. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 583 users / day
- 1.06K users / week
- 2.46K users / month
- 6.03K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.22K Posts
- 123K Comments
- Modlog
Data is pronounced data and not data.
People on Lemmy aren’t “normal” people and shouldn’t use their personal views as the norm.
but we’re on Lemmy 🤔
Probably shouldn’t assume that guy’s personal view is the norm.
Well now I’m just confused.
Honestly good points overall, but I will die on the other egg hill
Complete protection? Certainly not, but melanin does provide some protection from UV radiation. Still important to wear sunscreen because if a melanated individual where to get skin cancer it usually has a higher mortality rate because they’re often caught late.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2671032/
Yep, however my friends and family who have darker skin tend to believe that it makes them immune to it, which isn’t the case, if anything they can get away with using sunscreen with lower fps and/or reapply less often, but everyone should protect their skin regardless.
Can confirm i am a melanated individual who doesn’t use sunblock as often as i should (but im also never outside LMFAO)
But yes you’re absolutely correct but I just wanted to clarify that we should be using sunblock but nevertheless it’s still not as much of a risk to us
We should be boycotting all art and entertainment from Big Media in its entirety, but nobody is willing to do so
Python sucks.
Not only is it extremely inefficient, it is also a pain in the ass to work with if you have to use APIs that heavily rely on dynamic type wrapping and don’t provide stubs. Static analysis via Pylance is not possible then and you’re basically poking around in the dark, increasing the difficulty enourmously to get to know such an API. Even worse if there isn’t even a halfway decent documentation.
Agreed. I don’t understand the people who claim it’s easier to work with, or better for prototyping.
Automatic typing exists. Type casting exists and is even handled automatically in some scenarios. Languages like java and C# can manage memory for you, and have the same portability and runtime requirement as python.
Prototyping in python and then moving to another language later makes no sense to me at all.
Comparing Python to c++ seems disingenuous, Python is not a replacement for c++, it should be compared to bash, PHP or maybe R. Don’t get mad that a hammer is not a good screwdriver.
I suppose you’re referring to the article I’ve linked. As I see it: If an increasing amount of applications world are running with Python, then energy and time consumption are important aspects. Not only cost wise but especially since we’re grilling our planet. Therefore, comparing with more efficient languages is indeed meaningful.
I thought you were referring to Monty Python like op did and I thought: what the heck is he talking about?
What always pissed me off is the indentation/codeblock style. Most languages you can write in notepad and be fine, if you don’t use a proper editor in python, you’re going to spend time hunting down indent issues.
thank you.
I really don’t get how so many people find Python “ergonomic.” kwargs and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race. they break type hinting and intellisense, and there’s all kinds of proxy class shenanigans that all the libraries use. matplotlib is a horrible experience because there’s just a kitchen sink of options, and it’s hard to dynamically update plots. if there were a TypeScript-like dialect of Python I wouldn’t have problems, but Python’s type hinting is absolutely wretched.
I really want Julia to succeed.
I absolutely hate the package management in it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found a cool python project, downloaded it from GitHub then tried to install requirements. And it turns into a huge nightmare of trying to find compatible packages. It’ll be like you need wheel v3.1.0 so I try to install that,.then it’s like no you can’t do that because it’s not compatible with numpy v79.84.1 that you have installed. So then you search and try to find which version is compatible, then install they go to install wheel again,.and it’s like no you need pandas,.so you install pandas but it like sorry I’m not compatible with the version of numpy you installed.
I’m a newb still but was put off by having to use “Conda” to manage a ton of virtual Python environments ultra-specific to the applications they were designed for. Blegh!
I literally almost failed a uni course bc how shitty python packaging is. And well, maybe I am lazy, but the horrors of daring to get fucking deps were too much.
Just use Julia ffs. 😭😭
Surprised to see Java that high tho. I have been using it for uni stuff and it’s not bad.
Feels overly complex on some areas (gradle??) and I am not a fan of OOP but still relatively good.
What is your problem with static typing
I’m not super fond of dynamic typing either. I like untyped or uni-typed languages like ‘everything is an array’ (APL) or ‘everything is an integer’ (Forth, assembly).
