Well clearly Elon has demonstrated that ownership does not resist one’s own censorship either… Almost like we need something that nobody fully owns…

Dayam, I legit forgot about that. Never used it, was locked into FB. Now FB is a ghost city of the occasional lost human and wraiths peddling “suggested for you’s”

Just use your own brain and eyeballs.

When I was coming up learning about the long slow path of climate change, it was “We have to act now, because by the time you can readily see the effects with your eyes, we’ll be fucked cause it’ll be too late by then.”

Whelp here we are. All we can do now is mitigate the damage however we can.

Zoomed in it appears to actually be reflection off the edge of the front mounting holes in their helmets.

In the 1980s, boomers were in their 30s/early 40s, so no they were not likely to be senior leadership in colleges at the time.

Oh it’s a complete ghost town. Absolutely useless as actual social media. I suppose you could try starring/favoriting all your friends lol…

They’re for storing the molecular correlates of trauma, obviously :3

They’re invested in PC gaming as social capital where the performance of your rig contributes to your social value. They’re mad because you’re not invested in the same way. People often get defensive when others don’t care about the hobbies they care about because there’s a false perception that the not caring implies what they care about is somehow less than, which feels insulting.

Don’t yuck others’ yum, but also don’t expect everyone to yum the same thing.

This is not a generational shift. The iron dome of irony is a tried and true coping technique for the brutality of teenage culture where the rule of cool rules with an iron fist and being uncool means social death. And what is cool shifts at a moment’s notice, yet uncool is forever. So normies learn to armour themselves by treating everything ironically to pre-empt any whiff of uncool. Because at the very least, it’s never uncool to make fun of something. This carries forward into one’s 20s when some begin to rediscover the coolness of being authentic, sincere, and genuine regardless of what others think. So then you have the reaction of radical acceptance, not yucking others’ yum, respect for others’ interests, etc. GenX had their equivalent, even Boomers. It’s part of growing up. And of course not everyone gets there.

Exactly, if we let more people die during the pandemic, workers would have more jobs to choose from and less family to take care of. /SARCASM

Well yes you are absolutely correct from a materialist standpoint. If you limit reality to material things, then truths are limited to material knowledge. Emergent properties such as subjective experience, society/culture, and ultimately meaning and meaningfulness are excluded from what is considered reality and truth, except for their material correlates. And this is why philosophers moved on from materialism because, while highly fruitful, it was ultimately insufficient in capturing all forms of knowledge.

I prefer a pragmatic blend of constructivist realism.

I see it as a heightened period of different people “trying shit out” when it comes to new gender identities. None of these are necessarily definitive norms that will define future society. As with any aspect of language and culture, it’s a part of an ongoing process of evolutionary change, adaptation, and discovery. Some might call it a church, some might call it a shifting paradigm, but it’s always going to be a bit messy and won’t necessarily make perfect sense right away.

How was DEI not politicized from the very beginning? It was literally born out of the civil rights movement.

There are no lies. All perception involves interpretation.

OR OR OR, seeing as there’s plenty of room for everyone, there’s no need for war?

The other option is “women”

It helps me a lot for getting started and staying on task. I used to use the countdown timer with alarm, but now I use Windows stopwatch timer with it set to be always on top so it’s near the top right corner. Whenever I get an automatic impulse to open a distraction tab it helps me catch myself. I let it run until I notice I’m over 25 min. Then I decide to break or keep going. If I break, I set it to count up again so I see how much time I’ve spent on break. This seems to be a decent compromise for flexibility for me.

They’ve moved onto Ciri now for Witcher 4. Mad that the character doesn’t look like a teenager now that she’s aged into her 30s.

Koko is a great example! I should clarify that when I say evidence, I mean the collected body of scientific evidence, of which Koko would be one data point. I will also clarify that I was talking about weak evidence for sapience in dogs, not animals in general. Different species are different. We have much more evidence for sapience in animals such as simians like gorillas, as well as dolphins. Just because gorillas are sapient doesn’t mean Koalas are likely to be. But heck Cows may well be more intelligent and closer to sapience than dogs.

None of this is to put a downer on how folks may perceive dogs and it certainly doesn’t shut the door on their possible sapience. I project all of the sapience into my dog. I just think it’s important to understand and acknowledge where scientific knowledge is at as we rely heavily on it for policy, if not individual beliefs.

You are right to think through this question, and as you imply, there are different forms of knowledge, i.e. epistemologies. Science geneologically derives from empiricism, the epistemological idea that true knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation–philosophy has moved on from this idea. But accepting empirocism, the default is necessarily no knowledge, as absence of knowledge precedes knowledge from observation. Science applies empirical methods and deductive/inductive reasoning to generate new knowledge; while you may reason a theory, that theory must ultimately be tested against observation. So empirically, we cannot conclude/know sapience exists somewhere without observing it. Now the idea of “null hypothesis” can be thought of as a formalization of this. It comes from statistics in the 1920s when they were trying to determine a relationship between two data sets. As per empiricism, the null hypothesis is always that there is no relationship and therefore observations are due to random chance. And the purpose of the tests are to see if this null hypothesis should be rejected/disproven.

Another dated, but still helpful approach to thinking of the scientific question is Karl Popper’s falsifiability. It is possible to falsify the theory that “dogs cannot possess sapience by” observing one instance (not due to random chance) of sapience in a dog. However you cannot falsify the theory that “dogs can possess sapience” unless you can observe all dogs throughout space and time and show they don’t possess sapience.