Personal preference is fine too. For many people, though, they will require a personal benefit. They won’t just enjoy it. Especially if they see other people who aren’t good and are doing better than them.

This is a real problem we’re facing.

It’s part of the overarching authoritarian worldview, that fear of consequences from someone above you on the food chain is the primary motivation for anyone to be “good”.

The problem comes from it being extremely time consuming to explain how “being good” benefits you personally, even if all possibility of consequences are removed. Essentially you have to explain the entire concept of the word “honor” to them. What are the benefits of being honorable, and how do these benefits (for you personally) outweigh the benefits of being dishonorable?

But if someone wasn’t raised that way, then it really does need to be explained to them. Otherwise it’s unrealistic to expect them to just somehow figure it out for themselves.

edit for grammar

edit2: To elaborate a little bit, the benefit of honor boils down to efficiency and the advantages of cooperation. People can perceive patterns, and when someone is dishonorable, even if people won’t come attack them somehow, they’ll still be reluctant to ever cooperate with that person. An honorable person thus has far more resources from their community that they can draw on in the pursuit of their own personal goals. In addition, it simplifies their lives. Instead of having to, say, track the lies you’ve told so you don’t mess up and create inconsistencies, if you live honorably you free up all that energy to devote to your goals in other ways.

Note, my summary argument is not overly compelling just on its own. I had to boil it down too much to make it a reasonable length. You need many examples, or preferably actual life experience on how it works, for the argument to actually become somewhat convincing.

Diane wrote letters to Idaho’s governor and to Trump demanding Binod’s return. She was “disappointed” by the governor’s response – a form reply – and noted that the White House never replied

This reminds me of those videos you’d see in the early parts of the Russo-Ukrainian War, where some Russians would make some sort of appeal to Putin about some problem, as if he actually cared about some random soldiers on the frontline.

I think you can reach out via txt, just format your message to subtly acknowledge that a response is unnecessary. So, instead of wording your message normally as something that would begin a back-and-forth, word it more like an old fashioned letter, or something else where a response isn’t expected. Can talk about whatever, updates on you, your thoughts about this or that, hopes she/her family are doing better, etc etc. Then just end with an old sounding “hope this finds you well” type of thing. Just avoid non-rhetorical questions or anything that pressures her to return contact. When she’s ready, she can write you back.

Good lord, that’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it… Ugh.

I think it was Angela Collier that did a pretty basic test with a common store bought alkaline water, a lemon and some test strips. The water doesn’t start very alkaline at all.

edit: Yep, here we go. https://youtu.be/rBQhdO2UxaQ

It’s an amusing video.

Yeah, this has always bugged me too. It slows down our accumulation of old content, which is one of the big draws of platforms like this. People love to go to reddit for answers to questions originally asked years ago, and they could potentially use Lemmy for that too, if our backstock got substantial enough. As a much smaller userbase, though, we kinda need every thread we can get.

Recipes are usually for no-fan. Your oven may have a setting to let you turn your convection fan off, otherwise you’ll have to compensate for the fan speeding things up.

… yeah I’d read that.

Yeah, but I like to try to use it to move in a certain direction emotionally. Like, instead of pure sad, I’ll put on something sad and wistful to move a little in that direction, or sad and angry to shift a little that way, depending on my current needs.

Like, this is sad and wistful, with a touch of determination:

https://youtu.be/es9MQweZzvc

This is sad and angry:

https://youtu.be/6NXnxTNIWkc

This helps avoid wallowing in the pure sad feeling, which I don’t really like.

Five maps so far. Is someone doing this by hand, the hard way? I figured it was an AI someone programmed, but if it’s an individual or small team, big respect. Very neat project.

Yeah, that’s a good point.

Seemed to me that pilot could’ve nailed him any time he wanted. Dude wasn’t exactly moving like Batman out there. If you’re really trying to get him, it’s not like you lose anything if you actually try to hit him and he ducks, you just come back around. No actual benefit to toying with him.

Getting him to surrender is a benefit though. Saves a drone, and gets you a prisoner you can milk for intelligence and maybe swap in the future. Prisoners are an asset, and it is beneficial to collect them when possible.

Yeeesh. I get the impression the drone operator really, really wants this guy to just surrender so he doesn’t have to waste the drone on him, but the guy just won’t…

Gave him every opportunity, while the guy is alone, and just looks lost, confused and hungry.

I understand, but I’m not so sure that’s a viable long-term strategy in the modern, digital world. Perhaps you could argue it’s the best we’ve got, but I think the jury is still out on that.

That’s the path to victory though. As soon as you draw out the ad hominem, you’ve forced them to pivot off of the main topic, withdrawing from an untenable position.

You can’t actually expect a zealot to admit they’re wrong (edit: on an issue of core belief), that’s not realistic. You need to be comfortable accepting something else as the conclusion of the argument, by necessity.

One thing you have to remember about the communists is they see everything through the lens of class. They do not acknowledge any other form of conflict as legitimate, everything else is a smokescreen to distract from their attempts at class warfare. They have an overarching goal in mind, and they work backwards to diagnose the hurdles, placing value only in how something pertains to their goals. They’re zealots, no different from how a religious fundamentalist views everything in the framing of their religion’s worldview. Attempting to remain objective takes a backseat to these goal-oriented perspectives.

The reason I accept the civil ones is they do have valuable input on occasion. While I don’t see class as the central cause of society’s ills, I do acknowledge class conflict as one of many “legitimate” forms of conflict. And in the same way that I acknowledge a theologian viewing the world from some religious perspective and analyzing all problems from that singular point of view, I acknowledge these folk’s rights to do the same from their class-based perspective. At least class exists, where someone’s mythical battles between heaven and hell may very well not.

It really is helpful if you remember that while we may be trained in trying to stay process-oriented through things like the scientific method, that’s not a default way of thinking or anything. So, if you’re going to argue with one, you need to remember they’re not going to see even basic facts from your perspective. What is a fluke/outlier vs what is the statistical trend, is just interpretation until you have the hard numbers, after all. Keeping the focus on actual data and verifiable facts, while pointing out what is merely subjective interpretation, is a good way to keep the conversation somewhat balanced.

Honestly, Cowbee is one of the few over there that I retain full respect for. They tend to stay on topic and polite, and that’s good enough for me. The rest I can accept under viewpoint diversity.

I do agree there’s some alternative facts at play, but that’s unsurprising in this world of ours, particularly given how information exchange has become so international. Alternative fact sets are an inevitable result of that, given that different people have had their own values and narratives for … as long as there have been countries I suppose. Longer, even, countries aren’t really that old. Spin is much older.

Given the distance required, what kind of economic payoff could be possible from such an expensive project? It’s not like overland would be a cheaper transport option than Pacific shipping routes or anything. It’s not just the Bering Strait being the problem with connecting the two after all, but the fact that there’s nothing in NE Siberia or NW Alaska to bother connecting together. Are we making it for the polar bears maybe? Or are people going to drive the thousands of miles from Juneau to Vladivostok to sightsee?

Big yellow flame probably indicates its not getting enough air mixing with the fuel for complete combustion. I’m guessing something got clogged up with soot, or possibly rust. Look around at all the little holes the gas comes out of, see if any of them are clogged up. If you find some, something like a safety pin can probably get them opened up.