I'm sorry you have to work during the eclipse. I understand that it's moot whether or not you would enjoy it when it isn't something that you have time for anyways, and that would make me frustrated by everyone talking about it too.

I don't really believe you that don't care about any of that tho lol. Maybe not as much as your responsibilities, but no way you don't care at all.

"it's just the moon" is honestly a wild opinion to me.

It's just the massive orb that circles our world through all of known history, which bends the oceans and tectonic crusts with it's movement, that inspired incredible amounts of art and culture, and is about to create a phenomenon which blots out the sun, in an incredible coincidence of size, position and timing, as the latest iteration of a pattern that may well have been the original inspiration for ways of thinking that went on to become the foundation for all of scientific thought. Nbd.

Permanently Deleted

Don't forget local "no camping" laws meant to keep homeless people from sleeping in their cars on public property/public parking.

It never reffered to a gate, that didn't exist at the same time. But camels do supposedly fit through said gate, if they get on their knees.

Of course all bullshit to help rich people feel like being wealthy wasn't a sin if they were "humble" about it.

Ah ok I misunderstood your comment.

I had just read the thing and had that it only applied to US fresh in my head. Then I read your comment and assumed "here" referred to US also. My bad.

Do you have anything to prove that? I'm serious, This feels like it shouldn't be binding but I can find no legal reasons or information that it wouldn't be, and I would really like to find that.

Seems ludicrous that a company can be like "OK STARTING IN 30 DAYS NO SUING US ALLOWED. IF YOU DON'T SPECIFICALLY TELL US WITHIN THOSE 30 DAYS THAT YOU MIGHT SOMEDAY NEED TO SUE US THEN YOU NEVER CAN FOREVER." But then a lot of stuff here is ludicrous.

Oh absolutely.

You just seemed like you were trying to provide info, so I added the last bit to... Add more info.

Hey so the cosmic ray thing was a really popular meme but the glitch was probably just a crooked cartidge. It's funny to imagine a cosmic ray doing this but the odds are so low as to be functionally impossible, and this kind of glitch can happen with dirty or loose connections.

https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/8767558

Someone else already linked this video so here is a link to their comment

"than I thought you were"? I'm not the person you were talking to before.

What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that "actually gambling isn't pure luck"? And what, in your estimation, is "pure luck"?

The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven't proven your point, you've been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.

This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don't even agree it is a real distinction... The act of deciding to gamble doesn't in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.

Honestly you aren't even the worst in this thread but you did kinda open the door to some shit

Not that I don't think you're dumb as bricks for your "what does skin color have to do with this" comment. You should know damn well what skin color has to do with this

Honestly that last paragraph just doesn't mesh with everything else you said. What on earth are your beliefs?

Maybe there is some hypothetical moral ideal on how people should behave in internet disagreements but I'm just trying to get you to be more realistics lmao

It happens to be an instance federated with several idealogy-heavy instances, while itself being a general use instance with simple account creation procedures.

It makes it a popular choice for people who want to make multiple accounts for trolling, as well as people who have unpopular (as far as lemmy goes) ideologies. You can hopefully understand the kind of friction that could create and the reputation is the outcome.

You probably could have figured this out yourself if you just... Looked around. You shouldn't expect people who are in disagreement with you to explain everything.

I feel like the incomplete explanation should have been more than you expected in the first place

The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So.... Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks

If this is your main argument then:

...it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.

Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious? I still stand by that it's not really relevant so I'll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.

I'll repeat something I said in another comment:

It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.

You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.

I'm sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I'm gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.

It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.

Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :

However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes "please don't say mean things about my group" bullshit.