What’s a common “fact” that’s spread around that’s actually not true and pisses you off that too many people believe it?
That social democracy “failed” to implement socialism.
This is incorrect in several ways. The most obvious one being that this is usually claimed by Marxist-Leninists, who have only ever succeeded in creating centralized economic dictatorships (as well as political dictatorships).
The secondary issue is that it puts the bar for what counts as socialism far too high. Any business that is owned by capitalists qualify as capitalist ownership, but only a 100% fully democratized economy counts as socialist. It’s a hypocritical way of thinking. A more rational approach is to admit the truth: that any organisation that is owned and controlled by the workers is a socialist organisation.
Nordic social democracy has the objectively greatest track record of implementing actual economic democracy in the whole world. We had plenty of worker’s co-ops, consumer co-ops, sports unions, hobby unions, non-profits and worker’s unions.
“Oh, but the Nordic countries fell to neoliberalism!” Yes, AFTER more than half a century of socialist policies and economic democratization. The USSR fell to dictatorship and centralism on day one. Nordic social democracy had decades of socialist progress where the USSR had absolutely none!
Nordic social democracy is the greatest success story of socialism in the whole world. Marxist-Leninists use every dirty trick in the book to discredit social democracy because they know that their shitty authoritarian mess of an ideology can’t compete with real progress.
The main problem with Nordic social democracy is that you still rely on economic imperialism and exploitation of the global south. As long as your socialism remains nationalist, it will not be socialism. That being said, of course you guys have a better track record on equality and democracy than purely capitalist nations like the US or Britain. I would much rather live in your country than mine.
That WW1 was the same moral black and white as WW2.
In my opinion, every country in WW1 was the villain just that one side was impatient enough to be the aggressor first.Ooh this is a hot take, can you explain a little?
I don’t think it is.
They all were colonial powers that oppressed and subdued their colonial holdings, extracting wealth and even soldiers. France was the only republic, all the others were monarchies and Russia had the most absolutist monarchy. But that doesn’t really factor in, because even France wasn’t fighting to spread or preserve democracy.All were fighting to beat them arch enemies, to steal a piece of land or two or maybe a colony and to test their newly developed industrial weaponry. They were all stomping at the bit before it started.
The German Empire was surely the most militaristic society. But they still fought all for the same ideology and reason.
To my last point, you can see that in the result: the losers had to gave up colonies but not to independence but to the victors as spoils.Stomping at the bit? I’ve never heard that phrase
Yeah I meant chomping at the bit. It comes from horses chewing the metal part of the bridle because they’re fired up and want to run.
“champing” not “chomping”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champing at the bit
Ah, thanks. I am not a native English speaker.
There was a large propaganda effort by the British and French to pin the blame for the war on one of the Central Powers and Germany was the only major Central Powers that didn’t fall apart due to the war.
May you explain why you think it’s controversial? Only if you want to.
To my primitive understanding the war was triggered by the Austrians, escalated by the Germans and win by the Allies. But I’ve never bothered to question the information, so it felt quite controversial to read. Your other comment explaining it makes perfect sense however.
Yep, WWI was the result of a bunch of inbred rulers turning family disagreements into a war because they could.
Yeah. When you look at how the war even got started, you start to see that Germany didn’t expect Austria-Hungary to be that incompetent diplomatically and that Russia was the one who threw away a potential peace plan before the war started.
deleted by creator
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. Would you say that someone who identifies as nonbinary is not transgender? If so, does that mean that transgender only exists within the gender binary?
Agreeing to disagree is only applicable to matters of taste.
Example would be a preference of maple or agave syrup with your choice of cooked dough.
One cannot agree to disagree when one of the parties is factually wrong.
I see the “agree to disagree” as a bit of a social flag for the conversation that says “I don’t wish to get into it / continue arguing about it” because there is no way to respond to it. If you try to continue the debate you look like an asshole, and if you drop it the person who says it gets to continue being wrong without being challenged.
