You have thin soles so you can tell where you are in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

Yeah, they’re the bonehead who worded things poorly…

don’t even know enough to care in the first place.

but ultimately it’s the user who decides to use the service, and how to use it.

So you admit they don’t have access to the knowledge needed to make better choices for their digital security. Then immediately blame them. I think your bias from the point of view of a one that is already more informed on this sort of thing. If they don’t know they need to know more, how can they be expected to do any research? There’s only so much time in a day so you can’t expect people to learn “enough” about literally everything.

Corporate has clarified that they use the ingredient Not Bugs^TM

“It’s definitely Not Bugs^TM!”*

Oh man, every time someone asks a question along these lines I always think of the movie Hank and Mike. I found it in a discount bin at a grocery store probably a decade ago so I took a little time to actually look into it more this time. I knew it was Canadian and unlikely a big hit, but apparently it was just so poorly received. It made less than $17,000 of the $2M it cost, and it’s real tough to find anyone even reviewing it. I even struggled to find the music from it. (The one song is badass). And it’s got a couple B-tier actors that I remember doing a great job, and I think Joe Mantegna really went for it in his role as the god Pan. Chris Klein kills it in this song.

The crude humor kinda puts people off I think but the satirical aspects cut a little deeper than the movie needed to. And probably when I discovered it I was depressed and had a drinking problem and the overall mood of it really felt at home to me at the time so I was able to just live in those aspects of the film and really absorb the more subtle message. It’s definitely absurd in many points but there’s a lot of heart in it.

I believe at least 1 or 2 of them said specifically their goal was to take all his money to remove his ability to create further harmful content.

What were you saying then? What was your point of saying “not always the case.”?

It’s not that they can’t express their feelings, they’re just not expressing them in negative ways. From the article:

We’re training them to yell when they get upset and that yelling solves problems.

You know how they used to say that when you were angry to go hit a pillow to vent the aggression at something that wouldn’t harm anyone/thing? And now they say that’s bad because it just trains our brain to associate anger with acting out physically? It’s the same thing. They express those feelings, even anger, without aggression. Being outwardly angry does nothing other than potentially escalate a situation. But train children early on to respond to anger in healthy ways and they can respond calmly and rationally for their entire life.

“When you try to control or change your emotions in the moment, that’s a really hard thing to do,” says Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychologist at Northeastern University who studies how emotions work. But if you practice having a different response or a different emotion at times when you’re not angry, you’ll have a better chance of managing your anger in those hot-button moments, Feldman Barrett says. “That practice is essentially helping to rewire your brain to be able to make a different emotion [besides anger] much more easily,” she says.

So there was a whole article that talked about using proven methods for developing healthy behaviors, but you read the short bit about them telling stories about monsters and used that to try to discredit the whole thing? AND you ignored the part where they talked about how those stories enable them to teach children about dangerous scenarios without actually putting them in danger? It’s whole purpose for being there.

You know what happens when you use pain and fear as a deterrent for doing things? Do you think they learn not to do it or do you think they learn not to get caught?

As you said, “kids aren’t rational,” so they wouldn’t connect the act with the punishment. They connect getting caught with the punishment.

The same thing has clearly been shown to be true for adults as well! Retributive punishment does not decrease recidivism in prison populations. If anything, harsh punishments just cause previous convicts to be locked into committing further crimes.

I’m glad you didn’t hit your kids, but keeping an “open mind” in regards to beating children is kinda wrong. The research has been in for just… so long. Corporal punishment has a net negative effect on children. Saying there might be a reason to use it puts that tool in every parent’s tool box just means kids will be hit.

So we’re protecting the system against the outliers? So we’re blocking naturally muscular or otherwise more athletic cis girls from playing? Really tall basketball players? Runners who are just naturally faster? How do you judge they fall too far outside the median range?

Or have you given this no thought and you just think boy things are for boys and girl things for girls and you stopped learning at age 3?

How can a crime vary by ideology? Criminal implies legalities. How can your ideological point of view change whether or not a law was broken?

Jesus fucking christ. You know how water works, right? It fits the form of the container it’s in. It’s an simplified analogy to explain what that other guy linked to. We (well, you) see a universe fit to our kind of life, but the reality is that we developed to fit the universe.

You remind me of this guy I saw the other day claiming that a whole bunch of rocks that are vaguely shaped like body parts might be fossilized body parts.

He just kept saying “I’m not saying it definitely is, but imagine if we don’t understand the world, and it’s maybe this way? Crazy right?!”

It’s such cowardly bullshit. If you want to believe a thing because it sounds nice to you, don’t half-ass it and throw qualifiers on it. You brought it up, and then when challenged the tiniest bit, backed down with a “I’m not saying that’s definitely true… but maybe…?”

and that doesn’t match our expectations.

What expectations? Actual scientist, using facts, don’t have expectations of alien life. We don’t know the probability of life existing anywhere but here because we have nothing to compare it to. We have the one universe with the one data set available to us. Until we discover alien life, we should have no expectation for it. Do I think it’s likely there is life elsewhere? Yes. Does that mean I expect it? No. We don’t have enough information about the cosmos to even start to calculate whether it should happen.

I had a roommate once who believed that the stuff from the Alvin the Maker book series was real. The magic and shit. I asked if he had anything that led him to believe that or if he just really liked the books and wanted it to be. OF course he didn’t have any evidence or real reason for it. He just wanted it to be so, so he decided that he was going to believe that thing.

You’re doing that. Stop it. Be a grown-up here and stop believing in make-believe and believe things only when we have sufficient (or in your case, I’ll take any) evidence.

Have you heard of the puddle analogy?

