How do you decide which sources are credible? I can't decide. Literally everything can be faked, and the more there is on the line, the more incentive and resources there are to do so.
What important stuff do you think there is that isn't faked? How do you decide that it's not fake?
Damn near everything you've ever accepted as true is stuff you were told or read and just accepted it based on how it was presented.
I believe that some popular news organizations are sufficiently trustworthy. At the very least, you can find sources that rank higher than others on the scale of trustworthiness.
This is why, in a lot of universities, they're trying to teach you how to learn, not necessarily how you should think.
We need to be able to examine the claims for ourselves and learn what red flags look like.
And a lot of the time we mix up "facts" with "opinions". Even when we are looking at facts, most of the time there are lies mixed with truth or conveniently forgotten truths. If we only get our information from a single source, or from biased sources, then we're going to miss some key information.
That's why it's good to make sure that you look at any story (especially politicized ones) from different angles and sources even if you don't agree with them.
Not only that but it can be enlightening to hear about a story from someone who's much more intimately familiar with the subject themselves.
For example, whenever it comes to news stories about the Supreme Court, I like to look for commentary from lawyers such as Steve Lehto or Legal Eagle. You'll find that they typically provide some very important context into why a particular decision was made that cuts through a lot of the outrage material that reporters push for clicks.
Yowza. My dad did the same until he died (shockingly, of COVID), so I just wanted to say I'm sorry. I know what it's like having a crazy parent and it sucks.
It's okay, even if if they wanted to nuke the world, they'd need to find which specific portal to log into, and even after inputing everything correctly there'd be around an hour before the servers actually processed the change request.
For more than 20 years, Clooney has been involved in a number of diverse causes. She works at a prestigious London law firm specializing in human rights called Doughty Street Chambers and is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School in New York. She has been collaborating with Prosecutor Khan for three years, when he asked her to act as special advisor to observe the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region. In addition to creating the foundation that bears their names in 2016, the couple have made numerous donations through it, such as the $1 million they gave in 2017 to fight against racism and hate crimes in the United States, the aid project to provide schooling to 3,000 Syrian refugee children in Lebanon, arms control or hosting an Iraqi refugee fleeing the Islamic State in their own home. The lawyer has also worked on international cases, such as the long border dispute between Vietnam and Cambodia, on the return of Greek sculptures from the British Museum to Greece; and on the recognition of the Armenian genocide.
I don’t know, maybe because she’s fucking busy doing other important shit?
Mali has a significant mine that France essentially controls. In America, we have mines but import a lot too.
We actually currently buy about 25% of our uranium supply from Russia, though Congress just passed a ban that’ll go in effect in 90 days. It allows for waivers if there are supply issues, though, so it might end up being more than 90 days. (I have no idea how quickly a country can find a new uranium supplier but it sounds complicated.)
Just one note, nuclear power plants run at around 35% efficiency. This is because they are basically steam generators and tend to not push as hard for safety. I think they can get up to 40-45% with combined cycles and such, but then we are in the "very large" territory
I know it's a joke, but just wanted to say that Uranium used for fuel is not something you can actually use for weaponry directly. It requires enrichment to increase the concentration of U-235 to weapons-grade levels.
So, underneath all the dramatic and flowery language, the argument being made seems to be “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist; based on the ability of cells to coordinate even with different DNA, the main goal seems to be human cells cooperating to make a general human form.”
This anthropomorphizing of biological building blocks is ridiculous. Cells and DNA are not in competition over who runs the show because they aren’t sapient. And I fully understand that the scientist making this claim understands that on an intellectual level but I mention it because the backbone of this argument is to conflate the literal and the figurative. The only inconsistency in cells being compatible despite having different “bosses” would be an ideological one and, because there isn’t any actual ideology at play, it doesn’t matter whether it’s consistent when attempting to describe it. You’ve proven a metaphor wasn’t literally true, congratulations.
But setting all that aside, this still doesn’t actually function as a counter argument. If we are to accept the premise of DNA’s authority as literal truth, is this function of unrelated cells to be compatible with each other not a logical extension of the DNA’s will? It more benefits the DNA for the organism to be viable even if that means other DNA also persists. It has a greater chance of reproducing itself if it’s not in a corpse.