It’s very annoying and I hate it.
A lot of people don’t understand “factually wrong” is often not possible, if you’re literally debating specific stated facts that you have outside references to sure but anything relating to complex systems, issues, the human experience etc is simply not that black and white
The only electricity generation we should have is solar.
But in the end isn’t all energy solar?
Most energy sources trace back to the sun’s power through direct or indirect processes. Fossil fuels, wind, hydro, and biomass all originate from solar-driven cycles on Earth. About the only thing you could argue that isn’t solar is geothermal. But even that exists because some sun exploded created gas and dust that clumps together and forms a planet.
Sure, that is a statement a human could type or vocalize.
I assure you I am human. But isn’t that exactly what an AI would say?
Although I also believe we live in a simulation so in the end maybe we are all AI.
Yeah we need a good mix of things. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear… Why not burn trash for electricity as well, unless we figure out excellent ways to recycle everything. Coal, gas and oil fuels should obviously be phased out as fast as possible, as much as possible.
Why do you say that? Isn’t it better to diversify to guarantee supply when the sun is out? What’s the problem with wind, hydro or geothermal?
Plus, having other means to generate electricity would also somewhat bring down the cost of solar cells due to lower demand.
I’m saying a diversification of generation is needed. All eggs in any one particular basket is ignorance.
Nuclear is fine, it’s only unsafe when people are idiots. Oh wait, actually scratch that, in that case it’s not safe. /s
deleted by creator
That and the fossil fuel industry creating Greenpeace to spread propaganda far and wide under the guise of environmentalism
Chernobyl is hardly the only meltdown we have seen. 3 reactors in Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Fermi 1, K-19 soviet submarine, the US SL-1 test reactor. And there are plenty of non-meltdown radiation releases. Newer designs do seem safer, but the track record of nuclear power is checkered, at best.
I’ve heard the argument that nuclear is also bad because it still uses steam turbines which require grease/cooling oil derived from petroleum. Lot of anti turbine people for that reason. I wholeheartedly disagree and am what you could consider a highly knowledgeable person in the matter.
I think we have to settle with the fact that all oil deposits are going to be extracted and used by humanity. I’d prefer if we used it slowly to grease turbine bearings rather than just burning it all the time.
Also, until fairly recently, we were using whale oil for lubrication in a lot of things. As fucked up as it is, that shit is renewable. There are alternatives for lubrication that are slightly more expensive than petroleum products.
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said so far.
And yet the petroleum industry is pushing so hard to brainwash the public to think another Chernobyl is inevitable, even though they can make the very products that can prevent it.
“Half of Americans voted for this”
No, half the voting population voted for the guy, but not necessarily all he is doing. It’s actually only about 20-22% of the population that actually voted this guy into office. Far from “half of Americans”, so just stop it.
A lot of people who voted for him didn’t like either choice and thought he was least evil for whatever reason. We can never know how evil Harris would have been - even if she wins in the future that doesn’t show what she would have been if she was in now. The situation and people change over time
lol. we 100% could know harris would be less evil than trump. it would have been 4 more years of essentially the same administration but with a younger bend which likely would have been better. only reason people think of trump less evil than harris are ones you cheer on the ice things so they have a twisted version of right and wrong.
That is a matter of opinion. The ‘right’ has different beliefs from you and finds many of the things ‘the left’ supports wrong\evil.
I think they believe that but I have watched thier philosophies dropped by their party to the point where whatever they represent changes whenever. The party is so different now than they were in the 70’s that their own politcians would see the current incarnation as evil. Add to this the blatant violations of the constitution. Americans at the least should be able to understand the bill of rights and how it fits into the declaration of independence’s grievences that lead to the revolutionary war. What happened in the residences in chicago reads exactly like colonial america you just have to replace ice with redcoats. The fact people call themselves americans and think that due process does not apply to all is just. well. frustrating.
