319
I would disagree on the grounds that this will functionally just break up the community, which is the best outcome. People will get bored and move on to the next thing, and both reddit and discord will lose.
They're fighting a losing battle, but I hope a side effect of it is that new people come in and change both the economics and artistry of Hollywood. Most Hollywood content sits in a very rigid box. It's repetitive, unoriginal, and unappealing. People are encouraged to eat ramen for every meal in order to "make it", simply because far too many of them try (which is partially the result of the "follow your dreams" narrative in America as well). The further down you are, the worse your compensation. Good ideas get missed or thrown out and relegated to dollar theatres all the time.
If this strike goes on long enough that it starts to flush people out, I'm ok with that. Sucks for the people who are going to lose their livelihoods, but for some of them that was an eventuality. Hopefully in the end creators will have more creative freedom and receive more proportional compensation.
When I was a kid my teacher told my parents "she has something that nobody else at her age has, and that's genuine empathy". Now I'm an adult so it's not an applicable compliment anymore, but I still appreciate that comment, and I'd like to think it was true.
Macronutrients are not what makes a food healthy. In particular, high-protein does not make a food healthy. By that reasoning a lot of fast food could be considered insanely healthy, but it's not. That's just our downright shitty levels of education surrounding nutrition.
What actually makes a food healthy depends on a lot of different factors, but a common one and relatively reliable standard bearer is whether it is "nutritious". When a food is nutritious or nutrient dense, it is micronutrient dense. This includes things like spinach and beans and seeds and broccoli and all of the other foods that your parents made you eat. Micronutrient poor foods are ones that have relatively few micronutrients, but usually are relatively calorie rich. This includes things like mozzarella sticks, wonderbread, fruit gushers, heavy cream, twinkies, and so on. We do need macronutrients, but virtually anyone who gets enough energy (calories) from food also gets enough of them, except in specific cases like being a professional athlete. The athlete wouldn't die of protein deprivation if they didn't pay attention to their intake, but it would make it harder for them to perform well.
So no, chicken is not, by any standard, "really nutritious and healthy". It's not completely devoid of nutrients - it's relatively rich in phosphorus and selenium if you eat it on its own, for example, but it's far from what anyone would consider nutritious. It's somewhere in between fried mars bars and spinach.
Honestly, if they use their current rage to join the protests with all the firepower they can muster, then it's a win-win-win.
People need to check moderators' profiles on Lemmy - some people are trying to do the same here. If the person moderates more than 10-ish subs it's better to create a new community before theirs catch on.
And not even a real internet forum with some connection to the world, like a forum for engineers or something, but just these generic cat video style forums that don't really add huge value to anyone's life. Your entire existence is to fill the 30-second void for people standing in elevators.
That is an objectively sad life. Imagine people asking what you did with your life and your answer is "I had imaginary power on a now-defunct internet site doing unpaid work day in and day out. I spent hours upon hours of my life creating charts that only apply in this digital universe to make myself feel important while people who scrolled my page for five minutes a day were out doing things in the real world".
My question is who took those screenshots. I don't know the context, but if this is some sort of weird ass grass-touching PR stunt that would be next-level gross.
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this sub obviously, but I'm given to understand that an emergency ascent should have been initiated by this point if everything was fully functional. That probably points to a design flaw - you should always keep those systems as independent of each other as possible so that if one fails, you can fall back on the other. Of course it's possible that they've since ascended and haven't been found, or got stuck, but assuming they haven't that could imply that the sub experienced an insurmountable failure and they're looking for people who are either gone or near-unrescuable.
I would also say that I don't think people SHOULD be risking their lives at this point. We're looking at a case of people who took an informed risk and understood that there was danger associated with the recreational activity they were undertaking. These people either had vast monetary resources and could have consulted the best experts in the world, or had significant prior experience and knowledge. While obviously withholding information interferes with informed consent, and that may or may not have played a role, I don't think this is morally equivalent to rescuing someone from a burning building. There's also simple probability - the odds of rescuing them alive and well aren't good, and to put someone else's life at risk for the off chance that they succeed would be unethical in my opinion.
view more: next ›
I used to eat meat. Don't anymore because the arguments against it are just that fucking strong. Basically unless you advocate for religious supremacy it's hard to make a cohesive argument in favor of meat consumption.