I’m of the same opinion as Chuck Moore who once observed, “Strong typing merely creates errors so that they can be detected.” In my experience, the amount of complexity added by these systems is staggering. To such a degree that they cause more errors than they prevent. More types, more opportunities to use them incorrectly, after all.
I also prefer the ‘build the program while it’s running’ workflow, which is inhibited by static typing.
One time I found a C++ library where everything was of a single type, the “untype” essentially. It removed all type safety, in other words, to allow pure binary access to all data. I mean, there’s an occasion now and then when one needs that sort of thing, but I found in every case it was just a headache. Now I know there’s two people like that, haha.
Well, I don’t agree with you, but I respect a hot take about coding when I see one. My own a-little-less-spicy-than-yours take is that OOP is overated.
Can we share the first hill?
Rather than banning that just tax the shit out of people who have multiple homes
I’d even be willing to let someone have their lake/hunting cabin/whatever and not tax too much but people are greedy and we’re far past that point. Once you start accumulating 5-10 homes, taking them off the market for other buyers, the taxes should increase exponentially.
We cAn tax them 1 home for every excess home and donate that home to a homeless person
You could just build housing with the revenue from taxing it
The Welsh did that (or just some Welsh councils?), pretty sure it was very popular among the people actually living in the area.
It is “Math” and not “Maths”
I think it’s context dependent.
The field is called mathematics, but I see math as a short form of mathematic or mathematical.
Calling something a ‘math’ question or a ‘maths’ question both make sense. But something like “I hate math” sounds like you hate a singular mathematic, which sounds weirder to me than “I hate maths” (the field).
Don’t say “acronym” when you mean “abbreviation”!
“Acronym” specifically refers to an initialism that forms a new word. For example,
It’s acro- (height) -nym (word) - a word that exists on top of / above other words.
In contrast “NIH” is not an acronym because it isn’t pronounced or read as a word. It’s appropriate to say, “‘NIH’ is an abbreviation” or “‘NIH’ is an initialism”. But saying “‘NIH’ is an acronym” is wrong!
There are knights that may disagree.
Oh… oh dear!
There shouldn’t be borders.
I’d one up that and say there shouldn’t be countries. The concept makes no sense. US propaganda always tries to make China and Russia out to be the “enemy” meanwhile when its Trump doing bad things, the world also says its the US causing problems. All of the sudden, what one or two bad people do somehow means the whole country is at fault. If we took out all the bad people and chucked them out, we could all just be people. No nations, no nothing—just people.
Who sets laws and enforces them? But otherwise totally in favour of returning to monke
There are many, many systems of governance out there and plenty of democratic systems are wildly different from the ‘liberal democracy’ we’re familiar with. Cheran in Mexico is an interesting example, five minute documentary.
Nationalism also works the other way. The wins of the privileged are framed as ‘WE’RE winning!!’. Big companies exploit you more and profit? It’s spun as The Economy is going well. GDP went up. That sounds good for you, doesn’t it?
deleted by creator
Daylight savings time needs to be gotten rid of.
The imperial measurement standard needs to be gotten rid of.
The UN security council veto should be able to be overridden by the general assembly.
Collective responsibility for a democracy’s crimes should be a thing.
The country of Israel should be moved to an open area of land with no people on it. Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, or the jungles of South America.
There should be a corporate death penalty when they commit crimes.
All kids should have food.
All humans should have access to very basic water and food. Like beans and rice for everyone, no exceptions.
Basic sanitation is a human right.
Religion should not be respected any more than any other bag of philosophical ideas. Stupid parts of religions should be called out and discussed, not hallowed and treated with respect even if its utter nonsense.
The red nub on IBM/Lenovo laptops is far superior to a touchpad
My current work laptop has it. I’ve tried to use it a couple times but I just can’t get used to it.
I believe you are referring to the Thinkpad clit.
I was about to comment and correct the poster that it was called a nipple, but you are correct. its a clit.
Summer is a crappy season, fall is superior.
I like spring because its not exhaustingly warm, and I like being outside in rain anyway.
allergies
Imagine not being able to go outside because of plant cum (pollen), couldn’t be me.
spoiler
/s hay fever and allergies suck.
