EatingWithForks

According to wikipedia, the actual tolerance of the dose varies widely. Because of this I would strongly discount individual accounts of safe experiences.

There's something super dystopian that we look at a cancer-causing, bone-marrow-killing chemical and go "look, we can use this for weight loss!". I get fatness is a plague or whatever but thin == healthy is totally broken if you're using poison to get thin.

How often do you clean your rainwater collection receptacles? I clean mine out regularly.

I have a suspicion that the solutions would be incredibly radical to how we as humans are socialized to perceive justice, worthiness, and equality, such that we would immediately reject it as immoral, unethical, or otherwise unacceptable. [Consider for example that, not too long ago, many of us were socialized to oppose the idea women should vote.]

I also wish that the status quo is different, but I actually have no idea if I'd be able to stomach what different looks like based on my current upbringing which is thoroughly enmeshed in the systems that enable this.

I actually don't disagree with your point. I'm merely explaining why fediverse-style platforms always get the complaint it sucks because it's harder to use than the centralized alternative, even among a community that should be used to such platforms.

I think you're making the mistake that just because people on the forum have the skills, knowledge, and general capacity to learn a new tool that they are convinced to put in the effort to learn the new tool. Social media specifically has thrived on a culture of extreme low effort to learn how to start having fun with it (think TikTok showing you cool videos, then an easy prompt to sign up, then an immediate "for you" page before you ever need to engage with the TikTok community like commenting, liking, following, etc).

The fediverse (and decentralized social media in general) breaks the mold of extreme ease of use and therefore subverts the cultural expectations, thereby violating one of the ways a user would establish if the application is "good", and thereby it looks "bad".

It's like, technically X algorithm is a superior algo to use. But I can import Algo Joe's library that's 50 years old and already integrated into every language I know, so I'll do Joe.Sort().

I think the reason medical costs are on an upward spiral is not consumers not shopping around. It's that it's extremely hard to get a price for healthcare, that hospitals are being bought up by investment companies uninterested in improving outcomes but very interested in jacking up the price of service, and that it is perfectly legal to have the only cure for debilitating, potentially fatal illnesses like hepatitis C cost $24,000.

I never said people don't get budgets wrong. I merely said it's reasonable to try to prioritize dating people who can sensibly budget according to their income and their cost of goods and services in their area. It shouldn't be a consistent problem that you run out of rent money because you didn't budget for paying rent. I think you're misunderstanding my words because you're conflating these sets of preferences like some kind of demand for idealized humans. I think I'm pointing out that people's desires aren't unreasonable and exaggerating them is just strawman behavior.

Savings rates being at all-time lows doesn't mean that people don't know how to budget. It might be that budgeting has become much harder. Similarly, I don't think someone being fat means they don't understand how to cook a healthy meal. It might be that keeping thin has become much harder.

I think you're kind of missing the point I'm trying to make. There's no point in someone who can define a term for broader trends if they cannot balance a personal budget. The capacity to define a broader trend can inform budgets, but I wouldn't date someone who is shocked when they have no money left for food because they spent it all on a shoe sale. I wouldn't consider that person a functional adult even if they happened to be thin and understood nuances between cost of living statistical measurements.

I wouldn't consider weight to be a good indicator of capacity to make meals. I know thin people who I wouldn't trust to make me a cup of water and I know fat people who can adhere to a strict diet for their children.

I also wouldn't consider CPI-W and CPI-U to be cost-of-living concerns. I consider being able to say "hey, honey, we can't spend 500$ on your mobile game because eggs cost 7 for a dozen at the grocery store this week, we need to revise our budget" to be adult behavior.

I didn't say there is no upper limit. I disagreed that the 20s is the upper limit.

The poster above specifies <20, so I'm talking about <20 year old women.

I think definitions of "a finished person" are being mismatched here. in my experience most people just want a partner that is a functional adult. Knows how to eat properly. Understands taxes. Can speak intelligently about cost of living topics like budgeting groceries and entertainment. Can drink moderately on a weeknight knowing they have to go to work the next day.

