Surely if you sexually assaulted someone, you'd go around telling people about your great accomplishments.
So my efforts didn't yield the correct understanding. I recognize that it happens and that's why I put a short summary of my understanding right at the start so that you can easily correct it without having to read through everything else and expend unnecessary energy trying to parse it out. If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. I can find my answers elsewhere. There's no need to be a dick about it.
I'll go over this again later when I have more time, but for now, I just want to say that I don't appreciate spending so much time trying to understand what you've written only to be met with accusations of having deliberately done the exact opposite. I may not be particularly smart, but I'm putting in the effort.
So if I understand correctly, you're saying that
- you're more likely to be exposed to lies on a right wing forum compared to left wing forums
- the types of lies you're exposed to are more dangerous in a right wing community compared to the left.
So first of all, how do you determine that #1 is true? I've seen my fair share of misinformation on Lemmy and the left-leaning parts of Reddit getting highly upvoted and vice versa. But I'm basing this on what I personally know (and who knows if I'm right?) and in general, there isn't much objective info going around. It's mostly people sharing their sentiments on a topic with little to no factual information (e.g. "fuck [entity X]").
#2 also assumes that you're right to begin with and that sharing these false statistics would lead to a better world. Take false statistics on police racism for example. This can be a problem in many ways. Let's say hypothetically that there is no police racism, but we say there is and we convince everyone that we need to fix it. This can divert resources away from other problems (e.g. working on reducing spousal abuse), and thus making problems worse elsewhere. Moreso if the police force is tasked with handling spousal violence and they're now tied up in internal investigations, maybe losing funding, and thus reducing their capabilities. It'll also be fuelling an unnecessary conflict (possibly violent) between people who should otherwise be allies in the struggle that is life. More people get hurt, more people can die. That's a pretty dangerous outcome.
I subsist off Doritos and Mountain Dew. Let all the ladies know. I'll be waiting in my mom's basement.
then-girlfriend/now-wife's roommate
Had to do a double take on this.
Gotta ignore infinities too. The axioms they're based on are highly controversial.
I've suspected it long before we met, but never really thought about it much beyond "yeah, I'm probably autistic. Anyway ..." and never talked about it either.
My partner was the one to first bring it up ten years into our relationship, thinking it was very obvious and said it explains a ton of peculiar behaviours I have that I never even considered to be related to autism.
Steve Mould is great. I finally have an intuitive understanding of how diodes work because of him.
I don't get much time to watch videos these days so I'm not going through the Netflix series. Though it looks like it's based off this paper, and that I can look through.
They studied 22 pairs of twins, intervened by changing their diets so that one gets a vegan diet and the other an omnivore diet, then measured a bunch of stuff via blood and stool samples. I don't see mention of how they correct for multiple hypotheses, but I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt here.
They found statistical significance in two places
- LDL-C: Participants all start out in a healthy range, and they stay in a healthy range. So while the vegans improved on this measure, it also tells us that omnivores are perfectly healthy as well.
- Fasting insulin levels: Same as LDL-C. Start off healthy, ended up healthy. We see the vegans having lower fasting insulin, but we don't know if that's a good thing or not when they're already starting at 12.7 ฮผIU/mL.
So basically, the conclusion from the paper is that vegan and omnivore diets are both perfectly healthy, but you might gain slight benefits from going vegan.
If you have too much fun at once, it shortens your lifespan.
Carbon capture is basically a form of energy storage. If it's energy that we wouldn't otherwise be able to capture, or if it's more energy than we need for consumption at a given moment in time, then it makes sense to store it instead. I don't know enough to say if these would apply in practice, but it's plausible that it's better to capture than to use the energy.