Winter totally trumps other seasons. It’s just so cozy.
I tell people I’m weird because I like winter.
I’m a spring bitch cuz it’s the furthest from winter
But where I live, winter is BRUTAL
I suppose its very telling what a person’s favorite season is by where they live or were raised.
Scandi, canadian ? Or worse 😐??
Is there worse than Canada? Hahaha
I suppose Russia, since I wouldn’t count Antarctica as only science bois live there.
The best season is the short window in spring where it’s warm out but the bugs aren’t out yet.
Agreed, the sea is still warm too. In spring the sea is still freezing.
Im camping on your hill.
Not shower every day depends very much on the situation.
In summer there are certain coworkers who most fuckingly definitely should shower every day unless I’m allowed more wfh.
I think “shower before you start stinking” is a decent rule to live by
Along with “it’s sometimes hard to detect your own stink”
And we’re back to every day
People should be educated on FOSS software & Fediverse and try to use it whenever possible.
Being vegan is a moral base line.
It’s not that i disagree, but can you elaborate on that?
Inflicting pain and suffering is bad, especially if done for selfish reasons, like pleasure (and tbh if someone were to disagree with that, I’d dont want to talk to them). Exploiting animals is exactly that, taste pleasure to be exact.
classic first worlder with their elevated standard of living:
I am not disagreeing with you there is a fine line between acceptable and gluttonous, but acting holier than though, just cause you insistently chew grass and destroy your gut biome doesn’t help the animals
Would you be happier with the moral baseline being “Whoever can go vegan, should”?
BTW. there is only one world :)
eating meat doesn’t inflict any pain or suffering though.
It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it’s a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.
all of that can be true without necessitating veganism
Moral baseline is not a necessity. It’s a comparison point. Basically, if you’re not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I’m not vegan, I’m vegetarian, so I’m in the negatives I guess.
you are splitting hairs
I’m not a utilitarian. most people aren’t
Then I guess for you there is no way to outweigh not being vegan. Consider utilitarianism :)
i have considered it, and its epistemic issues make it impractical as a basis of deciding correct actions.
Oh, you need to employ bayesianism to make utilitarianism even begin to make sense. Regardless of whether I might ultimately find utilitarianism contradictory, Bayesianism is the hill I’d die on.
none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.
Describe a way to eat meat that doesn’t require prior suffering then.
an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn’t cause it to have been produced.
I am not interested in discussing meta-physics. For you to eat meat, an animal suffered. That is the point.
eating meat doesn’t cause an animal to have suffered.
That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
Isn’t this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
none of that is causal.
I used “so” and “hence” in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?
people have free will. their actions can only be said to be caused by their own will.
A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.
You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that – but you can’t deny that if you hadn’t done X, they wouldn’t have done Y.
meat producers are responsible for their own actions. no one else causes them.
I understand where you’re coming from, but there’s a problem with your philosophy.
it’s well-understood by economists that the market behaves according to mathematical rules. The exact rules in question may be debated, but regardless it’s clear from observation that markets are very effective in some scenarios at deriving optimal response to their environments (at least in some scenarios). Remove one meat producer from the market, it will inevitably be replaced by another one that’s just as good, or so the theory goes. As a result, it’s rather useless to say that meat producers are responsible for their own actions and that no one else causes them – because in fact, the actions are caused by the market’s environment. You can say it, sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that you, the consumer, exercise control over the market.
If the production of meat is immoral, and the producers don’t meaningfully affect the quantity of meat produced, then it is actually the fault of the consumer (who will not be replaced simply because they stop eating meat) that the meat is produced.
(IMO, most political ideologues who are steeped in theory agree that markets behave like this, but disagree on how or whether to stop them.)
this is storytelling, not evidence. if we can’t agree that meat producers have free will, and i am only responsible for my own actions, we have a fundamental disagreement that won’t be resolved on lemmy. but ask yourself: at what point do meat producers become responsible for tehir own actions?
they become responsible for their own actions when quitting the industry would reduce the harm done to animals.
obviously we disagree. i hold them accountable for their actions regardless.