Edited to add: In my experience, if you don't date someone who "can adult", you will have to parent your partner, which doesn't go all that well if you're not kinky like that.

I don't believe women past their 20s are "too late in life" to be seeking a partner.

I for one would not want to have a long-term partner with someone below their 20's. They're too young, cannot even go for a casual heart-to-heart over beers/wine, and have no understanding of budgeting, tax analysis, healthcare planning, or any other number of basic adult administration. I'll have to parent them though this, which is supremely un-sexy.

I think a big chunk of this is prioritization of resources in a way Apollo doesn't have to worry about. I highly doubt reddit has like utterly mediocre/shit devs. I think it's more likely that works are being prioritized in a way that shafts mods (who don't pay money) towards the goals of the reddit company to ipo (more ads and engagement with their first-party platforms). We had stupid shit like reddit coin and reddit gold and random other small features that are primarily to make money on the first party platform. Apollo's spec is much smaller in comparison, in which the users of Apollo are effectively paying for a smoother integration with whatever Reddit already built.

> Densificatoin causes enshittification spiral. Each successive generation lives in worse conditions. This is an inherent property of densification.

Could you uh, explain this a bit more? This doesn't seem to correspond with the desirability of dense cities atm. All of the most desirable places to live seem to either be dense or easily commutable to somewhere dense.

> Anyone who wants to use the records to improve healthcare.

This is so nebulous. Anyone can claim they want to improve healthcare. The removal of abortion access has also been repeatedly been justified as improving healthcare. The Tuskeegee experiments (where they just let black men live with a curable, debilitating disease and continually lied to them about their suffering, some of them to their graves) was justified as improving healthcare. "Wanting to improve healthcare" does not preclude people from horrifically unethical behavior. Get better standards if you want to be accessing the private information of people without their consent.

If anything your Devil's advocate is that it should apply to way, way more people than just healthcare providers, and I would thoroughly agree with that. Facebook messages have already been used to arrest women for abortions, which should be huge violation of someone's privacy and totally verboten.

You cannot say the protections it provides are overstated if you are not the people who were victimized by a lack of such protections in the first place. I do not want the "good guys" collecting panels on jews. I certainly don't want the "good guys" collecting panels of info on trans kids without involvement from parents. The idea there is a "good guys" in this scenario is ridiculous. The idea that it might save lives is a cold comfort to the status of my minor child's birth control prescription status being accessible to the government.

> How does someone weaponize your information?

This is so easy to recognize that I have to wonder if you've ever met a less-privileged person than yourself.

1. A fully functioning, treatment-compliant schizophrenic is now at risk of being passed up for jobs or promotions because their medical history is up to be bought by employers.

2. A local concerned citizen will be much more afraid of protesting or publicly being against a politician if the politician can buy their history of getting PreP, an HIV preventative drug that is popular in the homosexual community.

3. A religious private school starts to buy the medical history of their young girls, and reveal which girls are taking birth control, had had an abortion, etc. by expulsing them from the school.

Or simply put: You first. Put up your hemorrhoid surgery photos up on your LinkedIn.

> Certainly, I would not want my records in the newspaper - but really what's the worst outcome? Everybody finds out just how much ED medication I take?

No. The worst outcome is the police arresting a random civilian because their medical record showed they were actually a fully transitioned person living as their identified gender (and thus the only way they would know is through trawling through medical records) and are therefore in violation of, say, a bathroom law. Or a law banning "crossdressing" or other shit.

It's teenagers and young women being sent to prison because there's a medical record where they were treated for excessive bleeding which lost a pregnancy, and are put in jail until their trial for abortion is up because they're too poor for bail.

It's buying up the medical data of jewish people to "prove" they're really harvesting the blood of Christian children.

Yeah I also wish it wasn't stigmatized for teenagers to go on birth control to control PCOS or whatever, but I sure as fuck am against some random state government putting together "research panels" or whatever of such people without their informed consent.

