You must not be that interested in staying in contact with your family if you’re only willing to use one, specific way to do it and simply refuse to use any other method.

How about texting? Does texting work?

If North Korea wants us to know something different, they could tell us themselves. Or, even better, let the people talk to foreign journalists without handlers and threats of repercussions.

Otherwise, we’re forced to wonder about how weird it is that it seems like every news organization in the world is dead-set on spreading lies about this one, tiny, geopolitically insignificant country (and no, being able to launch toy rockets into the ocean once every couple of years does not make them geopolitically significant). Like, why did the BBC and RFA and Reuters and the AP and Al Jazeera all get together in a dark, smoky room and cook up a conspiracy to defame North Korea, of all countries? Why not, say, Thailand, or Malaysia, or Morocco, or something?

This guy obnoxiouses.

Wait, no, that’s not right.

Uh, instructions unclear, dick stuck in Reddit? How’s that?

Consider that we’re evaluating Firefish vs. Lemmy vs. Kbin

There’s a third one I didn’t know about?

That’s gonna be the one to take off. Put your chips on Firefish. It’s always the one I’m not using.

There are alternatives to Lemmy. Kbin, I’d argue, is superior in most respects. (Kbin is still obviously young and rough around the edges at times, though.)

I try to use both equally, because I’m always on the hook for picking the “doomed” standard in any 50/50 contest. It’s easier to read stuff from other instances in kbin, and that gives it the appearance of more frequent and more current activity; lemmy, even on “All/Active” or “All/Hot”, frequently drops 30 threads from one dude at the top of my feed, or I have three pages of threads with no comments and 6 upvotes. So even though I hate how kbin handles viewing pictures thumbnails (click on the post, wait for everything to load, click on the thumbnail, wait for it to load, chuckle, then x out of the picture to read the comments), I end up spending more time there.

It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of smug, self-satisfied shitheads.

This may or may not count, but:

Talking Song Repair Blues - Alan Jackson

Year 2030 is a global target for renovations in every aspects of societies and countries.

By what method? Is that when the secret computer chip in the vaccine will turn on and kill us? Thereby removing all the people who have shown they’ll do anything the government tells them to do, leaving behind all the staunch and distrustful individualists who are harder to control? Or is this some other global renovation?

No, absolutely not. By Reddit standards, this was a tiff. Maybe a smaller tussle. Definitely not a kerfluffle.

Besides, part of this is a “me” problem. I’m still adjusting to not having to come out of the gate swinging the first time I sense hostility. Did I respond to an energy? Sure. Did I respond to an intentional energy? …eh, maybe, maybe not. Did I go from 0-100 too fast? Probably. What I’m saying is, I see how I could have handled that better. And the fact that you took the time to engage with me over it is a big positive for the platform.

To be clear I chose to state that because I want to acknowledge my own biases here and the fact that I’m often pressed for time

No, that’s totally fine, and I’m being completely serious. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that this community is much smaller and tighter than the ones I’m used to. It honestly never occurred to me that y’all would, like, actually know each other, which is my own bias.

This question should keep you up at night

I’m sorry. The question that keeps me up at night is “How are people able to just decide to believe something with no (or less than no) practical evidence?”. Just because a lot of people have managed it, even people who are very evidence-based in every other part of their life, doesn’t mean I can just do it. I’d literally have to think less about the implications of such a thing on the everyday world. I’d have to stop asking questions (like: “Does God help anyone? If so, how does he choose? If not, why pray?”, and no, “we just can’t understand him” is not an answer I can just choose to believe because I like it).

So yeah, this is obviously a “me” problem, since everyone else on this instance seems to intuitively grasp the idea that one can actually come to a valid, reality-based conclusion that God exists and I’m the “2010 New Atheist” for not being able to get on board.

. On a more practical level I am much more familiar with this mod and their judgement than I am with you, and I’m going to be generally siding with any moderator we have as they get vetted rather thoroughly

Well, I mean… ok, that’s fair. I can’t argue with that.

I apologize for being a little annoyed right now. I feel like I’m being moderated for defending myself against their escalation.

The top level comment from the mod was not aggressive or accusatory.

My response to that top level comment was measured and nuanced, with specific examples of real events and an analysis of the mindset behind those events.

Their reply to me included all caps, excessive punctuation, extremely bad-faith arguments (the actual religious views of every single one of the names they dropped are incredibly complicated, not just “was Christian”; again, one member of that esteemed list literally believed he could turn lead into gold with magic), and that’s assuming calling the question of critical thinking outdated and childish (“2010 New Atheist”) is not an aggressive escalation.