It is very frustrating as someone with those ideas that are lost. Nobody is close to what I want. The left keeps moving to socialism and the right to authoritarianism
the left maybe but not democrats who until recently have been going right such that they have a lot in commone with 70’s republicans. Even then the movement left is with a minority caucus within the party but heck it just used to be bernie practically.
Yeah and Nazis had different opinions about Hitler so we definitely should just be all philosophical and say there really is no difference. /s
What a, putting it lightly, not well thought out argument.
I didn’t say there was no difference in how they are ‘evil’. I said they were both evil and Harris has evils that to the right are just as unplatable if not more than Trump is to the left.
No, half the people who actually showed up to vote voted for the guy
He only got 49.8% of the popular vote in 2024, so while it’s close enough that most people would accept rounding up, even this statement is not factual in the most literal interpretation.
People who didn’t care enough to vote are just as bad as the ones who voted for Trump. They were warned what was coming and they allowed it
Approximately half as bad, in raw outcome terms. A vote for the opponent is significantly worse than not voting. But yeah, big losers for not even voting.
While voter apathy is widespread in the US, note that voter disenfranchisement has been honed over decades so many people either didn’t get to vote or could not vote because the impact to them short-term was too great to afford making decisions for the long term (e.g. people losing their jobs while living paycheck-to-paycheck).
Mathematically speaking, each of them is half as bad as one Trump voter
“We are not collectively responsible for the output of this system we collectively use to run our country”. Disagree.
it also doesnt count un-registered people, it just assume anyone of at age that can vote dint, some arnt even registered, and some are unable to vote for one reason or another that is not due to personal choice.
Nope. Everyone who didn’t vote, voted for this…and every American who isn’t out on the streets right now, fighting to end this, is silently supporting it. The world gave Americans the benefit of the doubt in 2016, but not this time. Y’all fucked up big time, and it’s your mess to clean up.
Maybe check your facts. NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted
Trump won in 2024 with just under 50% of the vote, 49.7%-48.2% over Democrat Kamala Harris.
Roughly 64% of the eligible-voting population turned out in 2024, the second highest since 1904. 2020 was the highest.
But even if everyone who could vote did, Trump would have won by an even wider margin, 48%-45%, according to Pew’s validated voters survey
Whether it’s your intent or not, the narrative you’re spreading is used to dissuade folks from demanding better than the choice between a shit taco and a turd sandwhich. It affirms a shitty status quo and demands political patience in the face of a fucked up world… to the benefit of fascists and their corporate cronies.
nah, the DNC refused to actually released the election autopsy, they know they won but they dint want to call out the rigging. 2024 was so obviously rigged by musk and other people. why should the Dem voters have to vote overwhelmingly to overcoming rigging by the republicans every time, the DINODNC are totally complicit in allowing trump a nd the gop to win the elections.
Man I like npr but its missing a lot. It says he would have won by a larger margin but he would get a lower total percentage. So its basically saying that many who did not vote would have voted for a third party as in the election it was apparent just over 2% but in the theoretical one the third party would have won 7%. Of course that is the popular voted and it does not go into where the differences were and for which side. Given the electoral college it really comes down to the swing states. In other words does the thing over the country remain the same just looking at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Because if they had moved by less than a percent then the election would have went the other way. The real question is if the third party voters really feel the country would be just as bad under kamala as trump. like how bad they view ice and war and tarrifs and dismantling of agencies and firing of experienced people and having a ever more right supreme court and such. From what I can tell they think it would be just the same using online coments anyway.
I don’t doubt that. All i was saying was that, if you didn’t vote, it was an automatic vote for what America got. I’ve always said that Trump isn’t the hero America needed, but he’s the one they deserve.
NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted. I agree that substantial Trump voters disapprove of current events, but the truth is one in two US citizens preferred Trump over Harris on Election Day. Not to mention turnout was 64% not 42%, so it’s 30% not 20%
so it’s 30% not 20%
Fair. I was going by population numbers vs votes cast and didn’t have the voter turnout numbers handy when I originally wrote that out and was paraphrasing from that to save time.
