That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he’s a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs (“new” meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
I don’t think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It’s people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
The Midwest already has a lot of biogas facilities. But they employ like 2 people each and are owned by huge corps.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from
fossilcapitalism.Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here’s a list for you
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
What I’ve got in my pocket.
That’s not fair! It’s against the rules!
Is it… MY PRECIOUS?!?
Your hand.
Nothing. These days? Not because I don’t know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there’s not much arguing with that.
Nah man, you’re wrong. Just saying. /s
No I’m not!
(I was considering just posting the Monty Python argument scratch instead)
That this dress is white and gold. I mean, just look at it. It’s self-evident.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/88909fd1-7021-4c1e-84a7-d5272f4b6541.jpeg
:-)
I still don’t see it.
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can’t do it.
I’ve managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
I’ve seen The Spinning Dancer run in both directions.
But The Dress remains determinedly white-and-gold.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen white and gold.
These guys apparently reproduced the effect.
One apparently either sees white socks and pink crocs, or green socks and gray crocs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-life-of-the-mind/202502/the-dress-10-years-on
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/b41aa1cd-3d1b-4ef8-886f-2c6494141805.jpeg
If it is true that the differential interpretation of the light source causes the disagreement about the percept, we should be able to recreate the effect de-novo:
And we did: We put a pink croc under green light so it looks grey, then added white socks which — reflecting the green light appeared green. People who know that these socks are white used the green tint as a cue that something is off with the light and mentally color-corrected the image. To them, the croc looked pink, even though the pixels are objectively grey. People who took the color of the socks — green — at face value, saw the croc — consistent with its pixel values – as grey.
EDIT: For me, it’s green socks and gray crocs.
I see green socks and pink crocs lol
But I think it’s because I’m color correcting the Crocs from the green, but the socks, while I acknowledge are likely white in reality, do look very green from reflecting green light
But then, yeah, there’s the difference of “do we take it at face value, or try to figure out what the ‘real’ colour is in neutral light?”
Holy shit, I stared at the green socks really close for awhile and now the white and gold dress is blue and black! No way!
I just did the same thing. I had never seen the blue/black, ever. Now I can’t see white/gold. I don’t known who I am anymore!
I came back to it after a bit and it was back to white/gold.
So this is really strange. I followed the link in the post above to look at the dress again and, as always, it’s obviously blue and black, but I kind of stared at the white background of the wiki page, and just barely kept the top left corner of the dress in my vision. I shit you not, the dress slowly turned more white and I looked down at the rest of the dress and the stripes were gold! At first it was subtle but it gradually became blatantly white and gold.
Then I looked away, and it was black and blue again.
Weird.
yea I can see the cube both ways
spinning dancer is only clockwise
dress is always white/gold
So what colour is this?
I actually was able to avoid this hype and never see 1 picture until now!
Its gold.
I’ve only seen blue and black
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don’t hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
It’s pronounced gif
This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it’s impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.
So you agree that it’s pronounced gif.
I win
Masterclass.
I got 2:
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
Why privacy is important
This parrot you sold me is dead.
Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.
That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?
They’d have Top Men working on it.
Who?
Top. Men.
No bottoms? Sounds sus.
Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I’m pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn’t be allowed to hoard so much money, but I’d probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it’s more a gut feeling that i’d likely fail to articulate.
What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It’s not. And I’d start by questioning your understanding of the word “matter”.
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It’s encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn’t expect to see as many others here as I have.
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I’d define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That’s why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
There’s the crux of it. Problem is that science is the product of the human mind. Experience isn’t just the foundation of knowledge, it has to be the foundation of everything because to say anything about anything, nonsense or science, you need experience first. This includes any idea about what matter is or isn’t. We must first have an experience, and then we conceptualize it in some way - and then we try to desperately conceptualize it in a way that makes sense in the context of our previous conceptualizations. Because ironically, while some people insist on matter being prior, without realizing it they often make the human mind equally prior (“thoughts ARE the thing itself”). Bring them the map-territory problem and they get it, but it’s often hard to get them to apply the same idea onto their own mind.
To be sure, science is a great and reliable way to make predictions. However, ultimate reality will always be grander than anything the mind can capture, and as such, science will never be able to distill it either. That said, one hopes, eventually science will meet this realization (and indeed some scientists have). To put it very shortly, as long as one insists on a logical continuum, one can keep asking “and what’s beyond that” as logic necessarily requires a continuum of values to function. Foundation on which logic operates though, must be beyond what can be captured with logic.
