Vespair @ Vespair @lemm.ee

you're probably an idiot. I know I am.

---

Read more

Posts

75

Comments

1,667

Joined

2 yr. ago

bro fr

you:

True but you need to know more than someone who only has a GED is going to know about macroeconomics and diplomacy.

me:

A degree doesn’t prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.

The topic started about Swift, but your claim was bigger than her. Thus my response was to your larger claim, not about Swift.

Yes, and presumably anyone in the position we're talking about is somebody who would have devoted a decade to their education in the field. Do you think I'm talking about "I do my own research" types? No, I'm talking about real actual auto-didacts.

Definitionally we aren't talking about "your average person who has a GED," Jesus fucking Christ.

You can absolutely self-teach math and macroecon. I'm not trying to claim that Swift has, or would, or that it is an easy thing to teach, but the idea that it is somehow outside the bounds of the auto-didact is absurd.

A degree doesn't prove a person actually applied themselves and absorbed the information, and auto-didacts can absolutely study macroecon and diplomacy.

Oh weird, they're showing up under the "Chat" option for some reason?

I'm so confused by this post.

So this is a weird one.... I'm seeing in the post details that there's 8 comments on this post, but none are showing as visible to me.

I'm also not seeing anything in the modlog for this post.... so where are all the comments?

Did we decide to start fucking shadowbanning on Lemmy or something or is there some other explanation here?

If you know about the Tree-star, it's time to have a doctor check out your B-star.

Thank you! So it seems that there might be something to this claim, as at least some toilets in Aussieland are flushing in a "different" direction. Now what needs to be better evaluated is how consistent the direction here in America is in the first place. Personally I assume that there is some kind of convention established in American plumbing as I feel like I've never seen a toilet flush a direction contrary to my expectation, but I do concede this could be one of those things where we subconsciously ignore it.

Man, I fucking love LJS and wish I had one within driving distance.

Nothing like ordering a fish & chicken plank combo and not knowing which of the identical diamond-shaped planks is which before biting.

...

It's like people who drink bean water making fun of other people who drink bean water, and attaching way too goddamn much to all of it.

So I'm a little confused here, because yes that article states that the Coriolis effect isn't responsible for anything as small as a sink or tub drain going either direction, and that it is based on the angle of the water going into the system (obviously, of course), but I don't see it saying anywhere that toilets don't flush in reverse in Australia. Is there a difference in the convention between US/UK and Aussie toilet manufacturing that might for whatever reason cause water to enter the bowls at different angles? Do we use the exact same toilets? Frankly that article doesn't tell me whether Aussie toilets do or do not spin in reverse, just that if they do it is due to plumbing variables rather than the often falsely-claimed Coriolis effect, so it feels sort of like it's answering an unasked tangent in this context rather than the question at hand.

Personally, I think it's extremely unlikely. That's why I think Apatheism is the way:

The theist says there is a God with certainty, the atheist says there is no God with certainty, the agnostic says we cannot be certain the existence of God, and the apatheist says "guys why are we wasting our time stressing out about unknowables? Let's go get a pizza."

This suggests a cosmic reason or purpose, yet I find no evidence for that conclusion exists.

There just might simply not be a "why?"

Absolutely. But the harrowing part is realizing this applies to some folks we deem delusional in the context of our world too.

And was probably said by various people before that too, whatever. The point is this is an obvious derivative.

Honestly no joke, I do hope the future is one where we eschew all this needless religiously-borne body shame. We are the only animal on the planet that feels the need to be ashamed of our genitalia. That's weird. And I think it's weird as hell that for the vast majority of us, we have no idea what like 20% of the bodies of our very closest friends and relatives look like. That's crazy to me - I don't know what 20% of my very best friend actually looks like.

So yeah, I desperately hope humanity in the future has figured out how get past this unnecessary shame.

My friend, we cannot even prove that our entire life is real.

We know the human mind is capable of extreme delusion, we can observe this in mentally unwell patients who are convinced their delusions are reality.

So if we acknowledge the human mind is capable of delusion, delusion so strong to be certain in its veracity, then there is no way that we can confidentially conclude that anything and everything we know isn't delusion.

So in short, there is no way to definitively prove the internet is real because we can't even definitely prove that reality is real.

I could be laying in my crib right now having imagine this and every interacting leading up to it entirely, just waiting to wake up. Literally every single thing I think I know could actually fully and completely not exist. The only thing I can be certain of in all reality is that I exist because I am considering my reality: I think, therefore I am.

Somebody really enjoyed the success of the quicksand tweet and was hoping for an encore

Have you considered trying to think of the vocals as another music element rather than lyrical? Like if a musician scats, can you enjoy that? And if so, can you not just consider the poor enunciation a sort of scatting and stop trying to pull words out of it?

Not saying you're right or wrong, just curious where the limits on this are