But that’s still far from half, and I’m tired of people using the misconception/phrase to justify their xenophobic rhetoric.
oh i thought you were referring to people saying it to illustrate how bad the system is and how important trump winning the election was lol. i definitely agree that it doesn’t justify what he’s doing (even if it legally stands, even if it legally stands, it doesn’t stand socially)
but it is not inaccurate to say nearly half of the citizens preferred him on election day. per the link, pew research shows 48% of non-voters would’ve voted for trump as opposed to 45%, with a pretty high validity.
What I would give to make everyone in the world understand that a computer responding to a string of 0s and 1s in the order directed is not thinking.
How do you define “thinking”?
I would say that thinking includes the ability to generate novel ideas and the ability to reason. This ability to reason may include viewing a situation from another perspective than one’s self. An AI does not reason, it recognizes patterns in a huge dataset and generates output based on that.
Spontaneous signals sent in the human brain in response to stimuli. The thing about computers is that their only stimuli is 0s and 1s, and their only response is 0s and 1s. They’re a complex system of switches. Humans experience the entire world of stimuli, and we made this system of switches to convey representations of the meanings we create in our brains. A computer has no mechanism to understand that the purpose of these 0s and 1s we’re sending is to ask and answer questions, to solve a problem of how to build a bridge, to come up with a compelling story to make our friends laugh. We can program it to very accurately perform an action. That’s what it can do.
Spontaneous signals sent in the human brain in response to stimuli.
This sounds a bit circular to me. Almost like saying “thinking is what brains do.”
I’m also getting the sense that you’re partly talking about consciousness there, which I would personally treat as a separate subject. It’s not obvious to me that in order to be able to think, one would also need the capacity to experience.
Almost like saying “thinking is what brains do.”
That’s not wrong to say though, because it’s true. Thought is a function of a brain. There’s no mechanism for non-brains to think. I think you’re confusing computation for thought. Computation can result in a product that looks like it came from thought, but computation itself fundamentally has nothing in common with thought. It’s not a spontaneous, creative response to the stimuli we experience in the world. There is no process of meaning-making. There can’t be, because it has no mechanism to understand what it’s responding to.
Brains are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. I don’t see why that same function couldn’t be performed in silicon. I wouldn’t say our current systems can think in the sense that people understand the term, but I see no reason to assume they couldn’t in the future - or that thinking is reserved only for wet meat computers.
I don’t really see how you could make a brain out of silicone, because thought a product of cells. The cells send signals to each other, and that’s how you get thought. You could maybe grow a brain in a lab, but I don’t see how a plastic replication would work. And even if you did grow one in a lab, who knows how not being connected to a body would impact its ability to develop thought.
That’s an unserious definition because if thinking is defined as happening in the human brain, then monkeys can’t think. Obviously monkeys can think.
In its most basic form: the continuous formation/recall of associations and disassociations between stimuli.
That is the atom of thinking. But even that rules out ANNs pretrained using gradient descent since they can’t learn in response to stimuli.
The next simple step up is the ability to overwrite those learned associations which probably is solved by completing the first task but it’s important to note.
The following step up is being able to process those associations/memories themselves as stimuli which can be associated forming new connections/memories that can be recalled and associated and so on ad infinitum.
That rules out finite non-recursive neural nets, and that still puts us no where near AGI. It’s basically just an ml taxonomic tree builder
The next necessary piece for actual high level thinking is curiosity and action. The system needs to be able to take a concept and a relation (abstract idea of a particular kind of association between two concepts) which currently don’t form a known relationship, and attempt to find the missing concept which would complete that relationship. (Most likely this involves either finding relationship chains between the two which in all other known cases are equivalent to a known relation OR following some procedure to experience the relationship directly as stimuli.)
Lastly, in order to experience the idea of thinking, we first need to have the ability to form temporal associations, but also have working memory of recent past thoughts, and finally the ability to compare those with previous recent memories or the most current stored thoughts. Finding patterns in our thinking helps us be better at thinking. (This is a prerequisite for the experience of free will and consciousness)
That’s what higher level thinking entails.
