I’m gay

  • 13 Posts
Joined 10M ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


Not to nitpick too hard, but it sounds more like they can distinguish between strangers and their owner, and that when exposed to audio of their owner talking, they can distinguish between two tones - those humans typically use with other humans and those humans typically use with animals and infants.

Interesting science. Thanks for sharing!

I remember when congress “investigated” big oil for making record profits during the last recession

big whole lot of nothing came of that, I remember thinking ‘well that can’t be good for the rest of capitalism’… and here we are. Cat’s out of the bag, government doesn’t want to do anything about it.

Dopamine is not the only important neural pathway. Mainstream vaping is typically of two varieties - nicotine and cannabis. While dopamine is technically involved in both, the receptor pathways which are perhaps more important are the nicotinamide receptors in the former and cannabinoid receptors for the latter.

I think there’s a good chance for some sampling bias. At the very least there’s some selection bias, in that it’s representative of Australian Gen Z individuals who opted into some ‘willingness to participate in surveys’ on an online website (or seemingly so, it’s possible they may have signed up in person? its unclear in the methodology section exactly how they were recruited, but it does give some high level ideas).

In 2021, an online survey was conducted across Australia’s major cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Canberra and Adelaide. The actual study participants were recruited using simple random sampling (based on computer-generated random numbers) from a database of 35,000 people who have previously indicated willingness to participate in surveys.

Out of 698 randomly invited participants, 478 responded by completing the survey, generating a response rate of 68.5%.

I also don’t think the question was designed all that well

When asked about the main contributors to climate change and presented with a long list of factors allowing multiple choices and an open-ended “Other” option to include another opinion

How many should I select if I’m talking about main contributors? I’m sure many participants asked themselves this question when clicking boxes. If I click every box, is that reflective of the “main contributors”? When I hit 5 boxes, is that enough? If I’m trying to disambiguate between the options of “livestock and agriculture” and “big corporations and industry”, I’d definitely side with the latter as more important because you can have sustainable livestock and agriculture but large corporations typically do not. Also the latter is a larger box which holds most of the problems of the former. Do I select both when we’re talking about “main contributors”? I’m not certain how I might have answered, had I been presented the same survey.

In the end, I think the author jumps to more conclusions than is supported by the limits of the methodology employed.

The liberal cry that everything they don’t like is Russian interference, that every bit of political activism or deviation from the norm in any direction is the result of a proxy war between Russia and/or China and the rest of us.

Huh, do people really say this? I haven’t experienced this online, but yea, I can get why that’s just absurd and harmful.

People desperately looking for tech CEOs to address disinformation by embracing centralized arbiters of truth.

I mean, I think they’re mostly just asking for them to actually remove content that is reported for being misinformation because the amount of it that was going around the last two major elections has been quite a bit. But again, perhaps I may not be running in the right social circles to see how this is framed.

A rather densely worded article which makes some good points, but I don’t really know many people who think of disinfo in the way the author is framing it. Perhaps I haven’t dived in very deeply on how people view disinformation - my take on it is that while there are major interests out there (such as the mentioned Russian troll farms) it’s the day to day misinfo that’s most troubling to me. It’s the fact that shitty articles get re-shared by people who don’t take two seconds to question the information… they look at the article title and go “why yes, the transgenders are ruining sports” and spread along the message. Sure, the person behind said article might be intentionally sharing this to groups on facebook which they know are full of the kind of people who do this, but I don’t see the malicious actors as the source of the problem, but the shoddy education system which allows so many people to buy into bad journalism like this. The people resharing without a thought are how we ended up with Donald Trump, and I think we would have ended up with him even if they weren’t seeded with disinformation because the quality or the quantity doesn’t matter here, only the resonance of the message. They used to share blog posts and commentaries which avoided fact and talked about feeling, disinfo is not a new concept, it’s just happening in a new medium and has a new face.

Not all that surprising given how social dynamics work at different age groups. I do wonder how well queers are represented in the sample and a bit about where/how people are added to this sample, but I don’t have access to the study nor is it currently on scihub.

I’ve been slowly seeing more and more parties booked as afrobeats and it’s slow rise in EDM subgenres. I’m a huge fan of melodic and syncopated rhythms, often finding myself drawn towards DnB, breaks, UK garage, etc. perhaps at least partly because western music so rarely plays with variation in the rhythm and instead plays with melody while keeping rhythm fairly steady.

Fair point, I’ll look into adding it into the sidebar

Of course. Feel free to make a post over on beehaw, reply here, or send me DMs. We have a discord too, if you’d like an invite. 💜

Absolutely. Most of us are anti-capitalist and a fair deal of us are anarchist too. I happen to be both. Really our only guiding principle is that of being nice to each other. We believe that most social media likes to live by the letter of the law and because of such there’s too much wiggle room to be a piece of shit but still never break any rules and that drives away people from a platform and makes nice people leave (not to mention provides excessive burden to minorities). Anyone is welcome to express or iterate their opinion on various matters, but as soon as it is dehumanizing or exploitative it’s no longer nice, and not the kind of behavior/content that we would allow.

maybe it’s too neutral

What do you mean, ‘too neutral’? Can you elaborate?

Come on over to beehaw, we believe strongly that users should be nice to each other. 😊

I don’t think it’s a problem until it interferes with your ability to do more important things in your life. If you have the time and capacity to explain why something is incorrect on the internet it can be beneficial for many of the ways you just outlined.

However, if you spend excessive amounts of time doing that, or prioritize it over the needs of the people you value in your life, it’s a problem in your life that you should probably address.

It’s sad that our education system is failing so many people that they don’t see through this kind of product. It’s also fucked up that we can’t create a system which regulates against it and protects people from being manipulated so obviously. Chronic pain sucks ass, and I don’t blame someone for giving it a shot when in many cases nothing else works.

While I think this will result in a miniscule fine by the fed, HIPAA has some of the strictest fines of any US Govt violation and could easily be a multimillion/multibillion dollar fine if it was taken seriously and they wanted to make a statement for healthcare privacy.

only if the cactus is poisonous

in some cases it’s merely psychedelic

in other cases it just tastes like cactus (generally a disagreeable taste)

I think there’s a good point to be made about having a pronoun field default to they, so that those who use other pronouns must do so by choice, better obscuring whether someone is trans and normalizing the use of gender-neutral pronouns.