Again, people can have multiple takeaways to a story, like:
People can take two things away at once. Indiana is just as corrupt as ever (but in this fun new flavour!) and the reason you use USPS over another carrier is that USPS has federal protections and UPS/FedEx have none of those (and also they are bootlicking scum)
I understand the revenge fantasy, but advocating for the public torture of someone is fucked up, even if they are a monstrous piece of shit like this guy.
So to summarize, people that don’t google things or educate themselves are ‘stupid’ and ‘dunces’ and your example of this, a quote from google that turns out to be wildly incorrect in this context, isn’t evidence I can use, because it’s just an example of how easy it is to look things up.
Nnnno, I’m sorry, you’ve misunderstood - I was airing my (fairly reasonable) doubt that you don’t know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires.
It is, I admit, also not my responsibility to educate those too stupid to google stuff, but just for fun: Electrocution risk, grease fires explode when doused with water, unknown chemicals may interact with water unpredictably.
Water is absolutely used to combat battery fires. It won’t extinguish them, but since firefighting is more complicated than “it puts the water on the flames or else it gets the hose again”, that’s not really the goal. It’s to keep the chassis/batteries cool, douse the surrounding area to prevent the fire from spreading and keep any toxic combustion products from spreading via smoke (yes, that means they get washed into the environment. Not ideal, but better than breathing it.)
Mmhmm mmhmm. So by any chance do you know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires…?
Not amazed, just depressed.
The whine I’ve been seeing the most is that the moderators shouldn’t be able to “crusade” or “fact check” they should just be there to do their job, and trump shouldn’t agree to another debate unless there will be no fact checking.
Yeah, and somehow they think that will reflect positively on them.
At least she took advantage of the lax enforcement herself several times, which was nice to see. Fucking hell though…
Well. At least we didn’t have to worry about that.
Yo but at least were getting another Guillaume David album! And a game or something idk…
I want a source, not because I doubt you but because I desperately need something to distract me from the stress of this political cycle and that sounds fucking hilarious to read about.
I’m curious what definition they were using for what constitutes ‘ultra-processed’. I’ve been having a really hard time narrowing down what an ultra processed food actually is, but this isn’t to take away from the study. Some researchers class them as anything with a ‘non-EU GRAS’ in it, some define it by number of listed ingredients or processing steps, some of them use a definition so strict that even butter or pasteurized milk counts. I think its really important that were finally seeing what the health effects of our hyperprocessed diets are having on us, but I just wish that there was a broadly accepted definition so I didn’t have to look up the source study every single time to find out what they’re talking about.
I get the impression you don’t think this was a good thing to have done, hence the interrogation?
Not very satisfying answers I’m afraid, they were probably 8-10 and I have no idea how we got onto the topic since this was 15+ years ago.
They were actually pretty grateful, feeling it had set them up for a lot of positive realizations down the line. We play D&D now and they’re working on their masters, so I guess they weren’t too badly scarred…
I had a former summer camp kid come up and credit me with having given them their “first existential crisis” (for explaining that when you die, “you just cease”) which I am proud of.
(I am absolutely going to steal the Principle of Objective Things in Space, that’s wonderful.)
There’s a drive philosophers have, to question why things are the way they are, through a very specific lens. Why is it wrong to push a fat man onto the trolley tracks, if his death would save six others? Why is there a difference between the perception of the shadows and the perception of the man with the shadow puppets? Does free will exist, and why does that matter?
These are all the pursuit of meaning, and while they are noble and important questions to ask, they are not questions driven by the pursuit of understanding. Philosophy depends on assumptions about the world that are taken to be incontrovertible, and bases it’s conclusions from there. The capacity for choice is a classic example, as is the assumption of a causal universe, and though they’re quite reasonable things to assume in most cases, it can get mind-bleedingly aggravating when philosophers apply the same approach to pure fields like mathematics, which require rigorous establishment of assumptions before any valid value of truth can be derived.
Which is not to attack philosophers. I want to be clear about that, I bring this up just to emphasize that there are differences in thought between the two disciplines (that occasionally those differences in thought make me want to brain them with a chair is unrelated to the topic at hand). The philosophical study and speculation as to and on the nature of consciousness is perhaps the single oldest field of inquiry humanity has. And while the debate has raged for literal ages, we haven’t really gotten anywhere with it.
And then, recently, scientists (especially computer scientists, but many other fields as well) have shown up and gone “hey look, we can see what the brain looks like, we know how the discrete parts work, we can even simulate it! Look, we’ve got the behavior right here, and… well, maybe… when we get right down to it, it’s just not all that deep?” And philosophers have embraced this, enfolded it into their considerations, accepted it as valid work… and then kept right on asking the exact same questions.
The truth is, as I’ve been able to study it, that ‘consciousness’ is a meaningless term. We haven’t been able to define it for ten thousand years of sitting around stroking our beards, because it’s posited on assumptions that turn out to be, fundamentally, meaningless. It’s assumed there is another layer of abstraction, or that there’s a point or meaning to consciousness, or anything within the Theory of Mind. And I think it’s just too hard to accept that, maybe, it all… doesn’t matter. That we haven’t found any answers not because the question is somehow unanswerable, but because the question was asked in a context that invalidates the entire premise. It’s the philosophical equivalence of ‘null’.
Sufficiently complex networks can compute and self reference, and it turns out when you do that enough, it’ll start referencing The Self (or whatever you’d like to call it). There’s no deeper meaning, or hidden truth. There’s just that, on a machine, a simulation can be run that can think about itself.
Everything else is just… ontological window dressing. Syntactic sugar for the teenage soul.
“Please stare into the spiral, sir”
Edit: Of fucking course there’s already porn of this.