Of course tuning the system’s response to recognized associations, how memories are stored and recalled, how frequently the system experiences curiosity, etc. will all impact the overall intelligence of the model, but considering most current “AI” don’t even check off the first box, that’s all a bit out of scope.
your brain doesn’t do maths to figure out how to move yourself or how to throw things, it just learned/knows which neurons to fire to move different parts of your body and has an impression of how much force must be applied to do different types of physical work. (e.g move through fluid)
True. But our bones do some of the calculations as well. We’re born with kinematics. Contrast with a video game that needs to do a lot of IK math to simulate bones.
And our neurons are doing a lot of calculations … just a different way.
But yeah, nobody is doing that Sherlock Holmes fight club stuff in their heads.
I do, but only when i shower.
"One bar of soap to the left arm. Top. Bottom. Clean: 12 hours "
Might start doing this technique to be fair
That’s more than 12 hours of clean in my book though, if i may say
I wonder, do the Clean buffs stack? Or are you a percent clean?
Alright, here are the official stats: getting perfectly clean gives you the buff Cleanliness IV for 1 hour, which then degrades to Cleanliness III for 3 hours, to Cleanliness II for 8 hours, followed by Cleanliness I for 12 hours.
The time runs at a base rate of 1 hour per hour, but your environment may lead to the rate accelerating or decreasing. For instance, being out in the hot sun may lead to sweating which increases the rate to 1.25-4 hours per hour depending on how hot it is and your passive constitution score and buffs. Being in a perfectly air conditioned, filtered environment could reduce the rate as low as .5 hours per hour.
There can also be instant hits to the timer. For instance, being hit by a thimble of mud may take off 10 minutes at once, slathering it to to cover more skin will take off a larger chunk from the timer.
I miss when games were simpler…
Definitely doesn’t stack because i feel like if i overclean i get dirtier quicker. What’s so unfair about this is that the dirty debuff stacks.
So yeah, there’s a percent clean and when you get over 100% you’re in raw skin territory. Microbiome extinction.
I agree so much with this. We can use math to describe what you are doing when you throw a ball, that doesn’t mean you are doing the math calculations when you throw it.
We can use math to calculate all sorts of things, doesn’t mean those things themselves are doing math to decide how to do them. Waves, the moon’s orbit, all kinds of natural systems we can use math to describe, but they aren’t doing math.
That’s philosophical.
Are our neurons, are waves etc. not just a system that directly ‘perform’ maths without ‘doing’ maths? Math can be seen as a language for us to describe, explore and predict stuff. But you could equivalently say that the math is already there and we just discover it and put it into words.That relates to the question whether math is discovered or invented. The one is an act of uncovering universal and natural truths, the other a rather creative process of bringing something new into a universe where it isn’t naturally found.
But that’s the catch. We wouldn’t say that, for example, coffe machines are discovered, they are not found in nature. (If they would, that would be quite a headline to wake up to.) They are clearly invented. Math however builds upon a fundament of provable truths. Of stuff that is already there and can be found in nature. So while we might argue that at least some parts of math may be invented (just like the coffee machine that operates on physical principles that exist elsewhere in nature with respect to their components), isn’t the fundament of math itself rather discovered? We just put into words and symbols, what is already there and uncover the hidden mechanisms.
I am not a mathematician, but have heard somewhere that it is already quite an effort to prove why our numbers make sense or why 1+1 can equal 2. And while we certainly do not need to tie math to an observable physical reality, we derived fundamental working principles from it, don’t we?
It doesn’t piss me off at all, but too many people think time is consistent. Time fluctuates, moves faster or slower depending on your relative speed. There could be dead spots in the galaxy/universe where time simply does not pass.
I’m with you aside from the places where time may not pass. Time isn’t a “place” thing. Particles traveling through that space would have time pass for them so long as they were traveling sublight.
