Happens often and most of the times is it because of a misunderstanding. Usually we actually agree with each other but we think we are disagreeing and arguing about how the thing we agree on is correct. I have seen this happen with two coworker many times and it makes me laugh every time until it gets too serious. I actually had this kind of “discussion” yesterday, my coworker said he couldn’t see change x in my PR and I told him how it was before and how it is after the change and then it became heated (I assume it is because he wrote the code and the tests) he stepped back when I told him even the tests expected the faulty state then he understood what outcome we needed and saw that the change was there and it was actually correct.
Pizza that traditionally comes with sauce on top would be better if you did no sauce on top and instead dipped the pizza in sauce as you ate. I like my crunchy.
yeah I’m autistic this happens very often
That smart phones are surveillance/psyop devices, and that they own you, not them. I’ve been 100% phone free for 5 years now. I’m a 30+ Year IT expert. Also, fuck A.I.
I’m a structural engineer. It is part of the job.
I’ve been mostly right.
A profession where I’m sure it’s beneficial to be very rigid…
Except during seismic events.
Tell me, as a structural engineer, should I build my home on sand?
What about the graboids?
Depends on the sand.
That’s also generally more the geotechnical engineer’s call.
It’s cheese curds and gravy that make it a poutine, not cheese. You can put cheese AND cheese curds on a poutine along with other stuff, but without cheese curds, all you have is fries and gravy with assorted hangers on.
Bigotry is bad. Segregation is bad.
In progressive spaces this is USUALLY met with agreement. That’s easy whenever we are talking about equal rights for people who have been historically been oppressed. However, a dark corner of progressive spaces likes to hate. Hate on men, cis people, white people. It’s usually just one or two people, who have probably been personally hurt by people who happen to fall into those groups, and the rest don’t feel like they can say anything.
I strongly believe that things like segregation are fundamentally wrong and make the world a worse place. Not that they were tools that were used for evil and can now be used for good in the right hands. Not just temporarily as balancing measures for society. Equality isn’t just something you can pick and choose when to believe in, when it’s pretty and convenient and makes you feel good.
Hate on men, cis people, white people
If you’re walking down stairs or an escalator you stand/walk on the right. always. If you live in a country that drives on the left side then you apply the same to stairs.
When walking on the sidewalk you pass on the right.
People who walk down the opposite side are a cancer to society.
Adding to this, if a group is walking together shoulder to shoulder taking up most of the sidewalk, it’s that groups responsibility to stack when a single person is coming. The single walker should not have to move off the sidewalk to accommodate.
Now playing The Verve - Bittersweet Symphony
When walking on the sidewalk you pass on the right.
You walk on the right, but if someone is slow, and there’s no room on the right, you can def pass them on the left. Like driving.
This is terrible driving advice. Just because other people suck at lane management doesn’t mean you need to make the roads even more unsafe. Maybe just wait?
Playing noise on your phone in a public place is wrong. Violators should be put in one those midevil contraptions that lock your head and wrists in a plank of wood so that we may all pelt you with rotten fruit and vegetables.
No one wants to hear that shit. You’re an asshole and should feel bad.
To extend that, people that have there notification sound on all the time is really annoying, just leave it on vibrate it’s just as useful!
I said in a meeting “that’s a really bad idea”
They still did it.
During years, we had trouble with it. I kept saying “I told you it was a bad idea”.
After 6 years, they finally removed it. I said “well, I said it was a bad idea”.
Sounds like youre not a team player. /$
I was once a consultant for wine companies. I was working on helping establish a new wine brand. The client was really clear that they did not want to rely on the idea of terroir, nor their vineyards closeness to the ocean as selling points.
My boss thought the brand should use a bunch sails and anchor imagery to sell the terroir and the vineyard’s closeness to the ocean.
I told him the client wouldn’t like it as they’d been clear that’s not what they wanted. He said I was wrong. If he’d told me the client was wrong that would have been fine but he insisted that I had heard it wrong and started gas lighting me.