HIPPAA doesn't just cover, say, the spread of tuberculosis. It also bars things like collecting a panel of homosexuals, transgenders, women who are on birth control or have abortions, people seeking treatment for schizophrenia or a personality disorder or addiction, or just fat poor smucks that don't adequately treat their diabetes. Any number of highly stigmatized things or things that Palantir would love to own to sell to a private company.

I would start freaking the fuck out if my primary care physician gets to sell my diagnosis for money to Facebook, and I don't give a rat's ass if some 3 year old could've been cured of epilepsy if my doctor was able to do so. HIPPAA prevents my doctor from doing so and I'm glad for it.

I believe what's happening here is that Reddit leadership feels like they've been threatened, and are acting accordingly without seriously considering the actual power imbalance. People under privilege rarely, if ever, actually consider their relative power when disagreeing with people in less power than them and have exaggerated responses when people in less power than them try to gain any leverage, such as an app developer trying to negotiate with the platform the app runs on. You can also observe this when people get very upset about $perceived_thing_that_people_less_well_off_than_them_get. I'd list exact examples but I fear I'd distract with people getting angry, lol.

I actually think the most charitable position doesn't require either one to have any negative intentions. This is quite possibly a very simple explanation: It is possible to apologize in the face of feeling threatened, even if you are not in fact under any threat, and then later reconcile one's feelings of being threatened in a space where they feel safer.

There's a common error where, because one believes they have been aggressed upon, they can behave as if they actually have been aggrieved without actually examining realistic positions of actual evidence. I've seen this sort of thing happen in a variety of circumstances. Whether or not the Apollo developer intended to threaten or not doesn't actually change the behavior of the person who took whatever was said as a threat, and acting in a reconciliatory manner when one feels threatened is actually a very reasonable thing to do.

The kids throwing soup at paintings already committed crimes attacking oil infrastructure and shutting down certain oil infrastructures (pipelines etc) that got them precisely no attention. You only know them from the soup can shit, which proves their whole point.

My understanding is that this isn't due to a lack of controlled burns but actually due to an unseasonally warm winter not killing bugs that attack and kill trees, leaving an excessive amount of dead wood to burn this year. No amount of controlled burning of the years before would prevent a lot of dead trees this year making for kindling.

I actually don't know if suits going out of fashion should be considered infantilization of one specific generation in particular; suits have been simplified progressively for decades before that. At some point the simplest suit fir casual everyday wear will be no suit.

> If you think killing animals is cruel in itself, then you have only two logically consistent options: you either a) change your lifestyle to ensure you don't kill any animals whatsoever, or b) accept that some cruelty is inevitable and set some standard of acceptable cruelty for yourself.

Neither of these are addressed by equivocating this to wild animals predating.

> I don't understand. You're saying the problem with eating animal meat is not that an animal has to die, but in who does the killing? So it'd be better if each person had to kill their own food, even though it would almost surely result in a lot more waste, and thus a lot more killing?

I don't know if it's better if each person had to kill their own food. I'm not making a prescription on what people should do. I am only pointing out that there are real consequences to the current way we consume meat in a way that damages people and communities in a way that could be described as cruelty.

These are still gotcha questions that don't fundamentally address the concerns of the original poster. Either address my points in good faith or just say you disagree with the position and provide your own reasoning; these questions feel clever but they're intellectually shallow.

The difference is in the scale of the slaughter and the actual slaughtering being dissociated from the eating for many of these animals, such that a disproportionate minority takes on the task of killing for a majority of meat consumption. This has recorded known harmful effects on the people doing the killing as well as the community in which the killing is done, in a way other large industrial processes do not.

As an aside: this is a gotcha question and doesn't fundamentally address the position that animal slaughter is cruel. It relies on an obviously false rhetoric that something performed by non-sapient creatures in an environment where the only way to survive for some creatures is largely through the personal killing of other creatures is morally equivalent to an environment where sapient creatures who have wide dietary availability make the choice to consume the flesh of another creature that has been usually killed for them.