There was a subreddit for everything. “The front page of the internet.” You could find subs for birds shitting on things, with buff guy arms photoshopped onto them.

That was what attracted me to Reddit. I first subscribed to things like AskReddit, NoStupidQuestions, TodayILearned, AmITheAsshole, MildlyInteresting, WhatIsThisThing, … stuff like that.

Latter I dove more deeply into niches like AskPhilosophy, LearnPython, JavaScript, LinuxQuestions, HomeAutomation, Consciousness, PostgreSQL, …

Then I started also using it for news…

It had everything. Every little division had its own subculture. If I didn’t like one, I could find alternatives — plenty of them.

It also became somewhat of an archive too, given that you’d use Google to search Reddit. You could find anything on there.

I mostly learned of Lemmy because I began to despite Reddit. That’s not really an effective marketing strategy. Lemmy needs something more than “Fediverse” when at least half of the population isn’t willing to understand what that is or outright accept it as a necessary solution. Lemmy needs to compete, giving more people a reason to participate. If it can’t incentivize more people to participate, then more people aren’t going to participate.

I don’t know what that looks like for Lemmy. It’s not whatever Lemmy does right now, though.

Write off the loan and cancel part of it? I’m not familiar with those mechanics, but nor did I think they were required for this system to be evil anyhow. What are you referring to?

I’ve heard that these people don’t pay back the loans. They borrow until they die, or other loopholes. The debt doesn’t vanish, though. The system is designed to remove the burden of an active debt if you can dance to its tune.

Also, I wasn’t saying you’re doing the same thing as them… so I’m not sure what “this” is when you say “this is not the same thing.”

I was just saying that you contribute to the economy, by working in it and paying into it. I’m not saying that you’re happy about. Just acknowledging that the economy which is very real for you DOES recognize the pretend forecasted money which you rejected. The economy legitimizes it already. So your issue is with the system, not necessarily with some rhetoric people use.

Yeah the bank will come after your assets, but really I’m just trying to show you the enemy here. It’s the fact that the system legitimizes the very thing which you call illegitimate.

News shouldn’t be allowed to have ratings if it’s actually news. Or rather, ratings should be provided by third party audits rather than crowdsourced opinions. The opinions of people en mass is overwhelmingly flooded with the desire to be entertained and have nonstop feeds. I hate saying what other people should do… but those people should be looking to other sources for such content, and news should be using more mature sources for feedback than their potential audience. News prioritizing such feedback is bound to grow by feeding off those people’s attention, provided by succumbing to their desires. It’s not a good model for news.

True, but also you participate in an economy that legitimizes predicted money. I mean…. Even rental homes/apartment complexes can get loans before they open, based on predicted rent income.

104 people dying in a car crash yesterday says jack shit about plane safety when you haven’t normalized the data for the fact that a lot more people are driving than flying.

What if addiction is just a negatively associated instance of normal psychological processes?

Intuition is kind of like addition, in the sense that I didn’t ask for it; it simply seems to invade the mind. Intuition can help you get home in the dark — good. Alcohol can make you feel like you feel to drink to be normal — bad. Both cases are invasive thoughts, in a sense, no?

deleted by creator

You still haven’t explained why being a foreign head of state is any different than having a job in the US. Your point was their devotion, but so what?

Is your concern that their vote reflects their political beliefs? That’s silly, don’t you think? Of course it reflects their political beliefs.

Is your concern that their political beliefs may reasonably be aligned with the destruction of the US? That’s a bit far fetched, don’t you think?

But regardless, he’s an American. If he wants to destroy the state, shouldn’t he be free to vote that way?

Or, are you concerned that, by acting as head of state, his actions would arguable be that of the state he represents? Meaning… it’s not Leo XIV voting, it’s the Pope?

You don’t make that same conclusion when the president votes, do you?

Should Trump not be allowed to vote because he’s the head of MAGA? Surely MAGA is worse than Pope, right?

I’m really struggling to find the coherency in your perspective. Can you help me out?

At some point, I gotta wonder if they’re claiming it was stolen because they did cheat while their efforts did not work. The logical conclusion for such a person could be: someone must have cheated harder.

I’ve never heard quantum immortality described that way.

What I’ve always understood is that…

even if you are so delusional to believe in the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics…

While also believing that your experience ceases after death,

Then it’s completely reasonable to conclude: the only versions of you which would continue experiencing are the version where you did not die.

