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.
“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.
Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth
Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off
Well if there is no practical point in our communicating, with our senses of morality being so alien to each other, could you at least avoid doing it anyways for the sake of being so insulting to me?
I don’t need that condescension, thanks, I’m all topped up.
Not to be rude but this is an oversimplified and incorrect view of voting and is the exact kind of mindset I am against.
If you try to insist non-voting is somehow support for a specific candidate, what does that say about people who can’t vote for personal/health reasons? If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can’t get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?
Additionally, although less significant, I can’t consider it morally wrong, ever, to vote third party. Strategically wrong, sure, it often is, but the point of a vote is to choose, and I can’t blame someone for using their right to choose to be an idealist rather than a strategist. And honestly, in an election like this with so much frustration towards the major parties, 3rd party has a better chance of winning than usual… although I’m sure that is a stressful and unpleasant thing to hear if you dislike third parties.
That’s the basis of what the spoiler effect is and why it’s a problem to consider, yeah.
I just think it is better to be clear about how it works and what it means. Non-voting and third party votes being described as explicit support for trump has some troubling implications.
I just want to point out a thing said in this, that I have seen said hundreds of other times, which is not correct.
Due to the spoiler effect, a leftist vote for a third party candidate is essentially a vote for trump
This is incorrect, most charitably interpreted as an exaggeration, but it is said so often I think people are misunderstanding the spoiler effect.
The spoiler effect is real and it can suppress a victory of not-as-bad candidates if they have a popular opposition, but it is never as bad as “essentially voting for trump”. It is equivalent to not voting at all, at worst.
And it is also a simplification of the situation to imply that the spoiler effect only affects democrats. There is a similar thing going on with conservative third parties.
I feel like if it really mapped so cleanly onto the trolley problem, there wouldn’t need to be 4 paragraphs of text included throughout the meme in an attempt to head off any arguments…
Why are you here? What is this for?
The institution of the police is like an occupying army.
If another country invaded and occupied, would it make any sense at all to join that invading army in an attempt to “be better” and “improve things from within the system”? Or, if you joined that invading army, would you just be a traitorous bastard participating in the subjugation of your own people?
ACAB because it is the job description to be a bastard. ACAB the same way all firemen fight fires; it is the main thing they are employed to do.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Apple is interested in maintaining full control of what apps can be on their platform and how they are presented because it gives them power over negotiations with companies that build the apps. They are basically able to “name their price” and make sure they are always getting as big of a cut as they would like.
The EU is interested in not letting them do that because that kind of “negotiating” behavior is pretty well understood to be anti-consumer. Increased costs for app developers are usually passed directly onto the consumer through the prices. And it tends to get worse over time.
No company anywhere wants to use webapps anymore. Apps installed on devices are free advertising and access to user data. It is frustrating but the way it is, on all devices, already. So basically the answer is the same as why can’t most apps that already exist on all devices anyways just be web apps.
I don’t think sideloaded would be quite the right word, this is about access to other app stores (like the google play store or amazon app store, or more niche ones) that would then formally and automatically install and maintain apps exactly the same way the apple app store already does, presumably just with a different library of apps to choose from.
Apps from another app store would need no access to any API by apple unless they were specifically interacting with apple services, AFAIK. Which, would be under the full control of apple and apple chooses who uses it, how, and how much they use it, but that is already the case regardless.
I tried to answer your confusions as best as I can do with what I know already. As for why people take this so personally, I would say it is a complex topic combining businesses that are constantly trying to drive each other out of business with the social effects of making the tool people use to communicate a status symbol. And it has been brewing for long enough that people are getting extreme opinions and fostering long term grudges based on personal experience, to the point that some people have some real hatred towards anyone who has a different phone OS than them.
This was a long comment to type and I did it while laying in bed half asleep. Sorry if it has a bunch of typos or errors lol
Ok
This is a guess but I would assume the bottling process in water bottling plants, and the manufacture of the disposable water bottles, contributes to the amount of microplastics more than passive decay of plastic. Really my main points/beliefs are:
We should be careful making claims based on scientific studies to make sure they are accurate to the study, especially when it comes to claims about how a solution for a problem may be reached. A slight misunderstandings can cause good motivations to make things worse (like people collectively throwing away all their reusable water bottles and buying NEW water bottles made with metal, effectively turning millions of usable waterbottles into trash and creating demand for more polluting industry).
Plastic pollution, microplastics, and everything related, is an overproduction industry problem, not an individual responsibility problem. While a concern for ones own health is individual, it’s also almost impossible to meaningfully avoid microplastics with the current situation. The responsibility doesn’t rest on the shoulder of consumers to collectively make good choices, but on governments to regulate and for owners of industry to be held accountable for the damage they have caused.
That is for bottled sold water, not from water bottles that you refill.
I’m sure using plastic anywhere in any form contributes to microplastics absorbed into ones body, but there is probably a difference? It’s just important to be specific what a study says and not accidentally make assumptions.
Also though, I’m gunna keep using my refillable plastic bottle. Trying to manage intake of microplastics based on how much plastic I interact with seems tedious to the point of being impossible. Plastics are the kind of thing that need regulated. And while I might spare myself some microplastics hypothetically, it’s not like the water bottle won’t break down into microplastics in the dump if I replaced it with a metal bottle.
It reads to me as a response to ones self doubt. So while the phrase “I’m not good enough” might not literally have been said, it is the basic sentiment of self doubt and this post is a rejection of that thought.
I agree quotes for emphasis are bad and occasionally outright terrible, but this doesn’t seem quite like that.
I won’t call you names but this literally doesn’t make any sense to me. In no way would the apple app store be affected, your walled garden is safe. To (attempt to) extend the metaphor, this is like giving you the option to take walks in other gardens, but your walled garden is still where you left it, gate locked.
deleted by creator