Time does not pass for entities traveling at c. Everything else is reference frame.
That’s crazy too. Light travels instintantly, but it takes time to reach us. Reality be cray, i love it.
That’s because light is in a different reference frame than we are.
Your mom so big she absorbs lights refrence frames
Yo momma so fat she got an event horizon.
That’s a good one
This is one thing that always got me. Isn’t this all based on movement? When we talk about time in warped spacetime being different from time “elsewhere” isn’t it usually based on how we track time? (physical clocks, atom vibration, etc…) An example I remember reading about was the light clock on a moving object. The faster you move the “longer” it takes the light to bounce from mirror to mirror, but that shouldn’t change what one bounce was initially defined as.
We defined time as a measurement between two points of “existence” to relate to changes within that period at what I’d call “standard spacetime.” I’ve always felt like one second is one second, it’s just your clock that was affected.
I guess it’s the relative part that gets me. If it’s all down to movement, down to the atom, everything that could happen in 1 earth second on earth happens in the ticking of 3 seconds in altered spacetime does it actually mean anything significant?
…idk now after writing it out I’m more confused about why I was confused. It makes sense, it just feels like it shouldn’t make sense lol
I hear you one hundred percent. If it wasn’t tricky our best minds wouldn’t still be scratching thier heads over it.
Venice is often touted as being the “birthplace of Opera.” When in fact the true birthplace of Opera is Florence. We can credit its development to a group of artists and intellectuals called the Florentine Camerata.
This is extremely important everyone! Please take note of this and the next time you and your fellow construction workers are debating the intricacies of music history, set them straight!
Also, editing to add the little fun fact that one of the Florentine Camerata’s members was Galileo’s dad, Vincenzo Galilei.
I am the very model of a modern Capitano.
I’m sick of people saying there are no original movies. Original movies come out literally every week, and I’m using the actual meaning of the word literally. Look at the website MovieInsider for a list of all the movies being released. Some recent original movies are quite popular too, like Sinners and Project Hail Mary. It pisses me off because if you care enough to complain, you should care enough to look up what movies are out instead of just knowing about the ones heavily advertised. I don’t know what video games are out but I would make an effort to know if I played video games. If you care what movies are out, you should look it up.
I think you might be judging these people too harshly. I think what they really mean is less that new movie ideas are not coming out and more that there are too many re-hashed ideas. The two ideas are easy to confuse. And I think you’ll admit that there have been long strings of superhero movies, tons of vampire movies, never-ending franchises and that doesn’t even include all of the tropes that get used over and over again. This leaves people like me wondering how many great ideas pitched to Hollywood are turned down in favor of another sequel because it’s perceived as the easiest way to make a quick buck. I’m always delighted when a movie surprises me because so few do.
Maybe I take things too literally because of my autism, but in the contexts I see these comments it seems to mean there are no movies that aren’t sequels or remakes. There are plenty of movies that aren’t sequels or remakes and these people seem to be willfully ignoring them. I’ve seen many movies this year, some have been sequels or remakes, some have not been. I personally count movies based on books as original, like the movie Reminders of Him, but that’s not good enough for some people. The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film, but no they won’t accept an adaptation as original. And yes, some original films are derivative of ideas that have been done before. All fiction is derivative of other fiction. It’s basically impossible fir it not to be at least a little derivative.
I concede that it is unfortunate that there are likely original ideas being rejected in favour of franchise movies. But I think part of the reason this happens is audiences are hypocritical. If the audience would put their money where their mouths are and see more original films, more original films would get made. Franchise films are getting made so often because it’s what people want, as proven by them making money. People blame the marketing for their choices. It’s a chicken and egg situation, franchise films make more money because they’re marketed more and they’re marketed more because they make more money. If people saw more original films, original films would get more marketing. I’m annoyed by people blaming the corporations for their own choice to see franchise movies more than original movies
I think it could be a bit of both.
