Lurker > adjl

It's almost like advocating for not hiring people based on how they were born is a bad thing. Funny how that works.

Depends on the weed. Native wildflowers are generally good to let grow. The rather large variety of invasive species that can make their way onto lawns, though, not so much.

Zareth posted...

I remember in China or somewhere there was some protest going on and the cops put out brick pallets and the protestors made little castles out of them lol

"These anarchists have clearly violated our zoning laws and must be stopped at all costs!"

Revelation34 posted...

There was no direct threat

He threatened anyone that goes against him. How is that not a direct threat to people that are currently preparing a case that goes against him?

darkknight109 posted...

About the only anomaly in that list is that the N64 didn't really retain any naming similarities with the SNES, despite the latter moving a tonne of units.

Not so much in the official name, but given how many people just called the SNES "Super Nintendo," "Nintendo" with a different qualifying adjective is pretty consistent. In the modern era, "64" doesn't seem very descriptive because technical progression has gotten so nuanced and most people don't understand any of it anymore, but at the time people were generally aware of the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit, such that emphasizing that it was 64-bit (which even skipped 32-bit! How exciting!) made it clear that it was an upgrade.

Sonicplys posted...

I hope this console is underpowered too.

I unironically agree, to a certain extent. Chasing power is boring, and I've already got a PC for that. We've hit a point where there isn't that much more that can be done to meaningfully improve games with additional power (TotK's phenomenal draw distance and near-seamless transitions are an example of something that can be improved with a stronger system, but TotK has already done about as much as anyone can be expected to in that regard, on the Switch), so I'd rather see a weaker system for the sake of keeping the cost down and/or adding further utility (like handheld mode) than sacrifice those savings/utility for the sake of shinier pixels.

captpackrat posted...

Clover is a good thing. It fixes nitrogen, improves soil health and makes excellent green manure, and the flowers are great for bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. The leaves and flowers are edible and are a good source of protein, vitamins, and minerals. (Note that most clovers contain coumarin, so it shouldn't be eaten if you take an anticoagulant such as warfarin. It also should be avoided if you take any drugs that warn against eating grapefruit.)

On top of that, it outcompetes most weeds so you don't even have to worry about weeding your lawn. For a sizable chunk of lawns' history, it was standard to seed a grass lawn with ~10% clover because it automatically fertilizes it and limits what else can grow there. That practice really only died out for the sake of selling more chemical fertilizers/herbicides.

Even better, you can just make your whole lawn clover for only slightly more than grass costs, and in doing so you get something that never needs fertilizing, rarely needs weeding, doesn't need mowing, resists dog pee, is good for pollinators, uses significantly less water, and occasionally gets nice flowers instead of just being a boring sea of green all the time. The only downside is that it isn't quite as hardy as grass, so if it's a particularly high-traffic lawn (kids running around on it every day, for example), it might not be suitable for your situation.

Revelation34 posted...

Where in that statement was a judge or jury mentioned?

The part where you actually use your brain to think about what's being said beyond the literal words on the page. The statement is being made in a context in which judges, lawyers, jury members, and witnesses are planning to "go after him" as they testify, make arguments, and ultimately seek to hold him accountable for the wrongdoing he has committed. He has overtly threatened anyone who "goes after him." You are allowed to conclude that 2+2=4 without consulting the Oxford Dictionary first.

When they were first announcing the WiiU and leading into it with "now, we're making a console for you" I was 100% expecting them to have called it the Yuu or something like that. I'm not actually sure if that would have been better or worse. Probably less confusing to casual observers, but I feel like that's more of an offensively bad name, compared to the "that's weird, but whatever" of WiiU.

Lawns are stupid anyway.

If we want to stick with the gymnastics metaphor, that's roughly the mental equivalent of touching your toes. It's not a particularly complicated rationalization, you just think I'm responding to something I wasn't responding to.

It's hard to say. The way I see it, there are two ways Trump could win:

• Enough of the general population blames Biden for the present economic troubles and believes that Trump can improve the situation
• The MAGA crowd steps up their voter suppression efforts to enough of an extent to swing the vote in Trump's favour

Either are pretty plausible, really. There's also a non-negligible chance that Democrat voters will overestimate Biden's chances and not bother voting as a result, but the massive turnout last election and the substantial number of high-profile right-wing shenanigans in the last couple of years mean I'm not too worried about that.

