media traction are predictably extremes that the average person doesn't feel applies to them.

Some good counterpoints. But you're suggesting more people would be okay with 'PI following them' hypothetical than GP suggests—simply with the knowledge that others are subject to the same degree of surveillance?

I'm not so sure that counterpoint in particular holds. I think to say the "number of people that are going to be okay with that will [still] plummet" is an understatement. I'd go so far as to say no one, at least no rational person, would be okay with a "record [of] who you talk to, when, how long, where you go, what you do, what you say, when you sleep", etc., just because of the scale.

Guy's clearly not an American! (Either of them.)

So you're an admitted scumbag? (Primarily Windows user by the way.)

Exactly. Amusing indeed.

Why is this quackery front page?

Fonzie absolutely cared about being cool, too. It's why he jumped the shark after all. (Pun fully intended.)

Lol, I thought the same.

    By the time Gettler looked into this field, it was already an established fact that fathers had lower testosterone that [sic] men without kids.

I'm sure this typo will be promptly corrected. But it does offer some sense into how thoroughly this article was proofread prior to publication.

Are you suggesting Android/iOS app developers are forced into data collection somehow? If so, how? I'm genuinely curious.

> if your developing geolocation based apps, location tracking is a core function.

But the subsequent sale of that data is not—is the discussion here.

'Inside' perspectives can be equally useful or ignorant. The questions remains: why the distinction between inside/outside?

I don't follow what you mean by 'logistics in civilization' as that's pretty vague and amorphous.

Could you be more specific with maybe a single example of where my physical geographic location is electronically critical for a purpose that isn't elective/optional/avoidable?

(And I'm not just trying to be obtuse. I think you're touching on at least part of the 'heart' of both this conversation and that of digital ID verification.)