We have more than enough resources for more than the world's population. The problem isn't overpopulation, it's manufactured scarcity. Telling people to just have less kids is victim blaming when capitalism requires letting some people starve to maintain the artificial value of products.

On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they're perfectly clean because there's just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.

(Classic guitar players have long nails)

Mwah

The parent comment doesn't appear to be copaganda, or even have a stance one way or the other. The comment is context, which is important for discussing the issue at hand. Because of the context, we should not be discussing police brutality or excessive use of force in this case, we should be discussing the immorality of a justice system which allows someone to be charged with felony murder in the case of an accomplice.

To clarify, if this group of teens broke into a home and shot the homeowner, that would be a justified charge of felony murder for all the accomplices. However, their friend chose to essentially commit suicide by cops, and the convicted was running away at the time. Again, the parent comment did not make any qualifiers on the actions of the cops or anyone else present, they posted context with which other commenters can frame their discussion. Nowhere in their other comments could I discern a pro-cop stance, reading with an objective eye. Reactionary pointing of fingers just discourages future posters from providing context.

Before you accuse me of copaganda as well, ACAB, systemic racism is a huge problem in the US, and our justice system is rigged against the most vulnerable.

I feel no need to be protected in my day to day life. My partner provides love, companionship, empathy, and a listening ear. Sure, some women might care about protection and toughness or whatever you're on about, but attraction varies from person to person. Most other women I know want to be heard and loved. People are allowed to want to fuck "fragile" men. They can be hot without needing to be "manly." You're putting so much stock in traditional gender norms, not realizing that it's not women that actually care about those. It's the men that are trying to be that. Some women will, of course, but women aren't a monolith. Want an example? Timothy Chalamet is very commonly considered to be an extremely attractive actor, and he's far more androgynous and "fragile," as you put it, than your traditional masculine ideal. Just as many women might be attracted to any number of different appearances, because people are different! The days of needing a strong man to support us frail women are over. Your insecurities and ideas of masculinity are clouding your judgment.

To answer your question succinctly: No, they aren't fragile looking, they're just slim. No, they don't look "dehumanized," they look like people. The dehumanization happens in industry, not with their faces. I know people that look similar. Some women find them hot, and want to fuck them, and idolize them, because they are hot! They're very attractive people, if that aesthetic is what you're into! If your only metric is how likely they are to win a fight, sure, they probably aren't at the top of the scale, but the vast majority of people DON'T CARE.

They told you to look into therapy because you have an unhealthy idea of what women are attracted to and what masculinity should be. They called you insecure because you sound insecure (why do women like the weak little boys and not big manly men :(( they look so frail and weak, don't women know they can't protect them??). Whether or not that's how you're actually thinking, it's how it comes across. Instead of realizing that some people do like strong men, you took it to a place of jealousy and defensiveness.

TLDR: Different strokes for different folks. Don't obsess over people you don't find attractive still being attractive to others, as it isn't good for your mental health and isn't a good look.

The Barnsley Fern was constructed specifically to resemble the species of fern that it does. There are versions of it that have been modified to resemble other ferns. The fractal isn't some secret mathematical code for why ferns look like they do, it's more like a drawing of a fern. If someone made a fractal to look like another leaf, it would be just that, not an advancement into the secrets of botany.

The short answer: no. The two do not connect beyond the fact that ferns have a design reminiscent of a fractal, which is likely what inspired the fractal's creation.

How "real" is it? It is a real set of functions, but if I design a set of functions to look like William Dafoe, it doesn't mean I've cracked the matrix code into his genetics.

What radicalism? What part of that ideal is radical? Also, a bizarre reaction. "My beliefs were challenged in the slightest, therefore this person must be silenced." Weirdo.