Revelation34 posted...

It says "Trump made very clear threats to the judge and jury," That isn't stated in post 50.

"IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

I'm not sure how much clearer you need a threat to get than that.

man101 posted...

Most of the property damage done during 'riots' over police brutality is committed by random a******s who show up to just take advantage of the chaos and have no stake in the political motivation behind the original protesting.

Indeed. It's largely impossible to pin down the exact proportion and I'm not about to suggest that there were no actual vandals or violent protesters that legitimately aligned themselves with BLM, but a substantial portion of the violence was just opportunistic troublemakers taking advantage of the chaos, and I expect there were also quite a few false flag actors trying to stir things up to discredit the movement (including quite a few police, given that there have been documented cases of police doing things like hauling in pallets of bricks to protest sites before the crowd arrived). Even then, well over 90% of the protests were still totally peaceful, so the "BLM are violent terrorists!" narrative is obviously nonsense.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

y'know, which is a totally normal thing to call someone pointing at that statistically a male is more likely to be a sexual predator than a female.

It is if they're being a sexist piece of shit. Which Jen was, in that particular context. Note that the context in question was not pointing out the statistical reality that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women (hence I did not respond the same way to the numerous other people that have said the same thing, a group which includes myself), but rather telling me that I personally deserve the reputation of being a predator purely for being born a man. That's just blatant, unjustified sexism, so I treated it accordingly. She doesn't want to be called a sexist piece of shit? Then she shouldn't be a sexist piece of shit. The same goes for anyone else, swapping in whatever adjective is most appropriate for the prejudicial discrimination being exercised in that context (specifically when dealing with transphobia, I tend to lean more on silly g-rated gibberish swears like "dinglemuffins" and "cunglenugglers" because it somehow feels appropriate to do so in dealing with such ridiculous people, but that's just a personal quirk).

I've made my position clear: Don't prejudicially discriminate against people - of any kind - unless you have no other choice. Sometimes, it is actually your only option and the harms of not doing so outweigh the harms of doing so. I've acknowledged this, and I don't have a problem with it because that's just how the world works. There's a difference, however, between being prejudicially cautious when that's your only option, and relying on prejudice when you have the option to judge people as individuals instead of statistics. The latter is bad and should be avoided.

That's been roughly my experience with rhythm games as well. Full combos are fun to chase, since that's a case where failing to get one is a failure that I recognize as room for improvement, but full perfects are just too much. Failing to get full perfect just means that on one note out of hundreds you were a fraction of a millisecond off, and I'm okay with that level of failure. I'd rather move on to full comboing a new song than practice the same one enough times to get full perfects.

potdnewb posted...

assumed truths may be false

They may. What makes you believe these ones have a sufficient likelihood of being false that you hesitate to believe them?

Bear in mind that it's also an assumed truth that gravity will continue to hold you on the ground tomorrow. Are you going to bolt your house and yourself to the ground just in case it doesn't, or are you going to trust in that assumption because you have no reason to suspect it won't?

potdnewb posted...

based on the assumption that we know how much c14 is absorbed by an organism over its lifetime yes im saying the standard is still an assumption since we have learned that observed absorption rate is variable

It's not a question of how much C14 is absorbed over its lifetime. The proportion of C12 to C14 is roughly constant within the environment, and for a living organism that's constantly cycling out the carbon it contains for new stuff (whether directly from the environment by consuming CO2, or adding a trophic level or two to get it via larger macromolecules), that means the proportion of C12 to C14 in their bodies will match environmental proportions pretty closely. When they die, however, they stop replacing the carbon they contain with new carbon from the environment, and given that their corpses aren't hanging out in the upper atmosphere to be bombarded by cosmic rays, that means the C14 they contain will decay to Nitrogen and not be replaced. Over time, this means there will be less C14 relative to C12 than what we see in the environment.

