• 2 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2023

help-circle


  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    That’s a lot of moved goalposts to justify the weird temperature scale logic but okay.

    You’ve essentially justified that 0F and 100F are what they are because some old people died when it was 100F (most people, including the old are perfectly fine at this temperature all around the world) and because you can manage at 0F while wearing a ton of layers and not need a heat source (do all old people manage to survive just fine at 10F or 20F by just putting on some layers?).

    Either way, this pointless conversation had gone on for way too long. Have a good day! :)


  • I’m saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can’t be explained by how dangerous they each are.

    Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).

    To me, with absolutely no data, it feels lie:

    • 0F is as dangerous as 140F (you’re long dead if you’re outside in both cases)
    • 100F is as dangerous as 40F (mildly uncomfortable but safe for a while)

    So calling 0F and 100F both “really dangerous” and using that to justify them being the respective points of 0 and 100 disingenuous. Like, use Fahrenheit if that’s what you’re used to - I use it too because that’s what I’m used to. But I don’t explain the insane system with “it’s because the two ends are reallllly dangerous.”



  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzBurning Up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Fahrenheit: let’s use “really cold weather” as zero and really hot weather as 100.

    I don’t really have a horse in this race but this logic doesn’t seem legit to me.

    How is -17°C really cold weather AND 37°C really hot weather?

    One is actively trying to kill you if weren’t already dead by the time the weather got that bad. The other just makes your nuts stick to your thighs – if you’re in a humid place.

    I’d agree with the logic if 100F was equal to something like 65°C. 🤷‍♂️







  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzFlowchart for STEM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve had this thought for a while and I definitely agree that a lot of software I’ve built is a net negative to society as a whole and the only reason why I get paid as well as I do is because I’m helping rich assholes suck value out of society more efficiently.

    For instance, I’ve worked on CMSs that automated 90% of the processes for medium-large insurance companies. Sure, it may result in a marginal price reduction for insureds (lol), but it almost certainly has led to fewer staff being hired to the benefit of the overlords. If more and more middle-class white-collar jobs gets replaced by software, that helps put downward pressure on wages. At the end of it all, are the marginally lower prices worth it to society, when everyone has a lower wage or no well paying job forcing them to participate in the gig economy and such?

    It’s a depressing thought, and I’ve been trying to break into research engineering roles or something of the sort to get away from my current role but it’s been an uphill task.







  • I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?

    If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)

    So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?

    As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.


  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Okay, ignore race, consider only religion.

    People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.

    Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.

    Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of “a few bad apples” and not the other?


  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.

    On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.

    Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.

    Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.


  • overcast5348@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldFacts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I’ve dealt with landlords all my life. I don’t agree with “landlord bad”. Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it’s a leap to go from that to “all landlords are bad”.

    Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes “landlord bad” if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?

    Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.