I fixed it lol

I still don’t get why it’s called that.

That is such a funny mental image.

“Drink” is such a weird word in how it has both a general and specific meaning, but no other word for the general meaning is commonly used.

“Drink your milk! No drinking until you’re 21!”

My parents didn’t specifically tell me if Santa Clause was real or make-believe. They wanted me to come to my own conclusion, I guess. My dad is a rationalist person, and my mom’s from a culture that doesn’t traditionally celebrate Christmas.

So what I believed was that the appearance of presents on Christmas was an unsolved mystery, and Santa Clause was just a hypothesis to explain it.

I suspected the real explanation probably involved the tree working as an antenna for some kind of cosmic energy that triggered the appearance of presents. Perhaps in ancient and more superstitious times they discovered this phenomenon by accident and continued to put up the tree ever since.

Yeah. I mean I agree that focusing on change at the systemic level is more effective than changing individual habits, but what people don’t realize is that the systemic change we need is the kind that will force those individual changes.

Taxing or regulating the oil companies will help, but it will help by making energy more expensive so people are forced to make do with less.

When you think about it, it’s pretty unreasonable to expect the entire population to become educated and engaged about everything involving running a modern society. Modern government is incredibly complicated. It’s no wonder that tribalism wins over nuance. Who has time for nuance when they’re worried about their jobs and families?

That’s why I’d like to see some form of sortition tried. Draft a jury to do nothing but learn about a single topic for a period of time. Make all of their contact with the outside world public record to ensure nothing shady is going on. Let representatives from all sides of the issue address them. Then let them make their decisions and go back to their normal lives. No campaign donors or political careers to worry about.

Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?

Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.

I thought that until just now.

Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.

As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_of_Wheat#/media/File%3ACream_of_Wheat_Breakfast_Bell_1918_advertisement.jpg ?

Yeah, I’ve been having the same issue. It clears the page after a BRIEF period of inactivity.

Here I thought I was doing OpenAI a favor by keeping garbage out of their training data…

As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.

It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.

No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.

Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.

Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.

If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.

Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.

In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.

Am I the only one who’s having trouble processing the fact that Leela and Nibbler casually murdered someone early in the episode? I mean Futurama has always shown a lot of dark or mean humor, but that really threw me. Especially when they followed it up with such a sentimental story. I don’t like it when shows try to mix the two. Either I’m watching the show with the mindset that nothing matters, or I’m getting invested in the characters and their arcs. I don’t know about other people, but I can’t do both at once.

What about the Xindi?

Mother 3?

Portal?

I’ve seen both.

Agreed, and along the same lines, pointing out bad logic or factual errors used to support a point you actually agree with.