This does rely on the assumption that the environmental proportion of C12 to C14 has remained roughly constant, but given that the only way it would fluctuate significantly is with a significant change in the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere (such as poking a hole in the ozone layer by using too much spraypaint) and such events do leave records, that's a fairly safe assumption unless there's evidence to the contrary. It's certainly not perfect, but it gives a reasonable ballpark figure.

potdnewb posted...

still based on assumed standards

What problems do you have with those assumptions?

I've had my big toenails partially removed three times, if memory serves. I had some very persistent infected ingrown toenail issues, so I had a ~3 mm sliver of the left one removed, then a ~3 mm sliver of the right one a few months later, then a little over half of the left one a few months after that. The freezing did its job, so the actual removal wasn't bad, but removing the bandage afterwards was pretty rough because it was quite thoroughly stuck to the damaged nail bed.

Never fully lost a fingernail, but I've had knives slip while chopping things and take a large enough chunk out of the nail that I got into the nail bed. That's always particularly rough if I manage to cut through the nail, but not actually sever it from the nail bed, so it's just floating free of the rest of the nail while tugging very painfully on the bed.

I used to be pretty up there in the overall Osu! rankings, but they changed the ranking formula after I'd passed my prime and I haven't been able to stick with it long enough to climb back up any of the times since then that I've played again. I also don't really enjoy playing with the difficulty mods that are actually needed to get high scores on individual charts because of their giant score multipliers, so that kept me from really getting up there.

potdnewb posted...

most stones dont contain carbon

Which is why I said radiometric dating and not radiocarbon dating.

Whiterun_Guard_ posted...

So I guess that means none of our current carbon was created in a star.

I figured it was something like that, but I realized I wasn't actually 100% sure when I read your question. Today I... learned? Confirmed? Remembered something I probably already learned? Eh, whatever. The important thing is that I know now.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

You keep saying this like everyone doesn't already do it.

Which is precisely why gendering these things is pointless. We already know how to handle virtues without considering gender as an intermediate. What point is there in using gender as a proxy for some of them?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Anyone put off by that isn't manly enough to fill those roles anyway so it's a moot point

Logic isn't usually supposed to be round like that.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

If those traditions didn't work, we wouldn't be here.

Only if they didn't work so catastrophically that they caused an extinction event. There's considerable middle ground between "this is the best approach" and "oops we all died."

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

When women are considered the physically stronger sex then I'll concede that gender roles are a social construct like you say.

Surely you're not suggesting that physical strength is the only salient consideration in gender roles, and that nothing is considered "masculine" or "feminine" except based on how physically demanding it is.

potdnewb posted...

because there is the possibility it is wrong

There's a possibility that everything is wrong. Doubting things specifically, though, should be based on finding a reason to doubt them. What is your reason?

potdnewb posted...

everything set in stone erodes

And that's why radiometric dating works.

potdnewb posted...

i believe there is the possibility that it could be wrong

Why do you believe this?

Perhaps the biggest thing is that it's not Joe Nobody camping out at Walmart and buying three PS5's that's the problem, as much as that's how we tend to think of it. That happens, certainly, and it does limit availability for others, but most of the scalping that actually prevents normal customers from being able to buy popular items or tickets or whatever is carried out at an organized, business-scale level, relying on automated systems and sometimes having multiple employees helping them cast a wider net. By any metric the law can use, that's largely indistinguishable from any other business that buys and resells products. Any laws that stop Joe Nobody aren't going to stop organized scalping operations, which will continue to be the bulk of the problem.

Corner? I 'ardly know 'er!

Sorry, I'll try to be more well-rounded.

I realize that I might also not have been releasing held notes at the right time, since I wasn't clear if that counts toward things. When I failed on Hard, I figured I was just missing too many, but on Normal I thought I hit everything and still lost, so I'm guessing it was that.

Between the efforts to artificially drum up its apparent popularity and a major backer being charged with kidnapping, I can't help but feel like this was either an effort to make people less suspicious of him, or he knew this arrest was coming and his lawyer advised him to do something like this to combat child trafficking so he can present a narrative of being a "changed man" in court.

PK_Spam posted...

Bandori.