From that framing, it’s more of a testament to survivor bias. If you committed to blowing your brains out with 10,000 rounds — the only version of you which will experience having done that is the version which had the gun jam 10,000 times in a row. Then again, with a crocodile pit. Then again, with a batch of acid. Then again, …

The others will be dead. The only version of you available to testify toward your own mortality would be those which seem to miraculously be immortal.

…

But even then it doesn’t make sense, does it? After all, infinite possibilities means infinite instantiation of you which never went on a death spree. So really, distribution isn’t a concept that works here is it?

Though I know you can technically argue some infinite sets are larger or smaller than other infinite sets. However, I have no idea if that could have any bearing on this theoretical mumbojumbo.

You’re right, … I even read that. Then my high ass forgot. I’m so sorry for my stupidity.

deleted by creator

Don’t stop there. You’re describing culture toward atrocity. A culture of stuplimity, ignorance, false exceptionalism, Christian nationalism, and liberalist imperialism.

Where did those cultural practices come from?

Why are these the qualities of American leaders?

Why do Americans seem blind to it all?

insufficient to support a population of one million using ISS-level (98%) recycling for more than about one century.

What happens to that 2% on the ISS?

Would the difference in design necessarily benefit a moon base more than the ISS in this regard?

Because on the moon, you can build a dome. You’ll have access to ground. … not sure if any of that matters, but it seems like it might.

Pretty sure they got some hamster milk on iCarly back in the day.

Honestly, I would have guessed either wheat or corn. They make so much shit with wheat and corn. Not obvious shit.

deleted by creator

The contradiction claim was wrong. You can examine literal meaning and social usage without contradicting yourself. I withdrew that objection.

Regardless

“but feelings aren’t physical changes”

You attributed that position to me immediately after quoting my explicit statement that nothing I’d argued required consciousness to be nonphysical. Distinguishing a rock undergoing erosion from someone feeling pain does not place either event outside physics. My point was that undergoing a physical change is not, by itself, the same as feeling something. You turned that into a denial that feelings are physical, then mocked the position you’d supplied.

Your earlier “Experience is not subjective. It is contextual” doesn’t establish an incompatibility, either. I’m using “subjective” to describe experience as felt by the subject—not a supernatural property. Explaining how perception depends on someone’s body, memories and circumstances is compatible with that description. Rejecting a nonphysical explanation doesn’t rebut a position that never required one.

Your answer stipulated a person and described the harmful stimulus as pain. But building pain into the premise doesn’t establish when detecting harmful input amounts to feeling pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain explicitly states:

“Pain and nociception are different phenomena. Pain cannot be inferred solely from activity in sensory neurons.”

Nociception is the nervous system’s encoding of potentially damaging stimuli. Distinguishing that from pain doesn’t disprove a physical account of consciousness, but it shows that the distinction I raised has a concrete scientific use. Saying both are physical does not make them interchangeable; saying pain is physical does not identify which physical processes constitute it.

Then there’s your claim that I said:

“we could never actually connect”

That was your characterization of my question about whether a verbal-report test actually identifies experience. The passage you quoted asks whether that connection is established—not whether establishing it is impossible. Asking how to validate a proposed test is not backpedalling from a definition. Nor does saying something isn’t directly observable rule out indirect evidence. You inserted permanent impossibility into an open question, then ridiculed me for it.

Your valid criticism deserved a concession, and got one. It does not make those other attributions accurate. Calling me a “subhuman bug” isn’t what makes them wrong; the passages above are.

For all the lectures about straw men, you’ve supplied several of your own: for two, a nonphysical position I expressly rejected and an impossibility claim I never made. I’ve corrected my bad argument. Your contempt is not a substitute for correcting yours.

You’re just a fucking idiot, and I cannot believe I have allowed such a monkey to waste this much of time to begin with.

Shame, I don’t seem to mind.

deleted by creator

They probably had a lot more time on their hands, with a culture where sitting to watch tv was an unavailable form of avoidance entertain.

I can’t imagine this would be too difficult to figure out. Heat with a consistent supply of fuel should burn at about the same temperature, right? So, if you can create separate chambers where heat must travel through a medium like stone before it can heat the next chamber, you can somewhat control the heat… meaning you’ll have chambers of different temperatures, each decreasing as the chamber gets further from the fire source.

There’s probably ways to test the temperature without a thermometer, too. For example, how long does it take a small cup of water to start boiling? If you touch a weed to the side of the chamber, does it instantly light aflame or simply char? Etc.