Excrubulent @ Excrubulent @slrpnk.net

Posts

19

Comments

2,342

Joined

2 yr. ago

Thanks, I've found the problem, it's in an edit.

Thanks, I've found the problem, it's in an edit.

Thanks, I've found the problem, it's in an edit.

I would have asked about that but I checked a few places through a VPN first.

I turns out it was my noscript addon, I've put more details in an edit.

Could be, but it's hard to get any information on whether the site is actually down. downforeveryoneorjustme.com reports it as being up, but that could be just because it serves the loading icon and not anything useful.

What do you see when you go to protondb.com?

I was floored by how perfectly they did the voice, then I looked it up and this song is literally by the original radio play voice actor Stephen Moore. Amazing.

You didn't ask me to explain anything, you said I had the chance. You're right, I could've kept trying, but you didn't ask, and I don't owe it to you.

I have spent far too much energy in the past trying to explain to people who aren't listening to bother with people who are functionally no different to a brick wall. It's exhausting and pointless.

And on a more simple, practical level, if you don't tell me what you found confusing about what I said, then I don't know what you need explained. As I said, the information is there if you want to investigate any of the terms you didn't understand. If you want my help, you are going to need to express it.

Which is why, when I detect this behaviour, like you showed when you baldly repeated:

"Clickbate" is not a word.

I always stop and ask the person to express literally any curiosity to understand. In my experience people who aren't listening won't do this. Like I said, it would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.

You can express that you are curious to understand what I'm saying, or you can not. That is up to you, but it's literally free to do, and it's all I ask.

Do what you want.

What don't you understand? I gave you the terms to look up to educate yourself if you actually cared, but instead of showing interest or the humility to ask, you literally just declared that you were right again without any reasoning and while saying you were ignorant.

So shall I take this as you not being interested in the information? It would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.

Ah yes, the first resort of the prescriptivist: baldly assert that you are correct with absolutely no reasoning behind it.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand linguistics or you wouldn't have declared so confidently that something said on purpose and clearly understood by you to be "not a word".

Like you literally said that you don't understand my argument and then declared me wrong anyway. I could explain further but it doesn't seem like you want to understand.

If you do want to actually learn something here, let me know and I am quite happy to help.

I would like you to show me any credible source saying that an eggcorn must achieve widespread adoption before it can be described as such.

The prescriptivist idea that something needs to be in a dictionary before it can be considered a feature of language is something that linguists - including the dictionary authors themselves - disavow.

Usually it's spelled that way, but this is more like an eggcorn than a mistake.

I kind of like the idea that it's clickbating, like the creator is jerking themselves off about how much they love clicks, or how clever they are with their manipulative title.

I forget who said it, but I remember a quote like, "When a bipartisan bill is being introduced that's when you know the people are getting well and truly fucked."

EDIT: Not a quote, but this is an article from the Harvard Political Review about US policy: https://harvardpolitics.com/deadly-bipartisanship/

Among some of the bipartisan bills are the 94 Crime Bill, The Patriot Act, yearly military budget increases, it's really a highlight reel of the fucking worst, most infamous bills from US politics.

I'd be shocked if any liberal electoral system was significantly different to this.

Oof, yeah, those vibes are rancid. The website is covered in shady looking links and they want you to download an exe, which you don't need for a simple registry edit which can be done with a text file.

This link shows you how to make the .reg file: https://www.windowscentral.com/how-take-ownership-files-using-right-click-context-menu-windows-10

For my money that's way easier than doing it manually through the registry editor yourself, and you can inspect the code to see what it's doing.

If you want to see the manual steps to take ownership without the registry entry, it looks like this: https://www.windowscentral.com/how-take-ownership-files-and-folders-windows-10

If that isn't a dark pattern then I don't know what is. They do not want you to have control over your machine, at all.

The way I do it is I have a script that adds an entry in file explorer called "Take Ownership". I don't have to use it often but when I do it's a life saver, and it doesn't blanket take ownership of the whole disk.

Obviously an elevated super user like linux has would be much more secure, but it's windows, they're not interested in security if it isn't about their share price.

I'm not sure exactly why but I can't think of anything after then that properly enriches my life.

Was that around the time you moved out of home?

We need to implement tarpits: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/ai-haters-build-tarpits-to-trap-and-trick-ai-scrapers-that-ignore-robots-txt/

There are examples yes, Dr Fatima on youtube talks a lot about the philosophy of science and how it's not such a rigid, prescriptive process as a lot of people - including scientists - seem to think.

When Pseudoscience Beat Science: Three Stories About Knowing Things

That video has three stories of phenomena that were unknown to western science until ancestral knowledge revealed them. The first two you could argue are just traditionally acquired knowledge that has gained a veneer of supernatural language, but "voodoo death" is literally named after the fact that a voodoo curse can kill someone.

I'd reccommend her whole channel if this stuff interests you. Particularly Gravity is a Social Construct, and How Galileo Broke the Scientific Method.

Edit: the downvotes on this with absolutely no explanation of what's wrong are a perfect example of why science struggles with these concepts. Anything that doesn't immediately fit the schema of what western respectable rational people expect gets dismissed out of hand.

I know by making this edit I'm inviting the most incurious assholes to mansplain to me why I'm wrong, but maybe someone will actually engage with the points.

Then I don't know what you're disagreeing with in my first comment, since you agree that fats aren't actually bad.

In fact, since you've said that you need "all" for a balanced diet, it seems like you agree that fats actually are "good".

Everyone needs calories, if you don't get them from fats and oils, you're left with carbs and sugars, both of which have a higher glycemic index.

So yes, it does mean fats are good, because you need energy to live. If you want to tell me there's some other form of energy that you know about that's better than any of those three, please let me know.

Until then, perhaps you could show me the science that proves how bad fats supposedly are.

Those foods won't make you feel good unless you enjoy shitting yourself into a coma.