Its like the middle child of the mobile anime rhythm games. Not quite as popular as Project Sekai, but not a dumpster fire like that IdolM@ster game. But Bandoris the one I chose during my stint unemployed 5 years ago, and its still here despite everything with no end in sight.

Its getting a Chainsaw Man collab on the EN servers in a few months.

Nifty. I just gave it a try and lost very promptly (after having to sit through a ridiculous amount of padding before getting to the point where I could actually just play a song). Not sure if I just suck or if this is the game's way of pushing me toward the gacha to improve my stats and reduce how much it punishes me for mistakes, but it was mildly entertaining for a few minutes. I deleted it because my phone's a little squishy, but I might try it again later if I clear up space.

Lokarin posted...

Rain frogs are cute... they have butt cheeks

https://youtu.be/JvOSqS1pPG4

This is quality content.

You don't understand! Somebody online said that she had to buy her tickets online instead of in-person, so that means it must be true!

Wing-mounted weapons tend to be symmetrical to avoid creating balance issues.

Revelation34 posted...

Make it a law so the retailers have to do that policy.

For every item? If not, how do you decide which items? And how many of each item can each customer buy? And how does that factor into any sort of wholesale orders, like what restaurants have to do with food items? If it doesn't apply to wholesale, how do you decide who gets to order from wholesalers?

Laws need rigid definition. Scalping is hard to rigidly define. You usually know it when you see it, but that's not good enough for writing laws.

Revelation34 posted...

Also how much do you think it will cost?

It's anyone's guess. I'm inclined to expect that they'll probably aim to stick close to the Switch's price point, but that will depend on lot on exactly what they try to do with the system. If they aim for something closer to parity with the PS5/whateverthehexbox (which they might do purely for the sake of getting more revenue from CoD, now that Microsoft has committed to porting it), it'll probably be more in line with their prices.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Because men are the ones that will meet them better.

And? All sorts of different subpopulations will differ in their statistical-level performance in all sorts of criteria and expectations. What makes gender so special that it's the only one that gets this treatment?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Guiding "everyone" towards masculine things just makes women inevitably feel inadequate when they invariably can't match the average man.

Half of men can't match the average man (inescapably by definition), and you're apparently fine with them being made to feel inadequate for it. For that matter, most people will find themselves below average in many of the countless other beneficial traits that aren't gendered, and that isn't a problem. Why are gendered traits the only ones where you can't wrap your head around the idea of forming expectations and judging people based on their individual talents? Do that, and nobody feels inadequate.

Again, I fully expect that even without deliberately gendering things, roles that involve more physical strength will end up with a disproportionate number of men. That's fine. The problem is not having more men in those roles, it's defining those roles as "manly," to the detriment of anyone else that's interested in and could excel at them, along with any men that aren't inclined to fill them.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

There's a LOT of things not masculine or feminine that people can aspire to be without destroying ancient traditions that built the world we have today.

"It's tradition, therefore we shouldn't change it."

Yeah, not the most convincing argument there. Especially when it comes to anything sociological, and even more so when gender gets involved because of how radically the role of gender has changed over time.

At some level, I can kind of understand it, the same way that I can kind of understand pushing for felons to be able to vote. If being convicted of a crime prevents somebody from holding office, all a political rival has to do to eliminate their competition is ensure that they're convicted of a crime, and that's not actually that hard to do if they set the bar low enough. Odds are most people could be successfully convicted of piracy these days for having watched copyrighted material on Youtube, and if that's not enough, there's also the option of framing them or just outright bribing a handful of sufficiently corrupt officials to apply a conviction with a relatively low burden of proof. Push comes to shove, the existing government is the one who decides what's illegal: change some laws, and their rival is no longer law-abiding.

On the flip side, of course, not barring convicts from being president carries all sorts of extremely obvious problems behind it, but I'm not sure how to mitigate that without opening the door to abuse. Granted, that abuse can just as easily be replaced by hiring a hitman to kill the rival regardless of what the law says, and it's not like other countries haven't figured out how to have it be illegal for criminals to take office, so there's a good chance this is just paranoia over a remote possibility getting in the way of sensible policy (though that's par for the course for the US).

