vegan Lafari • 7 months ago • 44%

Hi, just wondering if fuggs are vegan. As in, do they contain products made from animals? As far as I can tell, "fuggs" is a portmanteau of "fake" and "uggs", and so fuggs are "fake" uggs, meaning fake ugg boots. Uggs or ugg boots are a kind of boots traditionally made from sheepskin/shearling, and sometimes with suede leather (cow skin) on the outside. But there's a bit of confusion about what "fuggs" or "fake uggs" means. Unlike something such as "faux fur" or "faux/fake leather", where it's pretty clear that will be vegan and not made from animals like the traditional kind is, "ugg" has some weird brand authenticity thing going on. I might get some facts wrong here, but from what I could gather, there are 2 companies, called "UGG" (American brand) and "UGG Since 1974" (Australian brand) which both lay some kind of claim to what can be considered an authentic ugg boot. Uggs were first made in Australia, but I think the American UGG brand often sues other companies, including those in Australia, for using the "ugg" name. However in some places ugg simply means the style of shoe rather than the brand. So unfortunately due to this, I think there might be 2 different meanings of "fuggs" - one I believe indeed means vegan ugg boots which don't use animal skins/products, while the other meaning is simply an ugg boot made in the traditional way from animals but just not by the "official" UGG brand. In all this confusion, how can we truly answer the question of "Are fuggs vegan?" Is the answer somewhere between "They could be, sometimes." or "No one knows, really." ?

Playstation 2 Lafari • 7 months ago • 75%

All PS2 games look really blurry on Panasonic Viera TV. For comparison, when I play the Jak trilogy on PS5 (which is just the PS2 ports), it has a sharp and crisp image. But the same games on an actual PS2 are much lower quality. This leads me to think there's some scaling issue that the PS5 automatically fixes since I don't think they remastered it or anything. And the same applies to every PS2 game. It's currently connected via RCA component cables, and I tried messing with the game mode settings on the TV but it didn't really do anything noticeable. I'm wondering if I should buy a PS2 to HDMI converter or if that might be even worse than the current set up. I don't have much money I can spend but if I need to I will, just whatever it takes to get it looking good. It looks like sh*

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 8 months ago • 63%

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 8 months ago • 19%

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

Asklemmy Lafari • 8 months ago • 88%

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway): At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress. The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality." Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal? Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy. "The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard. The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable. The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less." I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: *"This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all."* (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: *"This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution."* (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued. What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable. So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 8 months ago • 58%

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually *fears* homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction? And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you *might* hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it? It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be *afraid* of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 8 months ago • 13%

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you *might* hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it? It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be *afraid* of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 8 months ago • 39%

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 8 months ago • 58%

Unhinged conspiracy theorist Francis E. Dec, who essentially originated the concept of gangstalking and targeted individuals and gained notoriety for ranting about his theories of the "Gangster Computer God", passed away 15 days after his 70th birthday. But how did he die? "Age 70 - According to Dec, the critical age at which the Computer God has determined that all people should either be "dead or useless".  Presumably this policy would only apply to the plebian masses and not to the Playboy scum-on-top. Should you be "lucky" enough to live to age 70 and be rendered useless, you can also expect to have many diseases, a raspy, aged voice and a wrinkled ugly gargoylic clown-booze face with bulldog hanging cheeks and jowls." Did he kill himself after he turned 70 or was it just a coincidence?

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 8 months ago • 43%

Don't want to endorse Christianity necessarily but hard to get around saying the word Christmas or Xmas, so is Xmas more rebellious? Is there an even more rebellious or irreverent name for it? Also, should I not even celebrate Christmas? What's an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year but in a way that isn't tied in any way to religion (and ideally doesn't involve killing turkeys)?

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 93%

Question inspired by the image (see attached)

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 73%

Is there a law preventing me from for example selling a baseball hat for $20,000?

