What hills are you dying on?
-
That's a pretty specific use though. A case like this only makes sense because we all somehow decided 9AM - 5PM is a standard business time, when society could benefit from having different business/services open at different times.
That was an example of a situation where time zones make sense. Any time it is important where the sun is in the sky, the time that it occurs will differ depending on where you are in the world. When is lunch break? When do backups run? When can you see the eclipse? If we weren't in an interconnected world, it wouldn't matter much but we need some convention to communicate information that is dependent on where the sun is, as that very often dictates human activity.
It seems like a universal time makes sense but I can't think of a way to get around the fact that activity will vary according to timezones anyway.
-
I’ve been trying to move over to 24 hour time. I swear switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius was easier.
I used math tricks at first. But honestly, just switching even one clock like your watch or phone makes it pretty easy over time.
1pm is easy to remember as it's 13, a prime number
7x2 = 14(00)
3x5= 15(00)
4x4 =16(00)
5pm is 17, also a prime.
6x3 = 18(00)
7pm is also a prime, 19(00).
20, 21, 22, 23, and 00 also have math tricks, but you can also just remember that after 8pm, you have less than four hours till midnight
-
Can you give examples of unnecessary rights?
Sure. Some people think it’s not necessary to have local anti-discrimination laws against minority groups here. Some people think why should LGBTQ get married in a fucking church, can’t they just sign a paper saying legally they are as good as married without sullying the institution?
-
an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn't cause it to have been produced.
That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
- your eating it means that another person doesn't eat it, so another piece of meat must be purchased for that other person;
- your eating the meat signals to whoever got the meat for you (perhaps yourself) that you are willing to eat meat and hence they pick up a propensity to get meat for you again in the future.
Isn't this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
-
I'm not the one making a positive claim.
Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying "no it's not." Also, as far as I'm aware, there's no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.
Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So -- burden of proof lies on you I'd say.
-
Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying "no it's not." Also, as far as I'm aware, there's no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.
Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So -- burden of proof lies on you I'd say.
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.
-
That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
- your eating it means that another person doesn't eat it, so another piece of meat must be purchased for that other person;
- your eating the meat signals to whoever got the meat for you (perhaps yourself) that you are willing to eat meat and hence they pick up a propensity to get meat for you again in the future.
Isn't this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
none of that is causal.
-
I used math tricks at first. But honestly, just switching even one clock like your watch or phone makes it pretty easy over time.
1pm is easy to remember as it's 13, a prime number
7x2 = 14(00)
3x5= 15(00)
4x4 =16(00)
5pm is 17, also a prime.
6x3 = 18(00)
7pm is also a prime, 19(00).
20, 21, 22, 23, and 00 also have math tricks, but you can also just remember that after 8pm, you have less than four hours till midnight
I find it easier to just add/subtract 12, the problem is that I sometimes accidentally add/subtract 10.
-
. The race of a voice actor doesn't matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don't need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
We should be boycotting all art and entertainment from Big Media in its entirety, but nobody is willing to do so -
none of that is causal.
I used "so" and "hence" in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?
-
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.
dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?
-
I used "so" and "hence" in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?
people have free will. their actions can only be said to be caused by their own will.
-
people have free will. their actions can only be said to be caused by their own will.
A simple test of causality, X => Y: go back in time and change X to ¬X. If ¬Y as a result, it would appear X => Y can be inferred.
You can say your eating meat is your free will, but if the meat were counterfactually not produced, you would not eat it. Similarly, your eating meat causes other people to produce more meat. They may have free will, if you believe in that -- but you can't deny that if you hadn't done X, they wouldn't have done Y.
-
dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?
why make an unsupported claim?
-
why make an unsupported claim?
ITT: people listing the hills they'd die on. Hardly anyone is giving support for their claims.
-
Sure. Some people think it’s not necessary to have local anti-discrimination laws against minority groups here. Some people think why should LGBTQ get married in a fucking church, can’t they just sign a paper saying legally they are as good as married without sullying the institution?
Ah ok, well those laws are there because of those people. Otherwise it would just be common sense. So yes, those should never be reversed.
-
The red nub on IBM/Lenovo laptops is far superior to a touchpad
My current work laptop has it. I've tried to use it a couple times but I just can't get used to it.
-
I'm not downvoting you, because this is the type of comment the thread is asking for. But I really need to question this one. To me, it's obviously geometrically easier to back into tight parking lots. I'm not sure if you're in the US, but here in Norway, parking lots are generally a lot tighter than american parking lots. When you have only about a meter of total clearance and a narrow road along it, there is no way in hell to pull in front first.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]On the east coast of the US, most parking lots are wide enough for 2.5-3 cars. Much wider than a single perpendicular parking space. Backing out into that wide driving path is so much simpler than backing into a single car-width.
Regardless, I simply am going off my experience having to sit and watch and wait as people constantly take far longer to back-in than when I have to wait for those backing out.
-
Some nice cold grape jelly goes very well on a hot slice of pepperoni. The sweetness and greasyness just go so well together.
For me that sounds exactly as appealing as using pineapple.
-
but we're on Lemmy
Probably shouldn't assume that guy's personal view is the norm.