I mean independent films don’t aire in as many locations so it’s a self fulfilling thing to some extent.
I’ve never really known if it’s the chicken or the egg. For example, I like a smaller cell phone. It fits in my pocket and is easier to use with one hand. But… It’s also harder to see. Smaller phones are going extinct. Is that because people want larger phones or because companies want us to want larger phones? I have no idea really. All I know is it will be very difficult for me to “vote” for smaller phones with my dollars, if there are literally no smaller phones to choose.
deleted by creator
I dunno, all those movies you mention seemed to have a lot in common, like a protagonist who becomes unsatisfied with their life, enters a new realm with different rules, undergoes great trials, almost fails but receives unexpected aid, and ultimately gets what they sought but finds themself no longer fitting into their former life.
Just something I’ve noticed.
That is the standard plot for any good story.
The most basic version is: normal person gets pushed out of their comfort zone, undergoes turmoil, comes out of this turmoil changed.
Unfortunately popular movies tend to make them all “tough guy gets pushed into violence, destruction ensues, he gets the girl and/or revenge” or “uptight person gets put in absurdly contrived cringy situations that are supposed to be funny, then comes out of the situation not uptight and gets the girl.”
Project Hail Mary is an adaptation
Some of our most beloved classical movies are adaptations. What’s your point?
Name one anime that wasn’t a manga first.
You erroneously listed it as an example of an original film, is my point.
That person didn’t list it as anything. Pay attention to who you’re replying to. For the purpose of the discussion about whether Hollywood is making any original movies, people mean as opposed to remakes and sequels
Okay it was an adaptation, but it wasn’t a remake or a sequel. I understand the definition of original to be not remake or sequel. If adaptations don’t count, that significantly shrinks the number of original movies that have ever been made. Why is it not enough the movie isn’t part of an established film franchise, it also must not be an adaptation? The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film. The film is contributing to new, non-franchise, films being made popular. No, ideas must go straight to being film or they don’t count?
Because original film has a specific meaning, that it isn’t adapted from an underlying work.
But for the purposes of these conversations, people are complaining about sequels and remakes being too prominent. I don’t see why an adaptation of a book that has never been adapted into film before should be part of that complaint
Okay, but you can’t just redefine established terminology to make it fit your argument. Besides, people complain about adaptations from other media just as much as about remakes and sequels.
Different categories apply depending on the context. Adaptations are a different category than remakes or sequels and in this context make sense to classify as original. It’s not based on any preexisting movie
People complain about original movies too, what’s your point? People are hypocrites. They ask why nothing original is being made and them Disney announced Hexed and it immediately got backlash. People are accusing it of being a ripoff of Owl House but there’s no good evidence of that. People complain no matter what.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood and people usually aren’t just complaining about franchise films but also about adaptations. To which I’m even MORE annoyed with their complaint about no original movies being made. The original Mean Girls was an adaptation. So that movie shouldn’t have been made? Why shouldn’t Hollywood look to books for material? Why this arbitrary demand that the movie can’t be based on anything? All stories are derivative. The original Star Wars was original, not a remake or adaptation, but it was inspired by Flash Gordon. It’s basically impossible to make a story with no connection to any preexisting story
I’m tired of people thinking that a gigabyte is 1024 megabytes because Microsoft says that in file explorer. A gigabyte is 1000 megabytes and a gibibyte is 1024 mebibytes.
I’m tired of people thinking this is commonly used parlance because of some Microsoft file explorer choice and not because that is how it was taught in Comp Sci classes all over the world for decades, even before Microsoft. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this isn’t really anything to do with them… The new SI standards for Kibi et al were standardized around 1999, and college CS classes were still teaching without using them at all up to at least 5 years later when I attended. And the tech boom of the early 2000s was rife with “well actually, you should know” misinformation spread by news and media outlets and “a kilobyte is actually 1024 bytes” was part of that. Then you get wrapped up in the awful awful corporate lies spread by ISPs, RAM, and Storage drive companies that will happily exploit the confusion of the consumer to their advantage every fucking time, trying to hide behind “bits vs bytes” confusion…
I feel like the blame has shifted over to the companies that still use the binary standard nowadays. The SI standard has been around for over 25 years now and yet they still use it. As a gen Zer myself, pretty much all the people I know that still use the binary standard are doing it because they saw it being used in their file software (Microsoft file explorer.)
