"there is plenty more but you have seen all the important stuff - go outside and do something "
That is lemmy for me. I have removed communities I don’t want to see, and subscribed to a lot of them and sort by hot.
Once the posts start losing quality (up votes) I move on.
Well, they /are/ self regulated. Just not the way that anyone but them wants.
Shoot an insurance ceo and your votes will go up.
Chatgpt answer:
Yes, “reckful” is a real word, although it is rarely used in modern English. It means being thoughtful, careful, or prudent, essentially the opposite of “reckless.” It comes from the same root as “reck,” which means to care or pay attention to.
Examples of Usage:
In older texts, “reckful” might describe someone who is cautious or considerate of consequences: “He was reckful in his approach, weighing every decision carefully.”
Why It’s Uncommon:
“Reckless” became the dominant term in English, and “reckful” fell out of common usage. Today, terms like “careful,” “prudent,” or “mindful” are more likely to be used in its place.
So while “reckful” is technically correct and would make sense in context, it might sound archaic or poetic to most modern English speakers.
So trump will go to heaven in April?
Not a universal joke. 3/10^24 stars.
Ok, do still some misinformation about side effects.
Sorry you had to go through that. Stay strong and keep advocating for the safety of your kids.
I like how some games use “increases by +10%” as percentage points and “increases by 10%” as percentage.
Or how oath of exile does it, with “(base + base * increases by y%) * z% more”
So with a base of 5%, chance increased by 20%, and chance increased by 30%, with a 40% more chance, you’d get:
(5% + 5% x (20% + 30%)) x (1+40%) = 7.5% x 1.4 = 10.5%
In game design +100% would be 10% + 100% = 110% crit.
Increases by +100% = base + 100%
Increases by 100% = base + base x 100%
Dear boomer, words evolve.
If they used this as their argument I’d be kinder to them, it means they want what a vaccine can give, so it’s just about MISSING information, not MISSinformation.
It’s not impossible to counter this while still having text be correct if you use a dialogue model that takes parameters to ue in calculation of the output dialogue.
“Dialogue here should lead you to the {direction}.”
NPC cords, quest objective cords = calculate relative position, insert in dialogue.
The game knows after you take the quest. So it can also know at the moment.
You need to vote for people that will PUT guillotines on the ballot! If there are none, find someone who will, or be the change you want to see.
Person 1: “fuck you!”
Person 2: “a real fuck to you to”
You can’t do that with personal information like the ones doctors needs transcribed. It has to be local.
I instinctively closed your comment after reading “short attention span” because I knew what you were going to say. Had to go back to comment because I realise the irony.
I agree with your arguments. We’re on the same side of all of this.
I disagree on having to remove one if both are bad. It would be like the trolley problem. 10 people suffer repeatedly indefinitely vs infinitely many suffering eventually. Moving all use to sugar cane will be worse for the environment than spreading some honey and some sugar cane. See my previous monocultulturalism point.
Personally I think honey vs sugar cane is equal, so for me the choice is bad either way. I don’t know which is worse, I try to use less, but what I use I feel is ambivalent, so I use both.
I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.
There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.
I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.
If they could read they would be upset by that.