Kalcifer
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
- Comment on "Groundhog Day Reloaded" 4 days ago:
Yeah, it definitely rehashed the trope, but I still think that movie is kind of underrated.
- Comment on Photosynthesized 5 days ago:
Orchis Italica
Thank you!
- Comment on Photosynthesized 5 days ago:
What plant is that?
- Comment on Economics 1 week ago:
Essentially, it’s because it’s a monopolistic/anti-competitive relationship, so the producer is able to charge much more than if it were competitive. The producer seeks to maximize profits, and the schools enable them by effectively controlling the market.
- Comment on Everyday, as an American 3 weeks ago:
I’ll preface this by saying that this isn’t an argument in favor of the imperial system, nor is it an argument intending to detract from the usefulness of the metric system. But I have wondered if there is some merit to having a simple, colloquial, “human friendly” system of measurement — something that’s shown to be the best system for people to grok, and is the most convenient to use in day-to-day life. If you need precision, and well defined standards, then certainly use the metric system, but is the metric system easy for people to grok? Say you ask someone to estimate a length. Would they be more likely to accurately estimate the length using the metric system, the imperial system, or some other system? Likewise for telling someone a length and asking them to physically reproduce it. Would they be more likely to do so with the metric system, the imperial system, or some other? It’s an interesting problem, imo, and it doesn’t seem to get much attention.
It could very well be that people can, indeed, grok measurements the best when using the metric system, but I currently am unaware of any research that has been done to show that. If anyone is aware of any research that has looked into this, then please let me know! I’d be very interested to read it.
- Comment on Took me disappointingly long 3 weeks ago:
Reminds me of r/dontdeadopeninside.
- Comment on Big Science 4 weeks ago:
Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound.
Sure, the argument could be unsound, but do note that that doesn’t necessitate that the conclusion is also false. That would effectively be an argument from fallacy. Also that isn’t exactly what I was trying to say — I was talking about how some people avoid engaging with certain classes of people because they don’t think that their arguments are worthy — e.g. flat earthers.
Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.
This is indeed an issue. I’m not entirely sure what its cause is. Perhaps it’s fear of ridicule, or ostracization? I think the best grassroots method to fix it would be teaching and advocating for proper critical thinking skills.
People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with.
Dealing with irrationality is a tricky thing. How does one reason with someone who is unreasonable? I personally don’t think abandoning them is the best solution, but, that being said, I also don’t have an alternative.
- Comment on Big Science 4 weeks ago:
Keep in mind that dismissing an argument as unworthy, is not an argument for why it is unsound. Furthermore, refusing to engage someone’s argument also doesn’t help in pointing them on a better path.
- Comment on Big Science 5 weeks ago:
Just because one doesn’t have equal post secondary education in one topic as another doesn’t mean that their arguments are unsound. This effectively an appeal to authority.
- Comment on Big Science 5 weeks ago:
Science does sometimes lie.
Hm, imo, science doesn’t lie — scientists lie.
- Comment on Big Science 5 weeks ago:
I agree with
Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.
That being said, you certainly can disagree with a scientific outcome. Good science relies on such types of discussions. If someone has a disagreement, then, by all means, please conduct an experiment to show that it’s wrong, or express your opinion and be open to discussion.
- Comment on Seriously, Wikibooks? 1 month ago:
It’s a nigligible inconvenience
This community is called Mildly Infruating, after all 😜
- Comment on Seriously, Wikibooks? 1 month ago:
Aha, that username is apparently not allowed. They require that a username contain at least one letter. Image
- Comment on Seriously, Wikibooks? 1 month ago:
Just the environment where the impersonations are theorized to take place — given the type of people who likely use the service, the ways people interract on the site, what the site is used for… imo, it seems unlikely that changing an “a” to a “4” is going to result in a damaging impersonation.
- Comment on Seriously, Wikibooks? 1 month ago:
That certainly does seem to be their goal, but, imo, it’s a bit extreme — especially given the context.
- Submitted 1 month ago to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world | 16 comments
- Comment on Are trailers revealing too much again nowadays? 1 month ago:
I intentionally avoid watching a trailer for any movie for fear of spoilers.
- Comment on Capitalists hate competition, especially when it comes to wages 1 month ago:
I agree with the general sentiment, but I don’t believe that it’s right to wish harm upon them.