Turns out the client felt they’d been really clear that they didn’t want a brand that focused on the terroir and closeness to the ocean and refused to pay for that round of work.
TIL Terroir means “the complete natural environment in which a particular wine is produced, including factors such as the soil, topography, and climate”
At work, I had to design something for a new software product and realized that if we applied the same approach as our old product we were going to run into major scalability issues. The problem is the whole organization was basically used to the product working this old way. For months, people tried to ignore the scalability issues and push forward with the old approach in the new product. I kept being a pest though and pointing it out. Eventually, I wrote a several page document with data and graphs explaining exactly what the problem was and presented it to other teams. I also did research and found that our competitors were doing it my way, which I attributed to the scalability issues inherent to the problem. This forced everyone to accept the problem and eventually my solution. It was really hard to basically be fighting against a mob mentality and feel like the only sane one. It was also hard because even after the solution was accepted people were still upset about the change. In my view, this was like being angry at the laws of gravity. You can feel that way, but it doesn’t change that they exist and you have to accept them.
They tried to argue that all math was useless bullshit because it couldn’t deal with infinity.
I tried to show different ways math has been useful for me personally, and for humanity generally. None of that mattered to them. I tried to explain how math can actually work with infinity. They insisted I was lying.
A part of me thought they were just trying to troll me, but after seeing and interacting with them multiple times afterwards, I’m pretty sure those were their genuine beliefs. They were also a moon landing denier, but after the whole math discussion I didn’t touch that topic with a ten foot pole.
What really disappointed me about math is that there is a proof that there must be mathematical theorems which cannot be proven or disproven.
I never made the connection until reading your comment, but I now wonder if they heard about the incompleteness theorems and came to their conclusions about math based on a misunderstanding.
I’m sorry to hear that concept disappointed you, but I personally don’t think it ultimately matters or effects the usefulness of math. I see it as similar to the difference between science and engineering. An engineer can create something useful by knowing what works, without knowing precisely why it works. A scientist tries to uncover why things work the way they do, regardless of the utility of that understanding. Often the output of those two fields overlap, but they don’t have to.
You can’t even prove numbers are real!
Sounds irrational
JFC don’t send them stopdoingmath.jpeg
I now consider it one of many examples of the idea that you can’t use reason and evidence to change someone’s beliefs, if they never used reason or evidence to conclude those beliefs in the first place.
I feel sorry for those who have never felt the excitement of changing their beliefs based on new evidence or understanding, especially when due to their own hubris. Being wrong is an opportunity to learn and discover. Everyone who has ever lived, and will ever live, is sometimes wrong.
In a way, that’s the general theme of this thread. We stood our ground when we knew we were right and could prove it with reason and evidence, while facing opposition that was based on stubbornness, hubris, and refusal to admit to being wrong.
I feel sorry for those who have never felt the excitement of changing their beliefs based on new evidence or understanding, especially when due to their own hubris.
Not only is it sad, nearly everything wrong with the world right now can be boiled down to a handful of people having this character flaw
I have to be “that guy” sometimes when it comes to fire performance safety. There’s huge risks involved so there really isn’t a lot of wiggle room. I try to treat any fuckups as learning opportunities though, I don’t want to scare away the newbies
I think having pets is fundamentally unethical. Your dog lives in a tiny fraction of the world with absolutely no agency and only “loves” you because it is literally programmed to after centuries of breeding for traits that promote that. Your pet did not choose you and if it “loves” you at all, it’s only because they are utterly dependent on you because they have been taken far from where their species can survive or that place has been ruined by humanity. Animals cannot consent period and by extension cannot and never do consent to being property.
