Scrumpf_Dabogy

Took me a while to realize this one. I thought maybe I was bi for a while because I would see some men and think, "damn, he is hot." But I don't actually want any kind of relationship or intercourse with a man. I just appreciate them aesthetically.

Like some other posts say, no idea if OP wrote this, but if the author is looking here, I want to offer constructive criticism.

There are a truly uncountable number of unjust things going on right now. There are possible solutions to many if not all those problems that exist. But no one has enough time I'm their life to fight every single injustice going on.

Do you still eat eat chocolate? A lot of chocolate is still produced with what is practically or entirely slave labor. Do you eat almonds? Those are using enormous amounts of water in California, which is already facing a mega-drought. China still has horrible labor practices in manufacturing. Most Americans still have to drive cars and that's destroying the environment. I could go on for hours.

The point is, no one can possibly fight for every cause. Even the most dedicated, well meaning person will have to (indirectly) participate in some injustice. It's honestly better for people to pick their battles. Find something you might have the power to change and focus your energy on that injustice.

But don't lash out at people who are already overburdened by late-stage capitalism and don't have the knowledge or energy to fight the same fight you are.

So...let me get this straight. The "commons" here is the potential profit of AI. And the "tragedy" is that google isn't hoarding it and open source folks that are doing all the innovation are content to not make massive profits from their work?

If thats what this means, then I hope whatever their plan is to gain power or control over new AI tech fails. I hope the folks working on open source AI can separate their work from Meta's original work enough that Meta no longer has any claim to it.

I think one issue here is that discomfort is subjective. Discomfort is valid and an important way to gauge how we treat people. But its important to understand why someone is uncomfortable.

For example, if someone is uncomfortable with me talking super loud in a small room, then the solution would probably not be to change my tone of voice or the topic I'm talking about. Its the volume thats bringing them discomfort.

If someone is uncomfortable with others kissing in public, we might argue that its reasonable not to kiss in public for their comfort.

But what's the real cause of discomfort with two men kissing? Is it the kissing or their very existence? If two people loving each other brings someone discomfort because this person just doesn't aprove of their lifestyle, what's the solution, then?

The comfort they are likely seeking is to never have to acknowledge that others are different from them. And they can only get that by limiting the freedom of those "others".

I have no idea what the original words were. But my coworker at an old job had one of those magnet letter boards. I just haphazardly rearranged her note and it became Scrumpf Dabogy. I liked it so much I kept it in my head until I needed it for a new account somewhere.

As an adult I've caught a ton of subtly raunchy humor in kids shows and movies. But straight parents don't bat an eye because it's good, clean, straight sex jokes in children's media. This is not to say I'm against that, just that there would be torches and pitchforks if the jokes were not about straight couples.

There are only two sexualities. Straight and political.

"You like when women smell nice and sweet, or fruity, yeah?"

"Of course."

"So you like sweet and fruity smells?"

"No thats for women."

If they want "both sides" of a debate to have fair representation, then for every second an anti-vax conspiracy theorist gets to speak, actual scientists should have an hour. To represent the actual man-hours each side has put into researching their ideas.

Yeah, I'm sorry if I explained it poorly. I tend to ramble.

If you are uncomfortable with all forms of PDA, thats valid. The source of your discomfort is the act. Not who's doing it. And it would be a reasonable discomfort to accomadate.

If your discomfort was because of who is doing the act, then thats just prejudice. If the only accommodation that would work to comfort someone is harmful to others, then they need to look inward for a solution.

The point I kind of forgot I was making halfway through is that, while discomfort is valid and should be accommodated in society, discomfort is very subjective. Not everyone can explain their own discomfort accurately, and those that can might lie about it instead. So we have to be careful and try to recognize the difference between, "Your behavior makes me uncomfortable," and , "Your existence makes me uncomfortable."

You're not wrong, but thats the kind of statement that leads people to doubt science. Scientists are definitely understanding more and more about how the world works. They are not becoming more and more uncertain. Its just that the more we understand, the more avenues for research we open up. We discover new unknowns to explore.

I know I'm restating what you said, but my family legit thinks that scientists all disagree with each other and aren't sure about anything. And that mentality seems to be getting more common. Its not good.

I got some embroidery thread and fixed up an old sweater that ive had for...over a decade? It had some pretty big tears on the sleve. Now it has some nice looking decorative stitching. :) Already a fan of visible mending.

Same. I hate google, but YouTube pays content creators better than any other platform. And I am 100% on board with any service where I pay a monthly cost instead of being inundated with ads.

Its difficult to find a good measurement for a country's success. See Campbell's Law. But yeah, unemployment has been a bad metric from the start. They just keep using it because people don't know it's a bad metric.