Every vegan

Factually incorrect and anecdotal

the concept of death doesn't even exist in most animal minds

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/

Good read, though anyone that's seen a pet mourn their owner or their friend knows that's not true already.

can't take you seriously anymore

It's a portmanteau of debater and statist. Frankly, I don't care what you think about me. You're clearly biased beyond any reason as to the motives of others, to the point of making false blanket statements about entire groups. Any time someone says "all _____ are _____," there is a problem and they should be questioned. Did the vegans you approach solicit your question? If they did not, then mind your own business. If they did, and "flip their shit," (X to doubt on the reliability of this narrator) then that one person had an issue. The sheer fact that you can easily find very chill vegans online or irl without much effort means you're a statistical anomaly, an asshole, or misrepresenting the truth.

The premise of your previous comment was that regardless of the health effects (ie: if vegan cat food is healthy), the cats didn't consent to it. That argument doesn't make any sense. I don't disagree that cats need proper nutrition, again, I feed my cat meat. I just think your argument based on consent is not well founded and there are better ways to argue your point without making a strange implication about ignoring consent. I don't think forcing a cat to be vegan is okay, unless that diet is properly supplemented with all the nutrients the cat needs, which may or may not be possible. I don't know. Again, I'm not arguing for cats to be fed vegan. I'm arguing against using consent as the angle against veganism, because that opens up a whole can of worms as to hypocrisy. I'm not vegan, and there are perfectly good reasons to be or not be vegan, but animal consent definitely isn't an argument to be made against veganism unless you want to confront the issues with animals just as intelligent as cats, or more, being consumed as food.

Weird personal attack there. Care to explain?

You sound like what I like to call a "debatist." No one wants to be challenged on their personal choices. You don't seem to be approaching this concept with an open mind. Can you define what makes anything they say unreasonable? I am not vegan, but I can recognize, definitively, that veganism is better for the environment (by far), healthy (if you make sure you're getting all the nutrients you need, just like any diet), and less cruel to animals. You can choose to disagree that those conclusions mean you need to cut out animal products, but those aren't opinions up for debate. Farming meat is far worse for the environment, vegan diets are perfectly healthy, and obviously, killing animals isn't something the animal wants.

Again, you can disagree with their conclusion that those reasons mean you shouldn't eat animal products, but denying that they're true is like denying climate change. I'm not vegan, so clearly I didn't come to the same conclusion, but I'm not trying to purport that anyone that does is somehow unreasonable.

Having personally known several perfectly normal and sane vegans, maybe your "reasonable conversation" is a bit more combative than you believe. Vegans are just normal people. Some will be crazy. Some will be normal. If your experience with your hundreds of vegans you've met is 100% unreasonable, then you're definitely the problem. Someone choosing to avoid animal products for personal health or environmental reasons, or any other personal reason, is inherently not unreasonable. They might be unreasonable if they try to force their ideas on others, but defending their own choices isn't unreasonable. Tone down your confirmation bias and aggression, and you might find that just like every large enough group, people are still people and they vary.

Edit: for the record, I'm not vegan.

That seems like a very blanket statement to make about an entire group of people. I'm not vegan, btw. The vegans I know make that choice entirely independently for the sake of the environment, because they hate the conditions in factory farming, or any number of other totally reasonable reasons. They aren't forcing it on anyone else, or their pets for that matter. What makes you feel this way? They seem reasonable to me, even if I have no problem personally with drinking milk or eating eggs.

Dude, what are you on about. Plenty of vegans I know go vegan because it's better for the environment. That's a big part of why I'm vegetarian. Why make it such an "us and them" dilemma? They're just people, even if you don't ascribe to their choices. It seems like you're more concerned about being right than being correct.

It seems like they did

I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems to me the obvious answer to your consent dilemma is "no animal consents to being eaten." I feed my cat a non-vegan diet, for the record. I'm just not pretending that the fish likes it or anything. If a perfectly healthy vegan diet is possible for a cat, which I'm honestly not clear on, then it's definitely ethical to do so.