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation Lafari • 9 months ago • 90%

Someone asked this on Quora: *"I learn very quickly by asking questions. Is it acceptable to interrupt someone during a conversation to gain more clarity on a topic?"* Which I relate to a lot. Someone answered this: *"Yes , it is very rude to do because maybe on a little further into conversation your question may be answered and if not then , make a mental note of it and as soon as you see an opening in the conversation - circle back to the point in the where your question fits in and ask it . Interupting someon while they are talking can cause that person to lose sight of they were want say and what thier point was going to be ."* But this doesn't seem to always work for me, and I must say it depends on the person you're talking to and the situation. 1. Sometimes if someone misunderstands something you said or that has happened or gets a fact wrong, they can end up going on a pointless/misguided tangent in the conversation and even can start getting progressively angrier on their own without you even saying anything, whereas if you interrupt and clarify the misunderstanding that can help to calm them down in certain cases, and to course-correct the conversation to make it more productive and reasonable. 2. Sometimes they never allow you a chance to speak at all, talk for ages on their own, and then simply exit the conversation before you would have any ability to respond to specific things they said earlier. 3. If they say so many things you want to respond to, it can add up to a lot, and you may not be able to ever get through them if you can't respond to them as they come up. 4. Making a mental note is often impossible for me, I frequently forget and need to address something immediately in order to remember it, unless I can pause the conversation to make a physical or digital note (can't focus on what they're saying while writing it) which people would probably find even more rude either way. I've also seen lots of debaters, journalists and interviewers interrupting people as their standard method or style of dialogue, and it seems to work for them (sometimes people get annoyed at them, sometimes they don't and often do the same thing), so I don't know. I would appreciate if anyone has any literature on why it may be acceptable to interrupt sometimes or perhaps a recognised style of communication that allows this, as well as any speakers who defend this practice and debates about the topic itself. Thanks

RetroGaming Lafari • 9 months ago • 88%

HELLO amazing helpful Lemmitors (Lemmians... Lemurs. Whatever). I hope I can explain this clearly. I desire a pair (2) of PlayStation 2 controllers which work wirelessly via the SAME wireless dongle stuck into BOTH PS2 controller ports at the same time. This allows me to turn one off while my friend on the other side of the room turns theirs on in order to switch who's controlling player 1 for taking turns in single player games without having to throw one controller back and forth across the room. You may laugh but I have managed to find and purchase a controller that does exactly this off eBay, which is a ProGamer (brand) PS2 wireless 2-controller set with a single dongle that splits into 2 wires and plugs into both controller ports simultaneously and does exactly what I described. The problem is one of the controllers has a faulty analog stick that doesn't activate when going left, and I can't find this brand or this type of controller or anything like it to replace this set up. If you have any thoughts or solutions I would much appreciate it. Thank you 💚 And I should note that I'm unconcerned about the quality of the controller since my main requirement is for it to simply function properly and work in the ways I described. Thanks

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 9 months ago • 94%

Examples: *Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)* *Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb* *The Hobbit, or There and Back Again* (the book) And before you say "alternate title", since these supposed alternate titles are included in the full version of the main title (even if it's usually not listed in full), how does this differ from "true" alternate titles that replace the entire main title? Example: *Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey* vs *Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn* *Into the Deep* vs *Yakamoz S-245* And then there's the standard sub-titles, for example: *Captain America: The First Avenger* (Sorry for my lazy title choices but I couldn't think of any others) It seems like we have 3 things here: an "or" title in the name (alternate title which is included in the full version of the main title), a completely different alternate title that replaces the main one, and a subtitle following a colon after the main title. Are there different names to distinguish these different types of titles?? Also can we talk about how sub-title is used to mean closed captions as well as "sub-name" (sub-title used in this context)? It makes it impossible to search about because most people understand subtitle to mean closed captions, I think.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 86%

humane having or showing compassion or benevolence.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 94%

I feel like I would make use of it more if I could do it again. Maybe that's weird, I don't know. Edit; To ask more of a question. What would you do differently?

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 9 months ago • 76%

Hearing the movie is getting bad reviews. But Snyder says the director's cut will be a completely different movie with a different vision. I admit Zack Snyder's Justice League (director's cut) was much better than the theatrical version and quite different (though I had mostly forgotten the original by then). Not sure if I should just watch this movie now or wait for the director's cut for a better experience. Impression Blend on YouTube said it was ok.

