I can’t say I actually know how they made it work, because I’ve never designed or worked on one, but circuitry that cuts out when the voltage drops is pretty common. More of an electrical/electronics engineering type of thing than audio engineering.

I would be shocked to learn it’s cheaper than producing a CD. I can almost guarantee that it’s simply some kind of kitschy thing.

One time when we were tripping on acid, one guy found a blade a grass that he claimed was changing colors. A bunch of the other guys gathered around and they were all laying there in a circle on their stomachs looking at it, trying to figure out if it was actually changing colors or if they were just tripping.

They were being ridiculous so I was just laying there staring at the clouds laughing while listening to them debating it.

The best part was that after about 10 minutes, they concluded that it must actually be changing colors.

“You don’t wash the mushrooms? It says on the package, man, they might have poop or pesticide or whatever else.”

When we make something about the other person, telling them that they are wrong and, in this case, even disgusting, they are going to get offended and be less amendable to seeing your side and helping you out. They may get shamed into doing it, but I think this damages the relationship.

Just make it about yourself

“Hey, Im a bit squeamish about unwashed veggies. Do you mind if I rinse them for you?”

Gets the same point across, but makes it about yourself rather than the other person, so they have no reason to be defensive. They will also be more likely to open up to changing.

No need to fabricate some lie, as that might backfire at some point.

“Hey I would be more comfortable if the vegetables were washed. Do you mind if I wash them?”

Or just offer to help and start washing them.

The important thing is to not make it about them, but about you. Most people don’t get offended when you make it all about yourself, and not them doing something wrong.

This sounds like the gym I used to go to. It was mostly massive powerlifters and female Instagram influencer…all super serious into fitness. And guys would ask me to spot them all the time, and we would often share racks and chat. The girls mostly kept to themselves, but the dudes were all pretty chummy with each other.

Although that being said, I still think this is made up because I’ve never heard anyone vocally bad mouthing other people at the gym such that they can hear, and the bad mouthing i have heard has absolutely never been about someone out of shape trying to better themselves. It’s always because someone was being a jerk, or selfish or something like that.

You absolutely should be giant assholes to those people doing the most damage.

But this does not preclude you from doing something to decrease your own, likely outsized, damage yourself. It certainly does not excuse you from doing nothing.

Knee jerk bs response. The poster didn’t say don’t participate in society, but that we all need to do our part.

Assuming no maliciousness, upvotes are not the equivalent of truth votes, but what people want to believe is true or think probably is true.

And make no mistake about it, Lemmy is no different. Might even be worse when it comes to voting along ideological lines.

I didn’t say they were the same thing; my whole point is that they are different. We’re talking about people thinking they’re talking to a human, compared to people attributing a single human attribute to a spoon. But probably not even really for the latter because if you ask someone if the spoon is actually sad, most everyone will say no.

You ask someone if the ugly spoon is human, they know it’s not.

We asked people if they were talking to a human, and it said yes.

These are not the same.

I see it as the opposite, and now that it’s getting uncomfortably close to seeming human, that makes people uncomfortable and so we are rejecting the turing test in favor of… what? It seems like nothing. It’s convenient that what makes us human is intangible.

It doesn’t matter to conspiracy theorist because they can just say this is a false flag to make them look crazy. When the facts don’t matter, it’s easy to make any fact be further confirmation of your point.

How does lowering down payment requirements from 50% (!!!) prop up a market?

Really? This is an easy one: it opens to more people buying.

Investors (who could afford to buy multiple homes) lose money. How terrible.

I get that this is your talking point and you’re going to keep repeating it. But, again, it seems that the government, both local and central, are doing something to stop these people from losing money. Whether you think this is good or bad is inconsequential, clearly the government at all levels in China believes it’s bad, which is why they are making moves to stop it.

Apparently a lot of people’s investments are tied up in those properties so if they values tank they’ll lose everything. Normally I wouldn’t sympathize at all but Chinese people have very limited options to invest their money and grow their savings.

Let’s remember where this all starts from. The other poster said that if it tanks, people lose everything. You are now talking deflating the market softly, which indicates it is a bubble and that they are just trying to let the air out slowly. And ultimately, the top level point still stands: people are going to lose money, whether that be quickly or slowly.

Whether the the government is trying to “softly deflate it” or keep it growing (I suspect the latter, because again people losing all of their money in things the government has been encouraging and pumping up for decades is not a great look for them), they are propping it up, because letting the bubble burst would be a disaster.

sigh do you know what the minimum down payment for a home in central Beijing is? 50%.

It’s funny that you call me a liar, but then state that this has nothing to do with the central government, and then turn around and quote something from the article that is talking about the central bank of the country. lol You think see dishonesty in me because you know you are being dishonest.

I see it as more desperately trying to defend the Chinese government.

You didn’t demonstrate that they are wrong, you just said they are wrong. You didn’t even contradict the claims made in the article: that the government is clearly making efforts in an attempt to prop this up.

If they did, they would know that the prevailing thought on Chinese social media is that the government is allowing real estate developers to fall… And they’re definitely falling.

Well let’s start with, the prevailing opinion on social media here is that the Chinese government is attempting to prop up the real estate market, but it’s still “deflating.” Huh, interesting how “prevailing thought” on social media doesn’t really mean all that much.

And they are pointing to actions that contradict this “prevailing thought,” actions you haven’t actually challenged. And those actions that they point to shows that it’s falling despite their efforts, not that they are allowing it to happen. Again, you seem to just be ignoring facts you don’t like.

We can believe whatever reality we want when we don’t have to consider the facts. Just like good Trump supporters.

Maybe you should ask the Chinese government why it’s a big deal, because they are the ones who have been propping it up and are attempting to do so again now. It’s all right in the article.

I don’t care that they are losing money, but the point is that it represents a threat to the stability of the government.

No, I did not.

Real estate should not be an investment and the people that got burned knew what they were signing up for.

I’m not sure how to answer this. We’re talking about empty places. You think these people were buying and building these places to lose money? As you point out, it’s been a great investment until now. Now the bubble the government created is bursting, which is the problem the article is talking about.