If you extrapolated the moral dilemma to the extreme, it would be like saying "it's unethical to take the knife away from that serial murderer. He just wants to murder and he didn't consent to stopping!" Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but so is making the consent argument. My point isn't that feeding cats meat is wrong (again, I feed my cat meat), it's that making a consent argument against veganism is silly.

That didn't seem particularly cunt-ish to me.

Sure, if you let it bother you. If you care about the memes that much, ignore the stuff you don't like, if you can't stand it, find one of many other communities. I don't think it's on them, regardless of poor branding, when there's so many other instances. No one is forcing you to engage in the comments of posts you don't like.

ml stands for Marxist-Leninist. When anyone is allowed to make their own instance, and instances or users can defederate or block what they don't want to see, why can't an instance be political? That's like saying "no political communities!" Just block them and move on, just as they can do the same. You commented in the memes community of a communist instance and got annoyed that you got banned for being anti-communist. Plenty of instances out there, they don't all need to cater to every person.

You can find that information easily. Steam reviews are by region.

It doesn't really sound like you want the government to get out of people's lives. Fair taxation, defending protected classes, and gun regulation are all very hands-on, and I agree that they're all important. The real thing right wingers mean when they say "small government" is "no regulation for corporations or states" so they can be as authoritarian as they want locally and the rich don't need to pay taxes. Banning gay marriage, controlling reproductive rights, and immigration control are not small government tasks, they're just tasks they want the authority to mandate on a state level since they know they'll never get the entire country on board.

What I wish more "centrists" would realize is that no one in the country, except anarchists, actually want small government, because they can't enforce control over the things they don't like without it. Rules for thee, not for me.

My main point being: Gender is a social construct, and doesn't fit the complex reality of lived human experience. Let people define their gender in their own terms, for those that desire a label, and otherwise abolish it.

Whether or not the statement is recursive, it is a basis. I see no valid reason to define it more rigorously. I identify as a woman, therefore I am. I identify as bisexual, therefore I am. Those are labels for nebulous social constructs, and don't need to be rigorous definitions. Any basis beyond "because I say so" would be inherently exclusionary. The entire debate over what defines a woman or a man is a pointless affair which harms transgender people and gender nonconforming cisgender people alike. I believe we should be abolishing gender, not trying to establish a basis for what makes someone woman or man enough. It's all made up.

In a philosophical sense of the strict definition, you're correct. I see no good reason to use our language like that though, as it would inevitably hurt trans people. I choose to instead use gender as an identifier assigned by each individual, as it's our colloquial definition and less harmful to trans people. In my opinion, if someone identifies as a woman, she is a woman, regardless of external perception.

And yes, I also agree that gender would be better abolished and relegated to a vibes-based, self-identified label for people that want it.

External perception should not be a qualifier of gender. Passing shouldn't be required for a trans person to be a member of their gender, much as a feminine presenting man is still a man and a masculine presenting woman is still a woman, unless they say otherwise. Because it's all made up anyways, we can allow the definition to be as flexible as gender itself is.

But yes, gender is often performative, but rather than defining that in the terms of the audience, define it in terms of the cast.

They called you a douchebag because your response was snippy and rude. "Click your own link" sounds condescending and arrogant.

That's not what the definition has changed to. Women can be women without identifying with that traditional role. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. I am a woman, and I certainly don't identify with the role of a traditional woman.

It totally can be. You should avoid ubiquitous blanket statements, you're bound to be wrong a fair percentage of the time. Judgement doesn't look good on anyone. There are plenty of issues with the institution of marriage, especially since it's been established with a hetero-centric point of view. I'm a gay woman, I'm fully aware of this, and we've made active choices to do things our way, not society's, as do many other gay and straight couples. There is always nuance.

You've figured us out. Women™, the monolith. You alone have realized that we all have the same opinions, and we all require large weddings purely as a control method to discomfort everyone else present and place ourselves subconsciously in a position of power. Watch your back, Women™ are coming for you to keep our secret silent.

