Adhering to the treaty would result in there only being half as much anti-personel mines for civilians to step onto after the war, so it would still be doing something very positive. That being said, I do understand the reasons for withdrawing from the treaty. I miss the optimistic world where the treaty was drafted up, when it briefly seemed that most issues could be solved with multilateral international cooperation :(

WaSTeD LiFe 🤪

What do you think they meant with the alternating caps and the emoji? Personally, I think that it’s quite clearly an attempt to ridicule the meme and those who agree with it, built on the preceding facts about modern white collar work being relatively comfortable, which is (as per my previous comment) irrelevant to the question at hand. If you disagree on this interpretation of their intent, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Good day to you.

Oh I’m actually quite happy with my own job in the public sector. It’s varied and at times challenging work that benefits society as a whole. The pay isn’t all that much, but we’re talking about fulfillment here not salaries. Unfortunately for my peace of mind, I posess empathy and the knowledge that most aren’t as lucky. Companies either grow or die, so massive faceless corporations provide a large and growing share of all employment. And it doesn’t even need to be a big corp for the job to be a bs job.

Huh. It’s almost as if all the various alternatives to capitalism couldn’t be lumped into one… Revolutionary Catalonia was Anarcho-Syndicalist, so about as far from the totalitarian soviet system as possible.

The meme is about a lack of fulfillment, not of comfort. The comment by ikr muddles these two off the bat by focusing on comfort as a retort to the meme, and my reply was to intentionally follow that flawed reasoning to display its absurd conclusion. Modern comforts will not make a job fulfilling.

Usually when people call anything a luxury, the implication is that it’s something to be happy about. Given that the meme is about wasting ones life away in an office generating shareholder value, I would say that that’s the it here.

deleted by creator

How is that a strawman? Sure life could be worse as you said, but life could also be a lot better. The meme takes no shots at the former claim, instead making fun of people who fail to imagine the latter. Talking about how we already live in relative luxury is also a very common deflection from arguments for why we should improve society, without actually countering said arguments.

I am not a slave or a starving medieval peasant, therefore I should be happy to waste my life in an office generating shareholder value. Got it.

I was thinking AI. The road markings and the patch of grass make no sense and the background is very nondescript.

Impulse is the integral of force over time, but I get what you’re after.

When pecking at a tree, the maximum force exerted is what pushes the wood beyond its breaking point. That maximum force can be increased by increasing the impact energy as a whole (wasteful and costly) or shortening the impulse. A woodpecker isn’t trying to do soft blows to shake some branches, it’s trying to shatter a small portion of the trunk, much like someone looking to shatter their opponents nose would choose bare fists over boxing gloves.

IIRC this theory was debunked some time ago by a study. If you think about it, any dampening within the skull would lessen the force of the pecking and the bird would have to hammer away harder.

Edit: Link to a study

I remember seeing some posts by that user. Genuine schizoposting.

… becoming even more detached from reality? There really is no good solution, is there? Well, apart from the one.

I don’t agree with the conclusion that Mickey makes. Yes, our senses can’t be fully trusted, but they are the only way we will ever get any empirical information. Arguing against a materialist worldview by noting that our senses can’t fully be trusted implies that the materialist worldview is flawed. My issue here is that any alternative has even more dubious foundations. (this is why I raised Occam’s razor in my original comment). Would any inherent cosmic meaning even be relevant if we can’t ever know about it? I doubt that Donald here would be reassured about the theoretical possibility of meaning existing somewhere beyond our senses. I am not.

The allegory of the cave, as I’m sure you know, came about in the context of Platonic idealism. That’s how I’ve been talking about here as well. The allegory becomes moot if the objects casting the shadows and the shadows themselves are essentially the same thing. You need a dichotomy between two completely different things for it to be relevant. If it’s matter casting metaphysical shadows which we perceve as matter, then Mickey has no argument and it’s just accurate observations with extra steps.

That’s a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.

It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.

I never said completely. Sure it’s fun to entertain such possibilities, but science doesn’t bother with unverifiable claims. That’s the realm of metaphysics, unless somebody clever or lucky finds an actual glitch in the Matrix which would allow the claim to be verifiable.

Boltzman brain sure is an interesting concept. If I am one and you’re a thought within it, then I must say that it’s a bit funny that it popped into existense with the correct theories of thermodynamics and cosmology that explain the brains own existence. Also means that the universe has seen or will see every possible brainstate, nightmare and daydream, infinite beauty and horror. Oh yeah and we may as well be living in a Boltzmann galaxy that popped into existence in a similar manner. But alas, the relative improbability of our own (non-Boltzmann brain) existence is not proof against it. Same goes for the simulation hypothesis.

Care to explaing what “subscribing to philosophy” would even mean? If you instead meant to say a philosophy, then yes. I do have my own worldview, as I think every thinking being does. I apologize if I was unclear in my previous comment, I was commuting while I typed it and had to rush it a bit. The first paragraph was a response to the first paragraph of your preceding comment, the second one to the second and the third to the rest of it. I’ll elaborate a bit:

If we don’t make the assumption that our senses and measurements could possibly derive information about the nature of the reality around us, then trying to do so (empirical science) would be quite insane in my opinion. Why would anybody seriously try to do something which they think is categorically impossible to do?

If some physical phenomena is found which can only be explained via some sort of substance dualism or idealism, I’ll let you know.

weird unknown forces we can’t explain

I assume you’re referring to dark matter with this one. It’s just an unsolved mystery. It sure would be interesting if it was ghosts, but we have no reason think so as of currently.

the results of tests looking different depending on if it’s being observed or not

How do you feel something without touching it and thus affecting it? To see something requires the object of observation to reflect or emit light. At small enough scales that will affect the object itself in a significant manner. Quantum physics sure is weird, but I don’t see how that would be a reason to think that ideas could exist independently outside of a brain or similar material substrate.

Quite a low bar considering that I don’t need a car of my own.