Nah, that’s great because you can so easily escalate to heavy talk. Disagree with the political opinion. Insist car culture is just pointless fashion fads. Dive into the morality of reality TV.
Either they disengage and you’re free, or you get to have an actual meaningful debate instead of echoing hollow platitudes.
The actual results are in the text. 56% personifiers among autists vs 33% among not autists, p<0.05. Self report is p=0.06.
Scientific papers are often titled “What it’s actually about: something witty.” This one is about object personification and so after the colon they personify the paper itself by giving it an emotion.
Thanks for taking the time to post these links, just letting you know you’re efforts have benefited at least one person who’s gonna enjoy reading this.
That sounds awful, I’m sorry you have to go through that. They have those extra leg room exit row seats, but they seem to allocate them at random instead of to tall people.
You say you stand up right away because you’ve been jammed into your seat for hours, so I’m wondering why you didn’t stand up during the flight. Then you wouldn’t be jammed in for hours…
Why not stand up during the flight?
Why didn’t you just stand up during the flight?
Lol, ironic in thread about tolerance
Pretty sure both groups are doing that to each other…
If it were easy, there wouldn’t be this much disagreement.
Phew, lucky that there’s no disagreement in this society about what right and wrong is and what should and shouldn’t be tolerated. Otherwise we might devolve into two antagonistic political factions mutually condemning each other.
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You’re out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn’t address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn’t be tolerated.
The perfect colinearity of most of the lines is very suspicious too.
I have been thinking about this problem recently and believe the solution may be a new fediverse protocol/service that provides:
That is, a model of the relationships (e.g., is the same as, is a type of, is related to, etc) between different communities (/groups/services/instances, etc.) that emerges from the way that users/servers interact with them, that different servers can maintain independently and merge or split by consensus if they choose. Then other services (like Lemmy instances or clients) can tap into this information to provide solutions to problems like the one you describe (e.g., a feed of all the photography communities, regardless of which instance they’re on).
I think there are several big conceptual and technical challenges to implementing this. I’m keen to discuss them.
Does anyone know where I would go to discuss this with the people who care, have struggled with developing new fediverse protocols and/or are best positioned to spot the flaws and possiblities in the idea? So far I see mostly w3c working groups taking behind closed doors.
“New lab rule: no Ph.D. defences in poetry form.”
Still passed and had a grand old time.
Sounds amazing. Could you provide a link or at least enough names that I can google it?