Which dumb rhythm game is this?

dedbus posted...

So what exactly is toxic about beer and monster trucks.

The ethanol and exhaust, respectively.

Less obnoxiously literally, nothing, in appropriate moderation. Beer in particular becomes toxic when you start normalizing a culture of heavy drinking and/or drinking at inappropriate times, which is something that's often tied to masculinity by people with an unhealthy understanding of the concept. Monster trucks, mostly when they stop being a matter of putting on an entertaining show and you start driving them (or comparable oversized vehicles) around everywhere as a show of power, since that makes the road less safe for everyone and introduces a whole bunch of unnecessary extra problems like air pollution, noise pollution, and congestion.

It's also worth noting that neither of those things inherently has anything to do with masculinity. Like everything else I've been saying here, there's absolutely no need to gender them.

EclairReturns posted...

You mean in a figurative sense, in a literal sense, or is that the joke?

Schrodinger's yes.

It'd probably suck.

Jen0125 posted...

No, don't you see? Women who have an innate distrust for the patriarchy and men are the same as people who want literally everyone to suffer.

How is advocating for keeping men out of an entire field any different from advocating for keeping black people out of a job?

That's the line you don't seem to be recognizing: Any idiot knows it's a good idea for women to be cautious around random men. That's the unfortunate reality of the world, since far too many men are creeps. To go beyond that and say that men shouldn't be hired as babysitters, though, is relying on prejudice when you do have the opportunity to screen people on a more individual basis and negate most or all of the statistical risks associated with men. That's MAGA levels of brainless discrimination, and it causes very real harm no matter who it's directed at.

Whiterun_Guard_ posted...

Yeah, that's technically pretty prejudiced. Who cares.

And sometimes, you don't really have the option not to be prejudiced or otherwise rely on assumptions. It's not always possible or safe to collect enough data to assess things on an individual basis, and in many cases jumping to a prejudiced conclusion yields significantly more benefit than harm overall (such as categorically refusing to be alone with a strange man, which risks unnecessarily hurting a few innocent men's feelings, but can prevent being victimized, which is a worthwhile tradeoff especially when those hurt feelings can be mitigated by a modicum of understand of women's collective experience). Prejudice isn't always bad. Whenever the opportunity is available to not act on prejudice, though, that's when being prejudiced is bad, and that's precisely what I'm taking issue with here.

Then I'll continue considering you roughly on par with the MAGA crowd in how unwilling you are to think critically about situations instead of resorting to unnecessary prejudice that only makes things worse.

LinkPizza posted...

I remember him calling you sexist, though I dont remember it being a f***ing sexist But, whatever

It was "sexist piece of shit," which is close enough that I didn't feel the need to correct her.

LinkPizza posted...

Tbf, Im not actually sure if it worked

Fair. I can't say I'm interested in engaging him enough to actually evaluate how well he managed to retain his audience, so I'll probably never know first-hand.

Jen0125 posted...

Dude I'm not reading your not all men bulls*** lol.

But it's not "not all men" bullshit. It's looking at how to cultivate better emotional intelligence in men, with the goal of making it fewer men. I happily acknowledge that it doesn't have to be all men to be too many men, and that sometimes assuming the worst is the only way to stay safe. But hiring a babysitter is not one of those cases, and that kind of blanket sexism only makes the problem worse.

I guess, but I would think that resorting to contrived "technically I'm still an incel because..." rationalizations would turn the audience off. But then incels aren't exactly the brightest bunch, so maybe they don't see through that.

Jen0125 posted...

And I don't trust men until there's a culture shift.

And herein lies the problem: You've created a false dichotomy between blindly trusting all men (which I agree is a terrible idea) and blindly distrusting all men. The middle ground (which is likely what you actually do when you're not talking philosophy on the Internet) is to default to distrust, but trust some conditionally, with criteria that are appropriate for the context. In the case of child care, that's a background check and other protective measures.

Jen0125 posted...

I would love for parents to give boys the emotional tools they need to not fall in predation.

