Robust Mirror @ Robust_Mirror @aussie.zone

Posts

2

Comments

520

Joined

3 yr. ago

The issue is figuring out whether any given statement is due to stupidity or maliciousness.

Yeah I guess it's one of those things, where most people would be satisfied with becoming a billionaire, but generally, the type of people able to become a billionaire, are terrible people that wouldn't be satisfied with becoming a billionaire.

I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, and don't like Rowling, but I read that whole damn essay and was not at all convinced. Half the examples could be said to be plagiarising each other by the standard they're using. They say at the start the coincidences are too strong to be attributed to tropes, but I really disagree with that. Almost everything they list are common tropes, many even outside magical wizard settings. Mean adoptive family? Did she also plagiarise Cinderella?

Sure, her books generally aren't original themes, but to say they're so similar that they are direct plagiarism is a real stretch in my opinion. Especially when you have to list like 30 books that have one or two things in common each, and mostly in a general sense.

Don't you know the devil planted them.

That's exactly my point? Why is the definition being asked for if, as you say, it doesn't matter and you don't care. They're being asked to fulfil a task which, even if fulfilled, will be ignored. That to me is a bad argument.

Except from what I've seen he actually is willing to listen to experts with stuff like that. He doesn't care about being right, that's why he constantly lies and let's himself be proven wrong 50,000 times. He only cares about doing what he believes will benefit him, and listening to doctors to save his life benefits him.

Honest question, would that even matter? I feel like someone that is so extremely polarising would have a very low martyrdom effect. His followers are basically already cult like, it's hard to imagine them being more loyal or radical than they already are, and people that aren't his followers probably wouldn't be moved to the right by his death.

Like if he died in the shooting, do you really think things would be worse right now?

987654312÷123456789

Change the 21 at the end of the first number to 12 and its perfect. It was only ever 9 away.

Humans lived in an environment similar to a post apocalyptic situation for 1000s of years and still reproduced just fine. I'm not saying it isn't a thing at all, but I don't think it would be common or widespread.

I'm not asking for my comment to be restored, I couldn't care less, but I just want to say anyone that read it could clearly see it was not gatekeeping. I was saying it's not a good argument that someone can't use a word based on whether another person can define it a certain way, not the other way around. Basically the opposite of gatekeeping. My other comment makes this even clearer.

I disagree with your assessment of lines unless the store is simply doing it wrong. I have 3 stores I use that are self checkout only, and the only times there are lines at all are "rush hours" such as when everyone is finishing work, and the lines used to be FAR worse at that time. It's a line of like 5 people waiting at most, not per checkout, in total. Before self serve it was a minimum of 5 per checkout, so like 20+ people waiting total.

The fact is they're able to fit 6 self checkouts in the space there used to be 2 manned checkouts, even if they're being fairly inefficient with space. So they get rid of 4 manned and have 12 self serve (real example of 2 of them did), and people can be 3x as slow with no extra build up.

OK first I have no problem with language evolving. I have no problem with trans people using the word man, woman or whatever else for themselves as they feel comfortable. I have no problem with new words being defined or old words being redefined. That's not really my issue.

My issue is making the argument that trans people should or shouldn't be able to use the word on the basis that someone else can or can't define it in such a way that would exclude them but not others. Can you really say with absolute certainty, with infinite time and space, such a definition could not theoretically exist? That it isn't in the realm of possibility? And whether it can or can't exist, should it really define whether they can or can't use a word?

Also out of curiosity, because as you said it's not really the point, but regarding the cars, is that really a certainty, including all cars throughout history, all custom home made and kit cars, all foreign cars, specialised race cars, electric cars, they will ALL definitely fit into a single neat set of regulations/definition?

I mean, there's a lot of things you can do for free that we pay people for. They've put together a device that is preloaded with a ton of information. To do this yourself would probably take most people a week or 2, at best a weekend if you worked hard and had pre-existing knowledge and a fast connection. Maybe longer depending how they modified the raspberry pi, though you don't necessarily need it to do everything they made it do.

You'd pay in this range for someone to clean your house for a few hours. You can also do that free. It's the convenience you're paying for.

Having one person isn't going to help much, even if they don't get replaced, it'll be a hung jury at best, unless they're the most persuasive, charismatic person on earth.

And you generally don't want a hung jury. It's just delaying, and now the other side knows your entire defence strategy and can prepare on better countering it. You having information on their strategy isn't as valuable.

This is like 1 sibling takes the others property non stop, and the parents solution to stop the fighting is to tell the victim sibling to just let the other one have it. And then telling them they're being unreasonable when they don't want to.

Which I do know actually happens, I've seen it with my own eyes.

Well while I respect what is probably a privacy or ad block angle, it's a bit unfair to complain about something not working well for you when you're not using it the official way, and likely actively making it worse at profiling you.

Interesting, I've always found it to work incredibly well for me, to the point I generally only watch the stuff it recommends. Like, out of the 6 videos it shows me, maybe 1 every now and then is something I don't care about. But like, if there's 4-5 ones I'm interested in out of 6, I think that's pretty good, and the 2 wild cards are how I tend to find new stuff to be interested in.