Regardless of whether the meat industry itself is a problem, you surely must admit that consuming meat from the industry only feeds the meat industry.
whether I do or not, the industry continues to grow.
Yeah, due to increased demand. Let’s be clear here, I’m not talking about “how much difference can just one person make?” – if you eat meat, you eat one person’s worth of meat. That one person’s worth of meat is due to you. If you did not eat meat, there would be one less person eating meat, and the meat industry would be that much smaller; a couple fewer animals might be slaughtered as a result over the course of your lifetime (I have no idea how many animals the typical person eats tbh).
I’m not claiming that one person becoming vegetarian will bring a halt to the meat industry.
if I died today there is no reason for me to believe any industry would get smaller as a result, and I would of course stop purchasing everything.
there are more vegans now more than ever, and more meat produced. being vegan doesn’t decrease the size of the industry.
Obviously not. Eating meat increases the size of the meat industry. If twice as many people ate meat, that’d be twice as good for the meat industry – I think. At least some constant factor times better. I would have to double-check my old textbook to see what classical economics predicts, there might be diminishing returns.
eating meat doesn’t cause people in the meat industry to do anything. they get to choose what they do.
Are you just trolling at this point? Do you even understand what you’re saying about causality? Are we debating semantics?
Edit: this is like saying you have zero ethical qualms with somebody hiring an assassin to kill somebody. Yeah, the assassin ultimately does the deed, but you’re still paying for it. If you had not hired the assassin, the person would not have died – looks like cause and effect to me.
Similarly, you should understand that if you choose to eat meat, that benefits the meat industry and more animals will die as a result. Put aside your definition of “cause” for a moment – you must agree with me that this is true right?
I pity that you spent this long talking to a very poor LLM set out to troll people. Either that, or a human so far gone there’s truly no point in talking to them, as they deluded themselves into believing that the world is completely seperated from their actions.
I think I learned a little from this interaction. But it was more cathartic than I would have thought to be honest. That was two accounts btw.
How are you going to get vitamin B12 while being vegan? As far as I know it’s not possible.
By supplementing it. As should people who are not vegan, cause B12 is one of the most common deficiencies.
Counter argument, I need to eat and I can catch seafood myself without contributing towards capitalism. Isn’t a full diet but its a start. Can make it into a full meal with some rice.
How is that a counter argument?
I need to eat food. You can’t really just state the moral base line is not to eat
You don’t need to eat animals tho?
Must be nice being rich enough to eat what ever you feel like having. Some of us are not so fortunate and have to make do with what is available.
Rice and beans are only for the wealthy I guess.
Assuming fish don’t have feelings, it is fine. But if fish have 0.1% the moral weight of a human being, can you say you’re worth more than 1000 fish?
no, it’s not
oh but it is
saying it doesn’t make it true
Right back at you
I’m not the one making a positive claim.
Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying “no it’s not.” Also, as far as I’m aware, there’s no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.
Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So – burden of proof lies on you I’d say.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.
dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?
why make an unsupported claim?
ITT: people listing the hills they’d die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.
removed by mod
Anytime someone mentions veganism, there has to be a discussion on plants. Interesting how you suddenly care about vegetables.
Vegetables are not sentient, and even if they were, it requires fewer plants if you eat them directly instead of feeding them to an animal first for years, and then killing the animal.
I’m actually not interested in talking to you, but perhaps someone will read this and realize how absurd it is to compare chopping vegetables to slicing the throat of an animal.
removed by mod
Oh I am sure you are completely honest! As the good plants rights activist that you clearly are, you of course already know that it takes many more plants to raise animals for slaughter than eating them directly.
And on a more serious note: plants don’t feel shit. They don’t have a central nervous system to even process a concept like pain.
A kid i went to school with couldnt feel pain due to nerve damage. He loved playing knuckles but no one could beat him. So you belive if he didn’t feel pain it was okay to use brass knuckle against him.
You just called me a piece of shit. I am sure you have better things to do with your life (like playing knuckles) than talking to a piece of shit.
removed by mod
Ah no more “”“arguments”“” so you are going for the ad hominem huh? Good luck with that.
BTW. I am eating a big juicy plant right now.
removed by mod
*bigger ass than you :)