Not only does the argument hinge on anthropomorphism, it also hinges on this metaphorical entity being self-destructively spiteful.
Lastly, it is downright comical to mention things like “cells know on their own that the heart goes on the left” when making an argument that a different characterization of biology is wrong based on the existence of rare biological edge cases. Some people’s hearts aren’t where hearts normally go. I’d let this kind of thing slide as a simplification of the truth were this not part of calling out exactly the same degree of simplification from someone else as being invalid.
The premise that “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist" seems flawed to begin with. Biological chimeras existing still helps perpetuate soneones DNA through offspring doesn't it?
When I was interested in mobile development, one of the big takeaways is to gear your game towards preteens. They have the free time to play, the numbers to add player count, and the opportunity to give you money.
I heard it's why YouTubers gear their content towards that audience too, even if they aren't actively admitting to it.
What? Remembering myself as a preteen, even if I didn't consider microtransactions as a no-no, I don't think I would be able to do it anyway. Preteens don't have bank cards. If we are talking about begging their parents - I don't think it would have worked either. Mine, just like average parents, would have probably thought spending money on games was stupid and not allowed it. That is the reason I had pirated Minecraft too - just like most kids around me.
They need to trade with people for money and food. If their closest neighbor let them trade, I guarantee Cuba would be saying the opposite to stay on the good side of them. But since they can't, and Russia was iced out of the world economy pretty much, of course they'd extend a hand to Cuba, which is similarly iced out. And of course they'd accept for the good of their people. Who knows if they actually care how that war goes, they're just a tiny island nation that wants to be able to eat and survive. We can't blame them for making decisions under this kind of duress.
Even your own article shows how bad faith that argument is, but it's from the US so it makes sense. The US media loves their propaganda. It points out that US laws makes it impossible for a ship to dock at the US for 180 days after docking at Cuba. They regularly fine and sanction foreign countries and foreign companies when dealing with Cubans. A ton of banks have stopped dealing with Cuba because of this. They also prevent US used goods from being traded to Cuba when it is a part of a bigger thing, so if any part of a foreign made product has something from the US, it can't be traded over. This ends up including tons of medical equipment, farming equipment, scientific equipment, etc. There's a bunch of other laws, too. Family members can't even wire over remittances any more without paying tons of money.
Of course they can't force other companies but they make it nearly impossible for companies to trade with the US and Cuba if they want to make a profit. Especially considering the power of the dollar in the US market. That's what makes it a blockade. Saying a bunch of these facts while giving a "false" is extremely bad faith. It's like saying Trump didn't cause January 6th because he didn't tell people directly to riot. It's a very surface reading.
The Cuban government of course isn't perfect, but that doesn't detract from the power the US has on them. Plus, when the Republicans went to protest on January 6th it was against their own government, but that doesn't mean they had a point. Most of the protests were from power failures, long food and medicine lines, and Covid lock downs, which is partly the government's fault and partly the US's for making them a poor country and restricting their ability to get medicine and make food through the sanctions I mentioned above. And partly just Covid's fault, every country dealt with that. But the President went out and talked with them, and the country ended up making some economic reforms recently. That's more than I've seen the US ever do in response to protests lol. If we really want to know if the Cuban government is so terrible, you should support the US lifting the embargo so the government can ruin itself. It obviously hasn't destroyed the government over the last 60 years anyway.
idk I use my phone to play chess, wingspan, Root, all kinds of games. There are a lot of really cool text adventures on mobile, plus Pokemon Go is mobile only. You can even play Minecraft on your phone ...
On Instagram I usually just see pictures about my friends lives, news, local events. The most well informed people I know are all active on social media. If all your kids are doing is playing console video games, they'll be disconnected. The most cutting edge news is on social media, and has been for years now. My phone is just a more comfortable way to do things. I could play chess and read the news on my laptop, but I don't want to.
This just reads like moral panic over tech you don't like ... you know, people used to fear-monger about books being too addictive and bad for you.
