I think because everyone has their own corners, the common spaces don’t need to be as toxic. Also, Lemmy’s population is self selected because of the still high bar to entry. Lemmy basically feels like early Reddit. The hostile influence of moderators and the backlash anger everyone feels from being mistreated by them into silence is not yet here.
Hot and active are currently broken and will show stale content. It's a Lemmy thing not a Jerboa thing. I'm hoping they fix this in the upcoming version that's in testing right now.
Huh. I didn't know that. To be honest, I didn't know that there was a Koopa named Lemmy until I looked at their github either. I've never played Mario.
Is breathing underwater too exceptional? I’d settle for charging batteries by holding them, or the ability to revive/kill plants that I touch (my choice, not some random thing or King Midas curse)
I’d pick charging batteries while holding them as well except only if it doesn’t affect the battery health of the battery. I’d never have to charge my phone again.
Phone, flashlight, gaming system, headphones, laptop, jump start cars, watch (though the Apple Watch wouldn’t be compatible with my super power…same as in real life with all normal chargers).
The real question is if it would transfer energy magically, or would I experience a calorie deficit. That could go both ways in my book.
Your purpose in life is now to supply power to the grid. At first it’ll be great, you’re celebrated as a neat way to keep the baseline juice coming as fossil fuels phase out. Then you’re asked to stay back a few hours as there’s a shortfall predicted, you oblige out of duty. Then one day you wake up in a drugged daze, strapped to a giant battery, your nutritional needs piped directly to your bloodstream as scientists ever so carefully cut you open to try and figure out how this works, because despite their best efforts to keep your wrecked body alive, one day you will die, and the utter reliance of the grid on your free energy will die with it, and with that kick off the downfall of humanity.
I think it was in SuperFreakanomics where they explored the viability of releasing the equivalent to volcano smoke into the atmosphere to shade the earth. The research was based on earth cooling after certain types of volcano eruptions.
I think the scientist conclusion was that it was pretty viable but introduces way too many other issues. The biggest being, who gets to control the earth thermostat.
I’ve had FedEx deliver my package to a vacant neighborhood home. By the time I went to get the package, it was gone. FedEx did a “thorough” investigation and found that they delivered it correctly. I appealed and never got my money back.
In the early days of smartwatches I ordered one from the manufacturer directly. The price tag and its features all sounded too good to be true, and it was. I don’t even remember their name but I was so hyped that I didn’t even do basic research.
I waited and waited and after a few weeks I did a search online. Turns out the whole thing was a scam, I found tons of blog posts about people either not receiving theirs or getting something that barely worked.
It was too late to do anything about it but I learned my lesson the hard way.
Someone once told me “if you’ve never missed a flight, you’re spending too much time in airports”. I think about that a lot in a lot of other contexts - sometimes being too safe comes with more of a cost than the risk!
I think this is terrible advice for most people. You only need to spend like an hour in the airport to avoid missing a flight. Most people don’t fly often enough to get much actual gain from pushing this boundary. The only person I knew who would push the envelope like this was someone who flew every week for work. That makes sense to me, because you’re saving two hours every week for years. If you’re only flying a few times a year just pack a book and ensure you make your flight on time.
I’ve been on like six flights in my life. I am absolutely not spending too much time in airports by not missing a flight. What a fucking out of touch thing to say.
Another almost-miss. I visited a friend in Germany, and the final leg home was from “Dusseldorf Weser” airport, which I naïvely assumed was like “London Heathrow”, and just the full name of Dusseldorf airport where I’d flown in.
Lucky, I got there 3h in advance, and when I couldn’t find the Ryan Air (yep!) counter, information filled me in. …One mad taxi rush across the city, then a bus I would’ve missed if it wasn’t late, and I got to this little airport way out of town 5min before the gate closed!
10 mins later, a group of guys got on the plane. They’d had a beer waiting for the Ryan Air counter to show up at Dusseldorf, and realised too late - got a taxi all the way to Weser arriving 5 min after gate closing. Luckily they were allowed to board anyway!
Logical fallacies don’t necessarily disagree with facts. While the most common examples are simply unsupported statements that sound supported, very often we don’t have the luxury of working with clearly factual statements as a basis.
All rhetoric is at the end of the day a fallacy, as the truth of the matter is independent on how it is argued. Yet we don’t consider all rhetoric invalid, because we can’t just chain factual statements in real debates. Leaps of logic are universally accepted, common knowledge is shared without any proof, and reasonable assumptions made left and right.
In fact one persons valid rhetoric is another persons fallacy. If the common knowledge was infact not shared, or an assumption not accepted, the leap in logic is a fallacy.
I would try to focus less on lists of fallacies or cognitive biases and more on natural logic. Learn how to make idealised proofs, and through that learn to identify what is constantly assumed in everyday discussions. The fallacies itself don’t matter, what matters is spotting leaps in logic and why it feels like a leap in logic to you.
After all, very often authoritive figures do tell the truth, and both sides of the debate agree on general values without stating them. If someone starts questioning NASA or declares they actually want more people to live in poverty, they did infact spot very real logical fallacies in the debate, but at the same time those fallacies only exist from their point of view, and others might not care to argue without such unstated common ground.
Agreed. OP should be working on critical thinking skills in general and not specifically focusing on logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies and argumentation theory in general certainly have their place. But unless you’re taking part in a debate club or otherwise getting really really deep into these topics, they may do you more harm than good in thinking critically and having productive discussions.
The reddit (and, previously, slashdot) obsession with logical fallacies has been almost entirely as a way to prevent critical thinking and end discussion rather than promoting either.
The old Slashdot obsession of calling out logical fallacies lead to the hyper normalisation of climate change denial. We had a whole load of really smart people who were very quick to call out any appeal to authority (of, you know, actual climate scientists), but a bit too lazy to read the source material themselves.
Rather than not encouraging focusing and learning fallacies, maybe we are simply saying that they need to also learn to use them appropriately? Fallacies are not just the informal ones that everyone is referencing here in this thread, but also the formal ones which are very much required for logical argument structure. So even in learning about fallacies, there will be opportunities to understand the difference between informal and formal, why they are different, and how that applies to discourse. Knowledge is power; it just needs to be balanced with understanding on how to use and I think a deep dive into fallacies could actually assist in that regard.
"Truth" is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like--and this is an intentionally racist argument--53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact--what that fact means--that's the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.