It’s private wealth, not government funding. They’re free to use their wealth how ever they see fit as long as it’s legal.

Ad-hominem is not argument to the contrary either.

That’s still not an argument against the need to have a backup of humanity somewhere beyond Earth. Your desire to stick it to the man won’t mean much if we go extinct.

We will most likely always have terrorism and wars. That’s not an argument against letting wealthy individuals fund a private space race.

You just entirely ignored my argument.

If you can figure out what it contains by looking at it it’s probably good to eat. Basically the less it has been processed, the healthier it is. In general, nothing is inherently bad for you. Dose makes the poison. Things can be bad in excess.

deleted by creator

surely they would know they are (edit: seen as) the bad guys?

This is a popular view only on left-wing social media. The vast majority of people just see them as wealthy individuals, without thinking of them as particularly bad. If I didn’t visit Lemmy, I wouldn’t even know how many people dislike them. Everywhere else, I mostly see people looking up to them. Criticism does exist, of course, but it’s usually focused on specific traits - like Elon’s Twitter addiction - rather than condemning them as a whole.

To answer your question, Elon Musk plays a lot of Diablo IV and is actually quite good at it. He claims to be in the global top 20, though that’s debatable and hard to verify. However, he is ranked in the top 20 on the leaderboard at helltides.com.

We’re as free to stop caring about what other people think as we are to stop enjoying the taste of sugar. It’s not impossible, but it’s incredibly difficult. For most of human history, being disliked or ostracized by those around you often meant death. You don’t just wake up one day and decide to override such a deeply ingrained instinct.

I think upvoting and downvoting should remain a feature for sorting posts, but the scores shouldn’t be visible to anyone. Making scores public encourages people to say what’s popular and discourages them from expressing unpopular opinions, even if they believe them to be true. Humans are social creatures, and we care too much about what others think. If you agree or disagree with someone and want them to know, you should tell them directly rather than anonymously ranking them.

That’s quite cynical view. There’s about 0% chance of that happening during their lifetime. Or you think they’ll just want to go to mars and sit inside some capsule for the rest of their lives? C’moon now…

Elon’s argument for why we need to spread to other planets holds true even if everything on Earth were going perfectly.

It’s not about getting everyone off Earth - it’s about creating a backup for humanity on other planets. This ensures that the only known flame of consciousness in the universe isn’t extinguished by a nuclear war, pandemic, supervolcano, or asteroid impact. It’s about not having all your eggs in one basket.

I’ve yet to hear a good argument for why it matters even if they did. I’ve made thousands of comments on Lemmy that are free for anyone to grab and do anything they want with. If I didn’t want people to have access to them I wouldn’t be posting on the first place.

ITT: People realising most of the world lives outside their bubble

(commenting from alt account as lemm.ee is down again)

Don’t worry, I’m relatively satisfied with my life and have no desire in ending it. I’m just in the lonely chapter of my life where I’ve outgrown my old friend group but haven’t yet found the new ones. I don’t consider AI my friend. It’s just something to bounce my esoteric thoughts off.

Lucky? I thought the 12 week limit and need for 2 doctor statements after that was outrageous.

I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is ‘pro-life,’ I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.

I know such lines are arbitrary and there’s no practical difference between one day and another but what seems obvious to me is that a total ban and allowing it at 8 months for any other that a serious medical reason are both equally extreme stances and the ‘truth’ is there somewhere in between.

Then have the child and give it up for adoption? If you don’t want to keep it, you can freely abort it until, say, 12 weeks, after which you’d need a medical reason and a statement from one or two doctors. I don’t see what the issue is here.

I’m not saying this is exactly how it should be, but something along those lines. The idea that someone should be free to abort a 7-month-old fetus if they choose seems quite extreme to me.

Maybe I should’ve been more specific - I meant the point after which you need to consult a doctor to go ahead with an abortion. I think most people agree that a fetus just a few weeks old is barely a living thing, so aborting it is hardly different from, cumming in a sock. However, there is a point after which we’re no longer talking about a lump of cells but a sentient being, and to me at least, it seems reasonable that after that point, you’d need a medical reason to do it.

Where I’m from, that line is at 12 weeks. Until then, you’re free to do it for whatever reason you want. The unwillingness to draw any line like that means they’d be okay aborting an 8 month old too even for financial reasons and that just sounds fucking insane to me.

I don’t know what hellhole you live in, but where I’m from, doctors don’t arbitrarily deny abortions to someone whose life is in danger. The reason you need a second opinion is because you had three months to decide whether you want to keep it or not. If it’s been more than that, the child is already so far developed that you’ll need a medical reason to abort it, and at that point, ‘I changed my mind’ is no longer a good enough reason to end the life of a living, feeling being. Also, after that point you generally also need surgery to remove the dead fetus.

I’m pretty sure an 8-month-old fetus can feel things and is sentient, so that’s a moot point unless you’re going to argue that sentience appears at the moment of birth - which we both know isn’t true.

So… Why can’t we abort 3 year olds?