I’m not a PETA freak. I don’t shame people for having pets, but I’m unable to think of pets without considering these facts and it makes the entire thing seem gross and wrong to me. I rarely bring it up because it never leads to an engaging or productive conversation. No one ever really has an argument against it besides something along the lines of “Humans have had pets for millennia” or “It’s too late to put them back” which don’t actually prove me wrong in any way.
if it makes you feel better, there are different ways to take care of a pet (or companion animal if you prefer that term)
my dogs (**my **as in they are under my care, like children) don’t know tricks, they are free to perform any behavior that doesn’t put them or any other animal in danger
around me they are free to keep doing whatever they want or ask to be pet, the only orders I give them is to sit down and stay still when I give them treats so they don’t start a fight over it and to move from one part of my yard to another when we need to move heavy stuff
whenever the capitalist system let’s me keep enough energy after my chores I take them out for walks but when that’s not the case I play with them in my yard
I respect and love them in that way
Domestication is interesting because your average German shepherd is arguably living a significantly higher quality of life than a wolf living in the wild. While they may not have the same “freedom” as a wolf living in the woods, the wolf lives in its own shackles, always fighting for food, shelter and protection from predators. While I don’t disagree that having pets is fundamentally a problematic concept, I also think its always a bad idea to attribute abstract human traits and concepts onto animals, most of which want food, water, safe territory, and engagement.
Almost every animal specialist I talked to never talks about animals as if they were people, they always have a sense of respect for them being an animal and of a different species. I suppose they have a greater understanding of what an animal “wants”.
The second part of the question was were you right, and I think you’re probably wrong most of the time on your stance, but there are definitely areas where you are correct.
My argument would be that even though many of these pets have ingrained psychosocial issues that make them more amenable to being owned as pets, the counterpoint is, is there is no fundamental and absolute right way to live.
If there’s a tiny little section where people and animals can be happy, then there’s nothing wrong with that happiness.
Blaming someone for not taking the entirety of the universe into account for something that gave them happiness is generally considered a dick move.
I’m not really blaming anyone. It’s a complicated idea. I don’t expect every person to philosophize about the problem. Ultimately I’m just one person who gets uncomfortable when I consider what a pets life really is. It’s not a high priority to me and I don’t get preachy about it. There are more pressing issues in the world to me.
To your point of an “absolutely right way to live”, I agree, but my belief is that living things should ideally have the freedom to choose how they want to live rather than someone assert their personal opinion of the correct way to live. Pets however have absolutely no freedom to choose how to live. They don’t choose their owners nor the conditions they live in nor can they truly do anything about how they are treated.
The fact that they are (sometimes) happy makes it an easier pill to swallow except for the fact that their happiness comes largely from a variety of factors that limit their perspective. That’s not even considering the unknowable number of mistreated pets there are or innocent creatures that lived entire lives of misery and abuse due to uncaring owners.
I mean you can make the same argument for many humans, we as children don’t choose where we are born and who are our parents. And each country and society will decide for them the “correct” way to live. If anything, you could say we are currently treating tiny humans as pets.
Yours is a fascinating perspective that I haven’t considered before.
My “shooting from the hip” response is to consider the life of an animal in a 2x2 grid. The first column is pets, the second column is non-pets (i.e. Animals living in the wild). The first row is animals with sufficient access to food, shelter, and overall wellbeing. The second row is animals without those needs being met (i.e. Suffering under the hands of either humans or nature).
In my opinion, based on my personal life experience, and only if you consider the animals that are not typically used for food (that’s an entirely different, but also important discussion), the number of animals in the top left quadrant are second only to the number of animals in the bottom right. Because of this, I believe that the concept of pet ownership is an overall net positive.
That still absolutely does rob the pet of the free will to decide their own destiny, and that is still absolutely a moral quandary.
Edit: Another way to frame my opinion that pets are a net positive is that we humans have done a great deal to improve our general quality of life (for better or worse to the world at large), and have mostly brought our pets up to a similar quality with us. Food, water, and shelter are usually provided to pets at a minimum, but those are anything but guaranteed in the wild. Pets lives also greatly improve compared to wild animals if you consider modern heating and cooling, pet friendly dietary considerations, veterinary care, and an overall pet friendly society.
I agree but I think it’s alright to have rescued pets. Would be better if they didn’t need to be rescued but that’s the way it is.
Iffeel the same way, especially about cats.