A small amount of water sits there, it this hole in the ground it finds itself in. It looks at this cavity, observes how perfectly it fits the contours of their liquid body. It’s perfect! Every nook and cranny seems to be formed to fit the puddle perfectly.

“This hole must have been made for me! It’s too much of a coincidence that, with all the ways a hole could form, this one formed perfectly to fit me!”

You’re doing that. You’re saying it’s a crazy coincidence that all the right things were in place here for life to exist that led to us being here… but if it wasn’t, then we just wouldn’t have developed as life-forms. Or if the environs were different, life would have developed to fit into that kind of solar system. I think you just like the idea, so you believe it, but I think it’s better to believe things we have evidence for.

Aren’t most(all?) rocks billions of years old? Are we making new rocks?

The way I remember that Affect is active. You affect things. Effect is passive, and is the result of something. Affect is a verb (and I think sometimes can be a descriptor). Effect is always a noun. So you can have the resulting effect of an experiment, but if you mess with some variables, you have affected the effect.

Though, in this case, you’re turning the noun into a verb, so you could make the case for either use I think. If you hyphenate it though you can leave it as is without thought. "Streisand-effecting.

Years ago I had a CEO of the company I worked at make a similar comment; “affect/effect. No one really knows which one to use.” So my contrarian, anti-authority ass just looked it up right then and decided to always know.

I don’t know that many people say that because of the story though. It created many of the cinematography methods we still use today. Before it, movies were generally just recreating stage plays in front of a camera. Every scene a stationary shot framing the whole room. No real transitions. For Citizen Kane they tore apart the roof and floor to allow for a camera to get moving shots zooming into a scene and angles not often used before. It changed the way people thought of movies and what they could be. People do love watching the slow decline of the powerful, but that movie is considered one of the best movies for other reasons.

Oh! Have they fixed their supplying issues? I haven’t had a drink in a while, but for years they were having trouble keeping stock in most stores because they had a distillery fire and had to run with what they had stored. Even after that, any time I’d find a place that would get some, they’d only be able to get a single case in and it would be sold out within a day or 2. I basically had to get lucky and happen to stop by the same day they got it in, but before they stocked the shelves. It was probably solid 5-6 years of never seeing it on a shelf and only getting it if I asked for it and they go it from the back.

To use your alcoholic analogy. Imagine you were a terrible alcoholic and you decide to get better. Great! But you can’t STOP drinking. Not completely. You have to stop drinking too much while also NEEDING to have 2-3 single drinks a day to survive. So every day. Every. Single. Day. Multiple times a day you have to face that temptation. Your brain and body are craving you down a fifth of vodka when you wake up, but you’re only supposed to drink a watered down Bloody Mary instead. You have to taste that vodka and get a tiny bit of that dopamine hit from it, but you just have to stop. Your kitchen is full of liquor bottles, but you have to just wait until lunch to have your next drink with that craving eating away at you.

And then you hit the breakroom at lunch to sip on your small shot of whiskey you brought from home, but the breakroom is a cocktail bar and everyone around you is downing a couple pints of lager or a Long Island Ice Tea. There’s an open bar right there! Plenty of drinks easily available and your mind is begging you to just go get some. But you’re not abstaining completely. You just have to sit there and sip on your tiny bit of alcohol and that’ll just be enough.

For your nightly drink, you always take it at home. You can’t go to a restaurant with anyone, or even by yourself. You can’t order in. The smallest drinks they serve is a full pint. And still, while you down that Manhattan as quickly as you can every night so as not to think about it too much, you have to go to your kitchen to prepare it with the shelves full of liquor. And just have that one drink. Everyone else gets to have a few drinks a day and move on with their life, but for you every meal is a fight to not go off the deep end while dipping your toes just a little into the pool.

And then tomorrow you have to wake up and do it again.

And every day for the rest of your life.

And that’s just me trying to appeal to your empathy, assuming you have any. There’s science that shows that the dopamine (or maybe serotonin, I always get them confused) that food addicts get is just as addictive as a hard drug habit. It’s literally the same thing. That’s why drugs feel good. It’s not just the altered state that’s addictive. The chemicals your brain release when it gets these things make you crave more. Some people’s brains light up from eating some foods. It’s the same thing as a drug habit, but you can’t quit. Ever. There’s science to back up how wrong you are. You just don’t have to deal with it and you can’t imagine how anyone could have different experiences than you.

You know, I’ve met a few people that I was told were lawyers before meeting them and I was surprised at how kind and empathetic they were. Then, as we would get to talking, inevitably it would come out and they’d say “Oh, I don’t practice anymore. That shits horrible.”

Every lawyer I’ve met that still practices is 100% dead inside and I’ve never felt like I could trust them. Maybe there are lawyers that break this mold, but I am going to baselessly assume they are only a few years from getting out because a good person can’t survive in that world.

Low blood pressure, low blood sugar, maybe dehydration? When you miss out on sleep, are you in bed trying to sleep and unable? I know for me, low blood sugar will give me headaches, and if I’m awake longer with less sleep my body has expended more energy than normal and needs that extra fuel to function properly. I always wake up starving if I was up late without eating later. When you sleep, your body, obviously uses less stored nutrients to operate. If you’re not changing your routine with eating and drinking and you miss out on sleep, you may need water/food. Or it could be stress from lack of sleep tensing you up or you’re sleeping at a weird angle because your schedule is off and your body didn’t use it’s muscle memory and get you into a better position.

Basically, you’re going to want to pay attention to the things you’re doing (or not doing) besides losing sleep. Eating/drinking, physical exertion, how does the rest of your body feel when you wake up?