Furthermore, you told me to disengage, and then the mod continued to engage. I’d appreciate it if they received a similar request, because right now it feels like you’re holding my arms behind my back while they get to keep punching me.

you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?

I honestly believe the ones that matter certainly don’t. The ones who are paying the church’s bills and showing up to their pep rallies every week are very clearly not spending any time thinking about it.

The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky?

Who? Let me know when they start affecting actual government policy, or even just going on TV and saying “We condemn those other Christians who say gay people should be shot in the back of the head.” That’s what we’ve been demanding from Muslims since 2001, why are you special?

MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,

Blah blah blah, fallacious appeal to authority, blah blah blah. Name-dropping is not “critical thinking”, and you really shouldn’t have included a literal, straight-up alchemist in that list if you were trying to use it to make a point.

all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?

MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.

Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking.

So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.

Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think?

Why? They clearly choose not to apply that ability to a big part of their lives. In this specific case under discussion, their entire career requires not applying any critical thinking. Their paycheck depends on their ability to convince other people of things that are not and can never be supported by any actual evidence.

It’s the reason that crowd is so susceptible, as a trend, to con men, malicious misinformation, and developing entire belief systems off a Facebook meme that pairs one politician’s face with a fake quote or a quote from a totally different politician. They’re trained, often from birth, that evidence is not necessary in the process of deciding what you want to believe; in fact, that evidence is often the bad guy (in that it opposes “faith”).

So, no. We’ll drop the characterization if and only if it stops being relevant to our day-to-day lives in America. It’s not the atheists who are saying they think I should get the death penalty (DeSantis’s preacher), that I should be shot in the back of the head (Texas Baptist Church), that God should kill me slowly (Pure Words Baptist Church), and that I should be hunted with dogs (governor of SC).

Especially since hydrogen as a fuel is a dead-end, so far as I can tell. In addition to the net energy loss that come from separating hydrogen from whatever else it’s attached to in the precursor material (please tell me they’re not using water for this…), who is going to want to drive a 2025 Toyota Hindenburg?

300 miles is just barely under the safe distance between most major towns \cities in parts of the us that means you barely or don’t get to your location on one charge

I’ve never owned a car in my life that gets more than 300 miles on a single tank of gas.

The quickest way I’ve found to separate the articles that are going to be meaningless waste-of-time fluff pieces from ones that might be informative is to find the verb in the headline.

Is it something like “claims”, “calls for”, “praises”, “criticizes”, or “expects”? Fluff. If something deserving of a more concrete, direct verb had happened, the headline would have said so. Verbs like “slams” or “attacks” or “demands” are even worse; they’re aggressive and enthusiastic about their content but still can’t make the claim something actually happened or changed.

If the verb is preceded by “could”, “might”, “maybe”, or similar, especially with regard to tech news, it’s also probably an empty slow-news-day article, but those words aren’t necessarily as hollow as the ones mentioned above. Sometimes they’ll contain interesting information about the current state of things, even if they’re just going to lead you on a merry speculation romp about the optimistic/horrifying future.

I think one of the big problems is that we, as humans, are very easily fooled by something that can look or sound “alive”. ChatGPT gets a lot of hype, but it’s primarily coming from a form of textual pareidolia.

It’s hard to convince people that ChatGPT has absolutely no idea what it’s saying. It’s putting words together in a human-enough way that we assume it has to be thinking and it has to know things, but it can’t do either. It’s not even intended to try to do either. That’s not what it’s for. It takes the rules of speech and a massive amount of data on which word is most likely to follow which other word, and runs with it. It’s a super-advanced version of a cell phone keyboard’s automatic word suggestions. Even just asking it to correct the punctuation on a complex sentence is too much to ask (in my experiment on this matter, it gave me incorrect answers 4 times, until I explicitly told it how it was supposed to treat coordinating conjunctions).

And for most uses, that’s good enough. Tell it to include a few extra rules, depending on what you’re trying to create, and watch it spin out a yarn. But I’ve had several conversations with ChatGPT, and I’ve found it incredibly easy to “break”, in the sense of making it produce things that sound somewhat less human and significantly less rational. What concerns me about ChatGPT isn’t necessarily that it’s going to take my job, but that people believe it’s a rational, thinking, calculating thing. It may be that some part of us is biologically hard-wired to; it’s probably that same part that keeps seeing Jesus on burnt toast.