Games Lafari • 9 months ago • 96%

Copied from a Reddit post: Platformer/3rd Person Shooter Hybrids So I want to discuss about platformer shooter hybrids, and the questions I have about it. Why aren't there more of these? Ratchet & Clank is the quintessential Platformer/Shooter hybrid (as well as the *Jak and Daxter*/*Jak* games after the first one), but how come there aren't more games like it? Here are a few guesses: RAC wasn't always the most popular thing outside of the States, they couldn't surpass the sales of Mario, the charm of sonic, nor the popularity of Crash. They never peaked until they outlived their neighbors: *Jak*, and *Sly*, or now with Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart. It's hard to fuse 2 genres with conflicting themes associated with them: One with colorful characters and cheerful worlds, and another with gritty characters and serious stories. The result would likely result in an "Edge platformer" the likes of Shadow the Hedgehog. Aside from the big names, platformers were dying in the 6th gen, they were becoming less and less common, making a new platformer IP would definitely be something companies would not really want, on top of that shooters are becoming increasingly multiplayer based, with platformers being a predominantly singleplayer genre. Here are some other 3rd person Platformer/Shooter Hybrids I know of (other than R&C / J&D): • MDK and its sequel predated Ratchet & added platforming elements to a 3rd person shooter • Blasto and Jet Force Gemini mix shooter elements into Mascot-style games • Later Sly games added gunplay, but not much shooter elements. • There were a few games that tried to cash-in on R&C, some good, like Metal Arms and others not so much like Ruff Trigger. • Sunset Overdrive is developed by Insomniac, however is more action-adventure than platforming, like Recore. • There are also some indie titles like Cloudbuilt and Onirism. I'm looking for more of these. _______ I have tried every single of these games, and even some others barely scooting into the category like Rayman, Automaton Lung, Splatoon, or Returnal, and mostly unsatisfied (though the two 3D Raymans are good). Looking for more 3rd person shooter/3D platformer hybrids!

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 9 months ago • 40%

www.youtube.com

An example is that I generally despise Jordan Peterson and most of what he says, but I often quote one thing that Jordan Peterson said (in the linked video) because I think it's a good summary of why toxic positivity doesn't work. People (who hate JP) freak out when I quote him and say "Why tf are you quoting Jordan Peterson? Are you a *insert thing that Jordan Peterson is*?" And I'm like "No, I generally disagree with him on most points, aside from this one thing." But they don't believe or accept it and assume that I must be a #1 Jordan Peterson fan or something. I think it can be considered a partial agreement, majority disagreement. Or a partial agreement with a person you generally disagree with. But I'd be open to other terms of how to describe this in a way people can understand. Also, to avoid the controversy of referencing Jordan Peterson, if anyone has a better summary of the same concept explained by a different person in a way as well as he does, that would be appreciated too.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 94%

Such as "money can't buy happiness" or "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Generally a false adage or something like that. All I could think of was "fallacious bumper sticker" which just sounds stupid.

strawpoll.com

● An entirely new game (to follow Rift Apart) ● Ports of the original games onto next-gen ● Crash/Spyro style (1-1) HD remakes of the original games ● A reimagining of Ratchet 2 as a sequel to Ratchet PS4

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 9 months ago • 71%

Please prove me wrong and suggest me some modern ones that stand up to the older ones. Also, why are there no 3rd person shooter/3D platformer hybrids aside from Ratchet & Clank / Jak series? This seems like an untapped genre hybridisation that works well together. Like literally why is no one making games like this. I would love some examples of 3rd person shooter platformers to prove me wrong again. Edit: It's not a nostalgia thing. The quality of the PS2 platformers was actually better. Even ones I discovered recently that exist on PS2 or that I hadn't played before. If I compare them side by side with modern 3D platformers, they look like s*** compared to the PS2 ones. And case in point, there are literally no open world 3rd person shooter-3D platformers with detailed worlds/graphics outside of PS2 (that I know of) and those are the kinds of 3D platformers I enjoy most... give me an example to prove me wrong. Ok technically I know of a few examples which meet some but not all of this criteria (only because I've looked far and wide for them) but they're very basic and nowhere near as intricate as these games.

No Stupid Questions Lafari • 9 months ago • 91%

An example would be a version of the trolley problem where you can either allow the track to remain on its current path which is empty, or divert it to harm an individual unnecessarily. This is a choice between a universally good outcome or a universally bad outcome. Whereas the typical trolley problem is an ethical dilemma since both options are harmful and neither are ideal so it's choosing between 2 bad outcomes.

Ask Lemmy Lafari • 9 months ago • 17%

Please don't say neither (that's not an option)