Skip Navigation
Grind rule
  • I always recommend Aldi if it's a local option. It's where I do most of my shopping and I honestly have no idea what people are talking about with increasing grocery prices. It's probably gone up there too, but not enough to notice when I get my receipt.

  • Antinatalism Rule
  • Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.

    When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.

  • Antinatalism Rule
  • For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.

    For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly "opt out" of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.

  • Anon is a test subject
  • I remember seeing a video of a rubber arm experiment that goes through a series of exercises to convince someone's mind that a rubber arm placed against their shoulder is theirs, while the real one is blocked out of sight. Once these phantom sensations are in place, the organizer then hits the rubber hand with a hammer, causing great shock in the subject but no real harm. The immediate panic is exaggerated by the fact their mind can't actually move "their" hand out of the way when they see the swing coming.

    Another study had organizers shine a harmless light on participants' arm for a few minutes and see how they react, allegedly for some sampling purpose. The twist was that they would have the real subjects stay in a waiting room beforehand and watch actors leave while appearing to be in considerable pain from the session where the light was targeting. They then experienced a significant burning sensation from the "laser" despite the organizers insisting it was harmless. Some would go as far as to raise their voice and demand the experiment stop.

    The idea is that people can be convinced that something is painful just from others' reactions to it. This may have been what the organizers were actually testing for, and the electrical shock wasn't real or was barely large enough to felt. But OP was just immune to being influenced. I would expect the ability to follow cues from others has strong correlation to success at socializing, so considering they use 4chan OP might actually just be built different.

  • Spare Trouser please understand it.
  • The jokers are very specifically worded for things like this. Usually they will say they give a bonus if a hand contains a certain (scoring) pattern. A straight flush contains both a straight and a flush, so jokers specifying one such contain trigger will proc. Similarly a full house contains a pair, two pair, and three of a kind too.

    Rarely, jokers will specify you must play a hand instead, which means it must exactly match what is listed as the scoring pattern (except I think royal flush is still a straight flush), similar to planet upgrades. To do list is one example, because otherwise something like a three of a kind roll would be strictly worse than a pair.

    Two pair seems to require two different pairs in a scoring hand to proc, meaning it doesn't count four or five of a kind hands. Some people disagree with this ruling.

  • Paradox Interactive has completely cancelled "Life By You"
  • I only played Stellaris off and on, but I went years without buying an expansion and always thought the new systems were complete and better than what they replaced when I returned. Breaking current saves is frustrating, so I guess you would need to delay an update if you had one you planned on returning to.

    If you didn't know, you can roll back to older versions of steam games with some work. A few games have a built-in system, but most of the tile you have to manually replace files after redownloading the old versions.

  • The truth...
  • Most if not all of these have one side that is clearly in the wrong. Real life is more complicated. Conflicts are usually gray vs. grey, with both sides having identifiable faults and justifications. But even then, if you spent all your time seeing the world from the perspective of certain designated protagonists you'll likely sympathize with them anyway.

  • No-win scenario
  • This is a great response that captured my feelings well. I'm not sure why the replier assumed the ex was initially angry, to me it just sounds like they were telling a story about something that happened to them that day. If I was describing this to a partner and they assumed it was traumatic for me, I would be perhaps a bit flattered by the concern, but mostly just confused. Because that is a significant overreaction to a common experience.

    A professional mechanic is going to know much more about taking care of cars than us, that's what we pay them for. And it's normal (and thoughtful) for them to give people advice that we may need to look into more later on. And if the partner kept thinking I would internalize feelings of inadequacy from these mundane experiences even after I corrected them, it would be both annoying and insulting. If anything, that would be patronizing.

    Also, if I told a story where I described not knowing something that would be useful in the future, and my partner did know about it, I would want them to offer to teach me about it. Accusing your partner of being manipulative just because they try to help you with a problem is both cynical and immature. I pity people who are so jaded as to see genuine offers of help as instead malicious, but I would encourage them to at least try to assume others are engaging in good faith until being given a reason to suspect otherwise.

  • No-win scenario
  • I feel like I'm losing my mind sometimes how people assume the most absurd troll comments are sincere and real. They've kept up the bit in replies too.

    They agreed with the statement, then added an example of being a bystander to something clearly wrong where they chose not to interfere. As a result, the bad thing continued, and the commentor did not care so long as it stopped affecting them. It is really not hard to see the thinly-veiled analogy. And yet people point out the problematic nature of the story, likely after supporting the idea it is parodying.

  • Rule.
  • Is that saying meant to cover baseless assertions about someone's actions? Hillary Clinton was involved in enough shady shit to not need to make stuff up. If someone says that she donated to her opposition's campaign they should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise they just give ammunition to people convincing others to ignore real, substantive criticisms against Trump.

    That article mostly describes her campaign focussing on criticizing stronger and more likely candidates early on when the Republican nomination was still up for grabs. That just makes tactical sense. Otherwise you might as well also accuse her of being involved in a conspiracy to get Vermin Supreme in power too.

    You can say the fact that Hillary is a woman contributed to her loss. You can even argue that it was enough to make the difference in Trump winning. But the main reason she lost is because she was still otherwise a weak candidate overall.

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • If you mean they are donating from their own profits, yes they can write that off. But these customer donations are not income for them and cannot be written off by the company.

    https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

    But people should research charities before giving, some are many times more effective than others.

    https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/best-charities-to-donate-to-2024

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • They do not. It is not income, so they can't claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I'm sure they really aren't worth tracking for an individual.

    https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

  • If you can't make a single sincere counter-argument to your own belief, your stance is driven by emotion rather than logic
  • This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don't have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren't easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

    OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize "the other side" and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.

  • I finally found a rule worth posting
  • For free speech, that would be similar. A company can have a social media account or make broadcasts or advertisements, and having to have an individual as a proxy would just be cumbersome. And yes, that includes things like lobbying. Otherwise, you could have a company pay for private individuals for the service of lobbying on their behalf and essentially have no cap or regulation. Formalizing what they are allowed to do also allows you to go after them for things they aren't, again without needing to prove individual culpability. And if we decide they have too much influence in politics, it gives us a lever to pull to reign them in.

  • I finally found a rule worth posting
  • Corporate personhood is mostly for convenience. Otherwise a company would need an individual to buy and sell corporate property, and they would have to rearrange stuff like that whenever that person dies, retires, or does something else that restricts property use. And it means an individual wouldn't be able to be a tyrant for everyone else working at the company just because everything is in their name.

    Importantly, it makes it much easier for customers to sue, since they only need to show the company wronged them in some way rather than an individual being personally responsible. Usually they would have no way of knowing who makes which decisions and has which responsibilities, and by suing the company as a whole. they don't have to. The same applies for governments, police departments, school boards, etc.

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • But an upvote doesn't mean "I like this". It means you judge the post/comment to be high quality. There's a correlation for sure, but quality is a holistic judgement based on context. It measured by the same spectrums as downvoting: to what extent is the post/comment relevant, original, funny, entertaining, informative, rule-abiding, respectful, etc. We don't need separate buttons for all of these, the voting buttons just wear many hats. You're generally going to think more highly of stuff you agree with or that makes you happy, but accurate bad news and unpopular opinions can still succeed score-wise despite these disadvantages.

  • InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KO
    KombatWombat @lemmy.world
    Posts 0
    Comments 132