Doomscrolling on reddit, imgur, and twatter destroyed my mental health over a ~4-year period. I went cold turkey on all three about a year ago and there is a remarkable difference. They caused a great deal of anxiety, I just didn't realise it at the time.
It was also a near-addiction when I could just flick the mouse wheel and more content would show up, and oh my, suddenly it's 4am and I have work in 4 hours. r/ouchmyballs and r/watchpeopledieinside were particularly problematic.
Less content on the whole. There are many "the world is sliding back into fascism"-type posts, but I don't feel compelled to scroll on the front page infinitely.
Gaming consoles just mean you've already bought into their walled garden. They don't need to use the same tactics the mobile games use; you're already trapped. Hell, you're probably already paying a monthly subscription for online play, and then there's still nothing stopping individual game publishers from further enshittifying on top of that!
No, what you should really be doing is gaming on PC (Linux), ideally with games bought DRM-free (e.g. from GoG) or even by only playing Free Software games. I personally compromise enough to accept Steam, but that really is at the absolute limits of acceptability (and only then because of factoring goodwill from all their work on Linux compatibility for games).
Hell yeah. I haven't been able to play jak x in literally a decade and I was able to start it up today and bask it's 480p glory. Next is laughing at the first killzone while still enjoying the story and trying out Demon's Souls for the first time.
It's how you use the tools that count, and I think both types need (self-)restrictions placed upon them to be maximally effective and fun. Even a gun has a use, within certain bounds e.g. Ukraine can put them to great use.
Yea wow. As a 90s kid I’d never thought of comparing smart phones to consoles. Great point. Gaming together on the couch or a truly fun and social activity and way more wholesome than doom scrolling
On a phone, I actually rarely get stuck for hours. Not only because most of my personal data has to stay off of it (it cannot have LineageOS or similar), but also because it is inconvenient af. No keyboard, small screen, everything is slow. The problem of infinitely going into rabbit holes solves itself, while on the laptop there has to be a lot more self-control - it is far more comfortable.
It's just a big antenna. If you can broadcast a large signal on all the same frequencies you can drown out the other signals. It takes lots of power. More targeted approaches can make it more efficient, that probably where most of the money went.
Without a twitter account you can't expand the thread, and not having a twitter account means I have no idea if there is a PDF in there or not. Nothing like using a walled garden platform to literally hide information behind Musk's paywall.
EDIT: I managed to find them elsewhere and put them somewhere easier to access:
Igor Shushko should not be trusted for OSINT. He has claimed repeatedly that the FSB was going to stage a coup, etc. since the beginning of the invasion. He also just makes stuff up pretty frequently.
He's in the "completely ignore" category in the OSINT community.
I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn't skip the meal.
your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.
additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.
Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)
i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.
so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.
humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?
Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it's also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn't apply - which I think is largely because I don't changr my portion sizes, and I'm probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I've found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.
In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.
Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)
Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed
General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.
It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.
Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.
My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:
The researchers identified great heterogeneity in the prevalence between countries and also diverse risk factors, from dietary to behavioral.
The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.
When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed. Media literacy. < Publisher accountability.
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote
It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn't grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.
hot damn my apologies my reader view cut out the subtitle. somehow i doubt that was the author’s intent though. i would blame the publisher for this because that’s a really poor manipulation of the text.
One of the best decisions I made was deleting my Facebook. I really mean that, one of the best decisions in my entire life. Not getting sucked into the absolute bullshit fest that greedy shit fuckers like Mark Zuckerberg set up for humanity is extremely relieving. Don't compare yourself to other people, you be you, just try to be your best self, it's worth it. Don't let the billionaire leeches of society take everything from you, fuck Facebook.
legit offline October is great, and works as a grassroots movement. I’m having an “offline October” is akin to when my friends and I do Dry July. I’m going to start doing this (despite the fact that I haven’t used social media in 2 years)
There's something on the tip of my tongue. Something like ____ Zuck. Something that rhymes, and expresses how I feel about him and his platform. I just can't quite put my finger on it...
english.elpais.com
Top