One of those tools can be male babysitters, or daycare workers, or elementary teachers, all of which rely on giving men a chance to fill those roles instead of categorically screening them out. Very, very often, young boys only have their fathers and maybe their gym teachers and/or extracurricular sport coaches as adult male role models. Given that gym teachers and sport coaches tend to lean more toward the physical side of masculinity, that means it's pretty much just a crapshoot whether or not the kid gets a good dad (if he has any dad at all). Not only does having more men in ECE give more opportunities to get it right, men in ECE are generally going to be more emotionally intelligent than the average man (by virtue of being willing to go into "women's work"), further increasing the chance that young boys have a positive emotional influence in their formative years.

This is why I'm particularly bothered by this idea that men shouldn't be hired as babysitters because too many of them are predators: Hiring more male babysitters can be expected to help with the rate at which men become predators (at least, in theory. I'm not sure if this hypothesis has already been shot down by actual research).

LinkPizza posted...

That said, I heard this was the only way he could keep his incel status since he once kissed a girl in high school, so people thought he was a voluntary celibate So, now hes giving a reason why hes not having sex. And that reason is hes very straight, so he doesnt have sex even thought he totally could

Is trying to maintain and protect incel status something people actually do? I thought the whole schtick was that they want sex but don't get it.

I mean, I also live a life not knowing if any given man (or woman) is going to harm me. Such is the nature of random chance.

Jen0125 posted...

I have no choice but to be prejudicial because you never know what man is a predator.

See, how valid this is depends on the context in which you're making the assumption and what you do with it. Avoiding situations where you'll be alone with strange men? Sure. Pre-emptively stabbing every man you see in the dick? Not so much (to choose an extreme we can hopefully agree on). There's a balance to be struck between ensuring that you protect yourself and have a safe environment, and pre-emptively hurting people regardless of how likely it is that they'll do anything to interfere with that.

Refusing to ever hire a man as a sitter 100% leans too far in the latter direction. You do in fact have other choices than to be prejudicial in that case: background checks, interviews, references, the subjective experience of how he interacts with you and your (hypothetical) kids, teaching your kids to recognize abusive behaviour so you can nip it in the bud if it does happen and ensure no other kids ever get victimized... All of these things not only mitigate the risk of hiring a sexually abusive man without categorically excluding large numbers of innocent men, they're things you should already be doing to mitigate the (probably lesser, but still non-negligible) risk of hiring a sexually abusive person of any other gender. Not only do you not need to make assumptions based on gender, you're taking a considerable risk if you assume you're safe just because of the applicant's gender, which really just takes assumptions out of the equation entirely.

Again, if your personal traumatic experiences mean you aren't comfortable with the idea, that's fine. I don't have the experience to be able to empathize with that, but I understand that that's not something you can just get over because somebody says you should. No amount of intellectual reasoning is going to make you feel less uncomfortable, and that discomfort isn't invalid just because you can't logically defend it. But there's a world of difference between saying "Due to my personal trauma, I'm not comfortable leaving a man alone with my kids" and "men are more likely to be predators and therefore shouldn't be hired as babysitters." The former is what you need to do to feel safe and comfortable. The latter contributes to a culture of more rigid gender norms that have far-reaching consequences (including reinforcing rape culture by normalizing the idea that being sexually predatory is just boys being boys).

Where is he getting that priests are "the straightest people"?

Jen0125 posted...

We all have our societal crosses to bear.

That doesn't excuse actively making other people's crosses worse for no reason. Especially in a case like this, where pushing men out of ECE actually exacerbates the problem (among other adverse effects for both men and women). If you've been unable to work through the androphobia that your various traumas have induced, that's fine because that's all you can be expected to have accomplished, but limit that to guiding the decisions you have to make to feel comfortable in your own life. Don't present it as being anything more broadly justifiable than a personal neurosis, because that doesn't help anything.

It's very simple: Don't prejudicially discriminate against people unless you have no other choice. That applies across the board, regardless of which population you're looking at or what historical wrongs that population has committed. That doesn't preclude recognizing disadvantaged populations or problematic statistical trends and working to correct them, but it does preclude treating everyone that looks like the problem as part of the problem, because that just makes things worse for everyone.