meowMix2525 @ meowMix2525 @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

819

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not "less than meaningful" if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it's under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.

If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn't use the word wet to do so. The word doesn't lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.

It's not useless if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it's under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.

I never got it either. I think they're just contrarians. They just want to feel like they discovered something novel that all the people before them got wrong so they can indulge in pedantic arguments about it.

That is, when it's not engagement baiting like the tweet above.

I mean. The molecule itself isn't a solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. Your argument is based on water as a substance, not as a molecule, completely avoiding the basis of their argument.

Besides that, most liquids you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. As liquid substances. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.

You know what else dries up? Water.

I don't think you've spent much time here if you think that "fuck cars" is being said without empathy. None of us think that nobody should be allowed to own a car and that there aren't legitimate use cases. Just that the vast majority of cases are Not That and for how dangerous and inefficient they are, along with infrastructure that only considers the experience of people in cars, the extent that cars have taken over and define our lives (again, as non-single-mothers-of-seven) is ridiculous.

Also, station wagons used to exist. Mini vans still exist. You could transport this many kids and not have to drive a massive truck that's likely to mow one of them down in the driveway before you even notice they're unaccounted for. There are other "real solutions" for this person. In fact, that single mother would have a far more peaceful time transporting her family if the cars around her were both smaller in size and fewer in number. Our interests are aligned, you see.

Have you tried having some empathy for those that are strained by the financial burden of owning a car? Society should consider people that don't want and shouldn't need to own a car just as much as it considers people who do need to own a car. Go project your lack of "real empathy" somewhere else cause it's definitely misplaced here.

Yeah but straight up I'm not getting out of bed in the morning in those temperatures

Don't forget the heritage foundation wonks and oligarch-adjacent folks that debrief him and write all the orders for him to sign. I see the people directly in his administration having much more influential power than any foreign diplomat.

I still think most people are pro-good stuff, just that capitalism incentivises the worst behaviors and makes quite a few bad things overwhelmingly good for whoever is perpetrating them. This includes influencing/manipulating others to believe backwards, bad stuff; which one would have to do by telling them that stuff is in some way "good" actually. Whatever your framework for determining "good" from "bad".

May I ask what "Chinese censors" have to do with anything? It's completely feasible to me that this is an all-American problem, imposed on us for the sake of brand friendliness; same as it's been for other instances of censorship like network censors on television or the YouTube adpocalypse; and carried over into our language now more generally to end up in a place like lemmy. It's perfectly explained by the attitudes and surface-level friendliness of "polite society" in western culture. I don't see the point in using a foreign adversary to explain it away, or pretending that censorship is anything different when it's done by a government vs private entities that shouldn't have that kind of unchecked authority over what we're allowed to communicate in the first place. I also have no reason to believe China gives any fucks about the vulgarity of English speakers on the English internet. It just seems weird to me to bring them up here.

There's always the option that they believe he's the antichrist and are just rapture accelerationists

I wouldn't recommend reading anything from orwell personally. Dude was a cop and a hitler apologist. I prefer isaac asimov's review of 1984.

In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell and why was the book written?

Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on. However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full. Then, too, he didn't want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class. So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a 'hippie' at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris, consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his earliest books.

He also turned left wing and became a socialist, fighting with the loyalists in Spain in the 1930s. There he found himself caught up in the sectarian struggles between the various left-wing factions, and since he believed in a gentlemanly English form of socialism, he was inevitably on the losing side. Opposed to him were passionate Spanish anarchists, syndicalists, and communists, who bitterly resented the fact that the necessities of fighting the Franco fascists got in the way of their fighting each other. The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain, for he was convinced that if he did not, he would be killed

From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action.*

*And he would be heavily propped up as an author by the CIA for doing so:

George Orwell's novella remains a set book on school curriculums ... the movie was funded by America's Central Intelligence Agency.

The truth about the CIA's involvement was kept hidden for 20 years until, in 1974, Everette Howard Hunt revealed the story in his book Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent. ]

• Martin Chilton. (2016). How the CIA brought Animal Farm to the screen

During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn't much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of socialism seemed too well organised for him.

He wasn't much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters.

This would make him a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, no? Perhaps a bit of projection happening?

Well the larger trucks are exempt from the safety regulations is the reason it plays out that way. The spirit of the law I think is that they have a special use case and aren't supposed to be the default vehicle someone would be driving. But it's a loophole probably written in by the manufacturers themselves and that's just how it was billed to whatever legislator that signed it.

They're "light" trucks under CAFE standards as opposed to real trucks like semis and utility trucks. If they were smaller I think they would be lumped in with all the other normal passenger vehicles.

That wasn't that hard to do in the first place, and certainly isn't worth the drinking water to cool whatever computer made that calculation for you.

Once or twice a day is plenty imo, as long as you're getting enough caloric/nutritional value at those meals and aren't underweight like you said. I'm the same way. Just don't be too hard on yourself.

You can always refuse to fly to Israel :)

Aliexpress will usually display the lowest price out of all the options under a listing. It'll show the wrong picture for it though. So, say you're searching for a 32oz pitcher and there's a listing with options that go from 64oz down to 8oz. It'll display the picture for the one you're searching for but since the price for the smaller one is lower, it'll show you that price to get you to click. Or if you're looking for a mop with a bucket but the listing also has replacement pads under it for the mop, you can get the picture of the mop with the price for the pads. The prices for the individual options stays firm though (within reason, let's say a single day of browsing).

Slavs weren't really considered white back then. "White" as a social construct goes far beyond skin color.

I thought Stewart said in an interview that he actually had/could grow hair back then, said so in his first audition, and the directors just preferred him without it?