last_philosopher

I'd imagine lemmy has among the lowest has-sucked-dick ratios of any potentially mixed-gender community.

I have to disagree honestly. So many times someone tells me about some question they're pondering, and when I offer some suggestion about what may be going on or how to fix it, they're like "Why are you talking about something you know nothing about? You don't have to have an opinion."

But am I allowed to? I'm a curious person. If something interesting or strange or problematic is happening in your life, the first thing my brain is going to do is start trying to explain it. So I could keep it to myself, but then since my mind is on something I'm not allowed to talk about, I'm going to sit there and be silent and then they'll be like "What? Do you have any reaction at all or are you going to just sit there in silence?"

And then I pull out my beretta...

Today I went to an event happening at the building I went to elementary school in decades ago. I was worried the directions weren't clear enough and that I might get lost, but when I got there everything felt immediately familiar and I could still walk on autopilot exactly where I needed to go.

There's parts of our mind that encode information like about places that aren't part of explicit memory. You may therefore "remember" something that you don't recall knowing. What if rather than being my elementary school, this was a building I'd been to once a long time ago but forgotten? Or maybe a building that I've not been to, but unbeknownst to me was designed with a unique style by the same architect as a building I was more familiar with? It might also seem oddly familiar.

Reincarnation by nature is hard to define, let alone prove true or false. So I couldn't really rule it out entirely. But given all the other explanations, I'd lean against it.

The month first is best because consider what happens if a message gets cut off. You might get: "You'll be flying to New York on the first of ..." or "You'll be flying to New York on June..."

The first message doesn't tell you anything useful. Do you need to buy shorts or a parka? Do you have months to prepare or are you leaving in a few hours? Could this be an april fools joke? It's a 1/12 chance. Totally useless.

Second message, sure the details are unclear but at least you know what to pack and that you need to hurry about getting the rest of the message.

A sword by definition has a "pointed blade" accordingly any object with an infinitely long blade cannot be a sword. Rather, it's a blade ray.

This is a type of ad hominem fallacy because you're downvoting based on something about the speaker that is unrelated to the argument. You might argue that there is a correlation between the misspellings and logical fallacies, but you offer no evidence, and the fact that you committed this phallusy while spelling everything correctly speaks otherwise.

That would require some considerable effort to pull off.

Something far more plausible: a bug in zoom that reverses the camera and/or microphone button functionality.

In most cases, it's wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.

In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it's kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.

The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you're giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you're giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.

The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.

Thus I'd say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.

There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals

• That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
• "We" are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we've never seen consciousness working in the brain)
• We are within the brain
• The brain exists at all
• Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)

But then what perceives the illusion? How can the whole concept of an illusion have any meaning without a thinker to perceive what isn't true?

Consciousness

Be careful with the hot water. A friend cracked his toilet that way.