Also not trying to put the blame off of the SI standard itself here. If the SI standard said that a KiB is 1000 bytes and a KB is 1024 bytes, then there would be no need to argue about whether to use the binary or SI standard when referring to KB.
A byte is 8 bit.
RAM manufacturers disagree. I’ve seen many sticks of RAM in my day and none of them have ever said “gibibyte” or “GiB” on them.
I will die on the hill that binary prefixes are stupid and unnecessary.
God.
“Things were better in the past”
No… you just spend too much time on the internet. And yes, that includes comparing everything to 1950s America. Of course, there are ebbs and flows, and things get worse for some people or groups of people sometimes. But on net, if you compare the present to the past over any substantial period of time, based on metrics that people generally find important like health, safety, free time, and freedom to choose how to live their lives, the present is wildly better than the past.
Taking 1950s America for example, since it is such a popular example, 1/3 of homes didn’t have indoor plumbing. We don’t even have to go back to medieval times and talk about how you probably wouldn’t be a princess - we can just compare to the supposed golden age of one of the richest societies the world has ever seen, and you have a one in three chance of having to poop in a hole outside every day and heating your bathwater in a stock pot on the stove.
SOME things were better in the past. Most were not. Just because someone can you can name a few examples of things that were better doesnt make them right.
The best first aid for someone having a seizure is to shove a wallet (or something) in their mouth, so that they don’t “swallow their tongue”.
NO!
Never do this. Absolutely never. It’s far more likely that you’ll injure the victim (or yourself) in the attempt.
Furthermore, don’t restrain a seizure victim in any way unless it’s absolutely necessary for their physical safety (like if they’re in danger of falling down a stairway. Even then, it’s usually better to just stand at the top step and act as a barrier). Whenever possible, move things they may hit out of their way; don’t try to move the victim. If there’s something you can’t move, try to put something soft between the victim and the object.
Most of the time, the best thing you can do for a seizure victim is to not touch them at all, and simply give them room.
Is putting a pillow or something soft under their head adviseable? I know the floor is considered a hard immovable object but it putting something under them sorta so im not sure if that qualifies
Generally the advice is moving everything out of the way, if possible a blanket or something under their head as quickly as possible if they are on a hard surface and calling the ambulance (if someone else is there get them to do that straight away while you move stuff!) Also a good idea to time the seizure if possible! When they come to, have them stay laying down for a few minutes at least before sitting up. Some people can appear to be okay but go back into seizure so slowly, slowly with sitting up and even before offering a water.
If you know someone who has seizures, even irregularly, it’s a good idea to ask them about it beforehand in case it ever happens when you’re with them. People can have different management plans and it also just gives you some guidance and the other person some control should it happen.
(I work in disability!)
Thank you. I work with someone that can have seizures and we have a looot of hard floors so this is great advice for me.
Just adding, TIME the seizure. Super important.
Worked with a guy who hasn’t had a seizure in years and had stopped taking his meds. He never disclosed any of this beforehand. Was a fun surprise when he started to get loopy staring at a rotating motor shaft then trying to touch then hug said shaft spinning at several hundred rpm. Pulled him back from trying to bear hug it for him to start convulsing. Trying to carefully lay him down and support his skull to prevent it from cracking on the concrete and metal flooring was an adventure I’d rather never go on again
Is that for information to give first responders when they arrive? Not questioning your advice, just curious about what to do with that information.
Yep that’s right, to give to first responders, the person themselves or any other support people that may be involved. Can help people pick up on if anything is changing, longer seizures can mean medication might need looking at, condition deteriorating etc.
