

I don’t think the people who do the happiness statistic could see past the “forcibly inject” part.
Joined the Mayqueeze.
I don’t think the people who do the happiness statistic could see past the “forcibly inject” part.
I think it’s safe to say these thoughts weren’t necessarily factored in in the first beliefs in reincarnation. A lot of this stuff is about thinking horizons. If you don’t know about the vastness of space, you think everything happens around you. So you must be reborn close as well. And then the universe is being revealed (still) bit by bit. If your science isn’t great, you could be forgiven for thinking the world is 6000 years old and maybe created in a week. But then your horizons broaden and there is a lag in how the new knowledge filters into these established belief systems. So if you tried to argue logically about a reincarnation system, yes, it would be likely that you could become a rock near a supermassive black hole or a slug on a planet far, far away just as much as an ant on Earth (depending on how you fared in life). But logic and belief are natural opponents. I think all the Dalai Lamas were reincarnated on this planet. So that’s odd then, isn’t it? Doubt lengthens the lag.
If either one says anyways here’s wonderwall and launches into the song I’ll be ready to shoot them into the sun.
I fear as the number n of the repeated day approaches infinity, any day would be horrible to have to relive again. And again. And again.
I mean by normal people standards, you are correct. He’s had to replace a golden spoon up his royal posterior with a silver one. But he still lives in a big house and will never want for money in his life. His involvement did cost him his representative job. He’s been royally demoted. So there were consequences for him although I’d be the first to agree they weren’t sufficiently punitive.
In my house, I have a no dumping on the couch rule. If you come in and take a dump on my couch, I don’t care how insightful your thoughts are, you’re out the door. In terms of the fediverse, you merely seem confused about what constitutes taking a dump. These rules are available though, you just have to read them.
If you have spare time while developing your Don Quiote complex, give a passing thought to what censorship means. Nobody is banning you from having your super intellectual thoughts about government on the internet. Start a blog, your own lemmy instance, and fire away. But nobody has to listen to your thoughts; we’re free to go seek out other bullshit if we so please. That’s not censorship, that’s how the free exchange of ideas works. You don’t have the right to be heard on your terms in somebody else’s forum. And who knows, maybe modding your own would teach you a level of empathy that might make you feel embarrassed about your comments on this thread.
First thing, disable all auto backup on your phone. This is step 1 for anything.
If you have access to a computer, log in to Photos through a browser and delete images there and it won’t affect your phone’s storage. Maybe test it with an image if lesser importance before you bulk delete.
You could also move your locally stored photos to a different, temporary folder. Then delete the backed up ones in Photos. Then move the local files back.
I wouldn’t rely on the Google Takeout images. If the standard settings applied, the images will all be in Google’s compressed format. Granted, most people in the world couldn’t tell the difference. But it might be better to keep the best quality for the future.
And those folks aren’t on here because they already do their socializing in person. A frightful thought.
Are you beginning to feel a narrowing of your throat?
Let’s not call it psy op then. We need a new term. BS op maybe?
I think you’re looking at correlation more than causation. That’s what the enlarged gas tank metaphor in another comment here is trying to hint at.
I don’t mind your fiddling with that razor at all. I see what you mean.
Your intelligence isn’t improved by calmness. Calmness may simply be the state when it is the most unimpeded.
Psy op implies an amount of planning and the involvement of the military or the intelligence community. I think it is better attributed to chance that the cryptic pretentious musings of one person snowballed into a cultish internet movement. Because it garnered strength online, the musing person at the heart of it probably changed due to tiny power struggles.
People like to know there is a plan for everything. People always suspect a secret cabal behind everything. People are also dumb and impressionable. It doesn’t take a general or CIA buffin to try to target the Venn diagram of those three groups. I think it had the results you describe, it contributed to what we see in the US today: a weakening of the rule of law and a slide into fascism.
Calling QAnon psy op is giving what basically started as a 4chan meme too much credit. If no one took a gun to find a nonexistent basement in a DC pizza restaurant, society at large may have never discovered this snowballed cult, and jumped on it like a cat does catnip, enlarging its reach. The secret “cabal” behind it is maybe a handful of people. Bored and slightly Machiavellian internet users with odd political views and/or the love of endorphin-inducing likes and reach. Never attribute to conspiracy what you can more likely attribute to stupidity. QAnon is stupid. Stupidity with disastrous cobsequences. But not a planned psy op campaign.
Sphinxy is mad then. Or poops prodigiously. Sphinxy is much, much smaller than any of the surrounding pointy poop parlors.
Wow. It’s like they have discovered the concept of biases. A coffee table book of umbrella pictures would’ve had a similar effect no doubt.
For their next study they will surely test dihydrogenoxide in its liquid aggregate state for wetness.
This pretty much applies to all search engines. Because of that I don’t see the point of it being posted in this lemmy.
That’s not an argument, that’s somebody who only looked at the cover of the cliff notes on presidential terms but didn’t read it. Consecutivity isn’t required. Neither president should get elected a third time without a change or suspension of the constitution. With the rule of law under 47 weakening it is not impossible but I’m still optimistic.
So you’re trying to apply logic to an animated kids show. My advice is: stop. It doesn’t matter. Cookie monster never eats a cookie either.
I like to imagine that all creators of kids shows were high as a kite when they came up with the premise. [Takes a massive hit] “Duuuude, they’re like a team of first responder dogs but they can fly helicopters and one is a cop. They’re like the Village People but dogs.” [Takes another hit] “And they can talk!” And thus Paw Patrol was born.
[Lights up spliff] “Oy, mate. 'ere’s the thing. She’s a cheeky one, this Peppa. And she’s a pig. 'Er 'ead’s always sideways. She’s always mucking about.” [Inhales deeply] “And all the other muppets are animals too. But get this: there are other animals.” [Exhales] “But they can’t talk.”
They killed Kenny?
I think it is hard though, legislatively, as the RTBF already proves. It’s a terribly vague set of rules that put search engines in the position where they have to evaluate a claim and then sit in judgement over it with little to no oversight and then only a public form of objection if this somehow ends up in a court. This is not a good process. Adding more reasons to use a bad process doesn’t sound like a great idea regardless of how well intentioned they are.
An issue I see are massive Streisand effects. One is occurring if you need to take a Google to court for not following up on your RTBF claim. Nobody really cared about your drunk driving incident from 2019 until you fill the headlines with your court proceedings. Now everybody knows. The other is this: let’s say Roberta became Robert. Calling him Roberta would be dead naming him. But if every time I framed it as “Robert Streisand (known until 2023 as Roberta Streisand)” I’m merely stating fact and I don’t see how many courts will intervene against that. Why can virtually everybody still dead name Chelsea Manning? Because every time her name was mentioned post transition they added this factual context. So all you will achieve in the end is that all trolls and dickheads will just use the legally defendable boiler plate phrase. And hang a much brighter lantern on the issue.
Just to be clear: I’m not defending anybody deadnaming somebody else. I’m just looking at this issue, the RTBF, and I’m thinking of that road to hell and with what it is paved.