A tone indicator shouldn't be necessary. It should be pretty clear that different people just like different things. You might prefer a judge, but myself and my fiancée want a wedding. You claim it causes stress to the guests and participants, but all my friends and family, myself included, love attending weddings. They're fun parties to celebrate love. All women, like all people, are different. Men can like weddings too.

That doesn't say he was flawless, it said they couldn't find anything to attack him on, which is true. They liked the whole "blowing up brown people with missiles" thing. That comment isn't unilateral praise of Obama, it's an explanation of why Republicans couldn't find dirt they could use on him, because the dirt that was there was on their faces too.

I disagree. That's not the game or the experience the devs wanted to make. I don't think every game needs to be for everyone. There's always modding if you still want to play a game not designed for you. I don't think it makes someone a bad person or a "snowflake" for liking a game's identity and design philosophy to remain consistent. I wouldn't mind personally if souls games had an easy mode, though I don't really play them, but I know that fans of the series don't like the idea, and it's just not the experience the devs wanted to make. If you don't like that the devs hold that philosophy, don't play their games.

I never got into Tarkov, but I love Arma and Squad. To each their own.

Okay but I enjoy realistic milsim games. You don't have to play them. Weird take.

I happen to love those types of games, so I'm here for it. Luckily, there is plenty of games out there.

Plumber, carpenter, construction, woodcraft, metalworker, etc etc. There are plenty of good reasons to own a large vehicle. People who use a large vehicle for its intended purpose aren't the problem, it's the assholes driving them for fun that makes everyone else unsafe.

Do you think the first long truck sprang into existence in 2008? We've had super long trucks for specific use cases as long as we've had trucks. This is like one of the few times a person has a good reason to have a large vehicle, and is being safe and polite about it by staying out of the way and writing a polite note to explain. Large vehicles aren't the problem, people owning large vehicles who don't need them are the problem.

If you think that this:

Replace "machine" with "film crew", "rerun" with "do another take", and "tweak the prompt" with "provide notes". If they're giving notes to a computer or a person doesn't really change the nature of their work, only the language they use to provide those notes.

is what a director does? You have no clue what you're talking about. They're far more involved in the creative process on every level than you understand.

Your question about who AI helps is a valid one. I agree that that's what's important about AI use. I use AI in my work, but not to replace human beings, but as a tool to make easy mock ups or test ideas. I find trying to replace human creativity in a way that replaces jobs or the human spark that makes art, art, abhorrent. AI art cannot exist without humans to train on, so humans cannot be fully replaced, but I hope to never see a day where AI takes the positions of well compensated artists leeching off the work of unpaid or underpaid humans.

I'm not suggesting that the director has full responsibility for the art. They are part of a team, and the creative style of a director heavily influences the finished product. You can tell who directed a movie just by watching it. There are very important creative decisions and directions that point the team of more specialized artists in the right direction.

This is not analogous to AI art. That would be like the director of a movie telling a team of interns to cut together clips of other movies as best they see fit, within a general outline of the script. A person using AI to generate art isn't part of the creative process in the same way; they tell a machine what to do, and decide whether to rerun or tweak the prompt after seeing the result. This takes some small modicum of creativity, but it isn't creating art. It's fine for fun, or to use as a stand in tool, or to mock-up designs, but it will never have the creative direction of a human being, or stand on the same level with true masters, regardless of how well it can copy their style. It can't understand the art.

Directing is an art form of its own. The cinematography, the pacing, the set design, acting, and so much more is all influenced by the director's decisions. It would be like saying a conductor or a music producer isn't an artist. Easy to say if you don't have an understanding of the art form, but dead wrong. There are a ton of creative choices at all levels made by directors, and there's a reason we've been using them in one way or another since we first started performance art. I've worked under and beside directors in the past, and I have only the utmost respect for what a good director can do for the art.

A bad director however... I might agree with you.

That certainly is an opinion