KXLXKXKXKXKXKXKXKXKXKXkxkxkxkxlxxx

I need Ned Sheeran with Flanders head and Ed Sheeran face superimposed on it.

Drumming on a streetlight

It is. No glass, they just take the lid off when they want to look inside, and it’s a flexible material . The thing on top of the cow here is the lid. Search Fistulated Cow for more info. [image: 03cf5359-04fb-41b4-87be-5138cec7557d.jpeg]

He wanted an Indiana Jones hat? Dunno, I would have wished for two so I could put one on my giant cock.

For anyone that wants to know why it smells like that upon first opening…it’s Modified Atmosphere Packaging. Depending on what’s being packed they push different gas mixtures into the package to make it last longer. Which is part of the reason the expiration dates are months out or 5 days after opening.

All this is just saying that you personally put more weight on the things that are better about later adulthood than early adulthood or adolescence. And that can be your choice, but it doesn't have to be everyone's choice. You acknowledge that the health and friendships piece gets harder with age but push back against the idea that it inevitably gets worse. But averaged among all people, things will tend to get worse, and some people who actually experience that deterioration will conclude (as is their right) that things were better when health and friendships were easier. But we also make new relationships as we get older. Is life better when you have a grandparent? Or when you have a grandchild? These aren't symmetrical. When you are a young person who loves your grandparents, you haven't actually mourned a loss of a grandchild you personally knew. On the flip side, when you have a grandchild you might also view that relationship through the lens of a lost relationship with a deceased grandparent. In other words, only one of those experiences is 100% good, rather than a bittersweet mix of good and sad. Not to mention, plenty of people will never have grandchildren. To them, the mourned loss of a grandparent is the end of that road. There's no replacement on its way. Put it this way: if given the opportunity to wake up 10 years in the past, in your body of 10 years ago, how positive or negative would you view that? Plenty of people would vote on different sides of that, and that's OK to have different views based on one's own experiences.

Allzzz well that endzzz well

The foundation was rebuilt in 1990 to prevent it from collapsing, but it did stand for about 600 years before that! The tower's foundation was originally built on silt but that silt has clay underneath. It's why modern construction does soil analysis first. Or, at least they should. Things still collapse because soil analysis is skipped, like this bridge in Saskatchewan that collapsed in 2018 on the same day it opened to the public and before anyone actually crossed it.

Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread. 1. Ad Hominem Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself. Quote: “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” Formal Logic:   (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)   Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC) This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced. 2. Genetic Fallacy Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content. Quote: “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” Formal Logic:   (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made. 3. Motte and Bailey Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged. Quote: “So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.” Formal Logic:   Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”   You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”   Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”   Then argue:   ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P It's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes! 4. Fallacy Fallacy Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false. Quote: “Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...” Formal Logic:   (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)   Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A) Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians). 5. Begging the Question Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning. Quote (from your rebuttal): “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…” Formal Logic:   (You assume: ¬P)   Then argue: ¬P   \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”] You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it. 6. Poisoning the Well Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously. Quote: “Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” Formal Logic:   Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person) This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments. edit: fixing formatting

What kind of beans is this?

I watched the YouTube video of this, don't know if they left this out of the written report but they said nothing about individuals running AI on their own hardware or cloud services. It was only about OpenAI and DeepSeek

https://lemmy.world/c/the_pack

Thank you for your work, it's perfect