For people genuinely wanting links for context, I’ve talked about some of Sunshine’s history in previous comments. https://lemmy.world/post/33055701/18273538
I didn’t know about some of the things mentioned here, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Using so many alts makes it hard to document these things. I expect that’s probably intentional.
Of course they change over time. But that already happens in every other civ game. You gain and lose territory by settling, war, and diplomacy. You build infrastructure and wonders. You develop technologically and culturally. But changing everything in one turn rollover is both unrealistic and disruptive in gameplay.
Saying something obviously fake like “it’s always been my dream to work here” is a bad idea, unless it’s a prestigious company where that could be true. The question is actually a good opportunity for the candidate to show off something if they want to, without being too awkward if they don’t.
You can say you’ve done research into the company online and are impressed by the work-life balance/leadership/worker loyalty/innovation. Sincere interest is not only flattering, it also makes you look thorough and driven. You can say you were recommended to apply by someone you know who has a connection. You can also give them some idea of what you are expecting, which can potentially save time if it’s not actually what they are offering. I had a friend get redirected to applying to a better position than what had been listed like this.
And if you truly are not a good fit, you can actually address that your previous experience doesn’t directly apply by saying something like “I’m looking for a change” rather than trying to dance around it for the entire interview. If your interviewer has any familiarity with the role, you won’t be able to trick them into thinking unrelated experience makes you well-qualified. And when that’s the case, acknowledging it early makes it much less awkward by establishing expectations appropriately. Basically, you have to be careful to limit your lies to things you can actually sell.
Obviously you shouldn’t cancel on someone because something more interesting came along. But I would say telling them that’s the reason is worse than just not giving one or making up something.
I read a book a while back called “The Courage to be Disliked”. That title could be used for some manosphere nonsense but it was instead an overall positive book about determining your self-worth based on your own honest evaluation of yourself, with the goal of improving things that you otherwise make excuses for. It was helpful to me as someone who’s been a people pleaser with low confidence. Hearing that mantra reminds me of it. I think it’s certainly not universally applicable, but it can be good advice for the right person.
It shows they have that one thing in common, and that’s all.
During a stream, his dog moved off the platform she was supposed to stay in. Hasan told her to stop and reached for something off screen, followed by her flinching with a loud yelp. So it looked like he shocked her, and since Hasan is a popular streamer people made a lot of memes about it. I don’t watch Hasan, but she had apparently been laying there for 4 hours.
I don’t know if it was ever truly confirmed but I believe he did it. Hasan denied it and showed the collar the next day, claiming it was a “vibration” collar instead. But others claimed it was a shock collar that had had its prongs removed. And later he said that she wasn’t even wearing the collar, despite that contradicting his previous statement and it being on video.
I want to slap a [citation needed] on so many of these things. They’re just saying nonsense as fact with no explanation. I want to dispute it but it takes so much more energy to disprove a bad faith claim than it does to create one.
Which suggests emitting a sound is not a good way of distinguishing between them. No one is defining sentience as the ability to emit sound, and no one is saying vegans use sound to determine what they eat. It’s really not relevant to the discussion.
The vegan’s argument isn’t valid, but it’s on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn’t sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the “name the trait” argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.
The carnivore’s argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.
Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.
A version that’s a bit easier to read
The goal of veganism is to minimize harm. It is obviously unrealistic to expect to feed 7 billion humans without harming other animals in the process. Feed for animals destined for slaughter requires much more farm land than it would take to grow crops for direct human consumption, so even just by the metric of preventing harm to wild animals a vegan diet comes out ahead. I expect a vegetarian diet would be in-between them.
If we’re still talking about 1984, then from what I read I would still say it was meant to cover a totalitarian state as a whole. We get to see the Ministry of Truth the most because that’s the department Winston works at, and controlling what information the populace receives is certainly important for the state. But there are other implicit criticisms to the society’s structure that aren’t really related to just media.
And if anything, I think we could only read a criticism of government-controlled media from the book. We can’t infer if Orwell has a problem with private media when it doesn’t feature at all in the story. And personally, I would say a free press serves as a check against the descent into this kind of society by informing the public about their government. Private media has its own agendas, but at least it’s only incentivized to lie when there’s a profit motive.
If you mean Fahrenheit 451, then yeah, I agree he focusses on media. The government is still tyrannical, but other abuses are smaller than in 1984 and are more in the background compared to their focus on eliminating media they didn’t control. It mostly cares about hitting you on the head that burning books is what the bad guys do.
I dropped it about halfway through. I’m sure at the time it was bold, but today you can find totalitarian regimes reshaping society unrecognizably in an average YA romance novel. I got tired of it explaining how awful the depicted world was when I got it the first time. Basically no plot was happening at all. Just one long, establishing scene setting up the world as Winston did his 9 to 5.
I read some summaries about the later parts enough to write a report on it. So I knew that (Spoilers ahead) eventually he starts attempting to rebel beyond sneaking out to hire a prostitute once. But he doesn’t really accomplish anything significant before getting captured and converted, because the entire point of the book is to show how awful that potential future is supposed to be, meaning of course the characters don’t need real agency.
The lesson it’s trying to explain is pretty obvious to anyone with basic familiarity with history around WWII. Of course we shouldn’t let governments get enough power to establish a police state that can preempt rebellion. They will use propaganda to rewrite even recent events, establish a bogeyman enemy to blame any problems in society on, change what terms and values are acceptable, and otherwise control every aspect of their populations’ lives. Obviously, some people need to hear that, but it was mind-numbing to listen to someone use a boring dystopia to argue for something you already agreed with. It was nearly as unsubtle and anvilicious as Fahrenheit 451.
The thing is while the jet fuel would not have outright melted steel beams, it would certainly have weakened them enough to compromise the building’s structural integrity. But ironically a lot of conspiracy theorists care more about being right than learning the truth, so will not care about nuance or acting in good faith.
You can see similar issues with anti-vaxers objecting to vaccines as unsafe because of outliers. Correlation is enough to prove them right on their points but unimportant for statistics that counter them.
Yes, very much so. I bounce off games quick if I don’t feel like I’m working towards something, even if I think it’s fun. I know many people get ticked off by games nowadays withholding content, but I have to admit I’m part of the problem. I need some sort of progression system, even if it’s a battlepass.
But I prefer something like what modern roguelikes tend to do, where you gradually work towards upgrades that make you stronger like Hades or sidegrades that get added to the pool like Risk of Rain or Slay the Spire. And typically these also unlock higher difficulties to keep the challenge on.
Another good example is Minecraft. I used to fall off of after “solving” the basic problems of building a base and getting better tools/armor, since the sandbox aspect couldn’t hold my interest. But I played a big modpack with friends that gave us all kinds of things to do, and I really liked the progression systems they added. You could build machines that required different fuels but could be used to make ore refinement progressively more efficient, or make a mecha suit with upgrade modules, or learn a spellcasting system, or build a remote-accessed inventory system with upgradable storage, or make a nuclear reactor for massive power. And many things were quality of life improvements that solved problems I wouldn’t have thought of, like adding a crafting table interface to item storage or auto-stepping over small ledges. It felt like there was always something to learn and improve on. It was perfect for someone who chases the sense of satisfaction from a goal being completed.
I’m dealing with this right now. There’s a few things I’m doing:
I’ve been doing the last one thinking it would be simple to just clear the cracks, but it just redirected the water around. Definitely fix the actual drainage problem first.
Unfortunately very true. The hungry judge effect demonstrates how people tend to be more considerate after a meal.
Chuck Norris suggested re-electing Obama would lead to 1000 years of darkness. He wasn’t being subtle even before Trump’s first campaign.