Anything is possible if you can do anything…

Also I remember talking to someone who makes plastic molds and they were saying that recycled plastic loses some of its desirable qualities, so even recyclable plastics have a limited lifespan.

To better understand what you’re saying, how would the Irish language’s way of expressing emotion change the development and perception of emotional states?

This is quite romantic, and I agree that we should be aware of our emotions as temporary, as clouds in the sky. However, the Irish language has not prevented the Irish people from having some of the highest rates of anxiety on Earth https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/anxiety-disorders-prevalence

What I understood from the comment you replied to is that, if only Democrats appear in the Epstein Files, then each Democrat that appears will be purged from the Democratic Party. This will open spaces for better people to fill.

On the other hand, if Republicans are redacted from the Epstein Files, they will not have that pressure to leave their roles.

Of course, I could be wrong and the comment could’ve meant something different.

Before I was born, my vision was a pov of a placenta from a woman, is it true that each baby came from a woman every time she’s pregnant?

Neither do I but we still do it with my partner and friends. We don’t do normal sushi and instead make sushi burritos. The sushi burritos are faster and easier.

Your post is similar to one I saw some time ago. That old post has a reply of mine, and I’ll paste it here:

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Where’s my Lemmy Gold when I need it

Yeah. I don’t think this cool guide is better than the lemon squeezer, unfortunately.

To get over plateaus, the Stronglifts answer would be to deload a bit and then go back up slowly.

You can also do stretching to break parallel without using the foot plates. I stretch using Mobility from Gold Medal Bodies, but I’m sure you can find plenty of resources.

That age is tied to cognitive development, the exploration of identities, and the discovery of many new things in the world. When I was a teenager I was also oblivious and that lead to situations similar to OP’s.

Here’s three ideas that come up:

This reminds me of the Fool’s Choice: you either lie and keep friends or you tell the truth and lose friends.

Similarly, I suppose that people who see kindness as a sign of naiveness have not learned how hostage negotiators do their work. A good hostage negotiator will act kindly, but they’re anything but naive.

Finally, I suppose whoever is deciding to ‘walk over kind people’ has lots of fears and a fragile identity they need to protect.

Let me know if you’re interested in learning about where these ideas come from.

Such a diversity of vehicles in a single picture.

I’m not saying humans aren’t responsible for the Anthropocene. I’m not saying we don’t have to save out planet. But we shouldn’t idealize nature.

Check out that thread. It’s filled with gems:

https://lemmy.ml/post/31109024

What? Amazing! I stopped playing Baldur’s Gate because I dislike the combat. How do I avoid it?

As in “nobody acts like you”?

Or as in “nobody’s words but your own words can guide your behavior”?

Or as in “nobody but you can describe your own behavior”?

Something else?

Oh I assumed it was a cocktail thing, but now I’m not so sure

It seems like you and I are both trying to make sense of democracy, how to make it inclusive, and how to have the best decision-making processes so that we, as a society, can have the best decisions possible. In other words, we’re trying to have the best possible democracy.

Now, we both agree that the age filter is imperfect. It’s a heuristic, a rule of thumb. You rightly point this out, and you interpret this fact as if there should be absolutely no filters at all. For you, any filter would be imperfect or problematic.

However, the way I see it, the age filter is a simple, cheap, and good enough heuristic. Age is ridiculously easy to keep track of, with current record-keeping technologies and institutions. In most of the world’s bureaucracies, people’s age appear right next to their face in state-issued documents. It’s everywhere.

Additionally, age is associated with physical and cognitive capabilities. Human children require care and nurture. Socializing children into the abstract world of economics and ecology takes time. I see the fact that children are required to go to school as a success, as a way of assuring that that culture sustains its cultural and scientific literacy over time. Ideally, when children can vote, they understand their world differently. They can see ecological, historical, and social processes around them in different ways. Here, setting a voting age is a heuristic for avoiding children who have not yet developed these abstract worldviews (because, after all, they’re… children).

I believe you will respond that “if the point is filtering for cultural and scientific literacy, then test for that, but not for age. There are children who are brilliant decision-makers and lackluster adults”. And I’d agree with you. Age is an imperfect measure. I’m not denying there are people who are exceptional. But what I am saying is that, for most people, age is a good enough heuristic.

Of course, as a society we could say that we shouldn’t go for the cheapest heuristic. We could say that we should include people in a better way. But you and I agree that the alternatives are tough. I’d say they’re costly, controversial, and probably imperfect.