Badabinski

Yeah, hypercapnia is fucked. I'm actually testing a small CO2 gas generator (literally just citric acid added dropwise to sodium bicarb with an acid trap and a dehumidifying stage) as a means to kill pests on houseplants and did some reading on the symptoms to be safe. It is unpleasant. It's not the worst death I could imagine, but it's shit.

As an aside, the way that CO2 kills bugs is interesting. Basically, the excess CO2 (in the range of 10-80,000 ppm) causes their spiracules (i.e. the little holes in their exoskeletons they use to breath) to stay open. This causes them to lose moisture until they die of dehydration (usually in a matter of hours). All this happens long before they asphyxiate or suffer from any sort of acidification from the CO2. It's a bit fucked up, but all other means of getting rid of the pests on my partner's houseplants have failed.

I have a better idea. Instead of stealing bodily autonomy from women, Russia could stop fighting a war that has claimed the lives of at least half a million of their citizens. They could stop enacting policies that result in young people fleeing their country. They could embrace immigration and work to improve the happiness and social mobility of their populace.

What Russia is doing here is not a good-faith effort to fix their population issues.

The timbre and content of our conversation here combined with something I read from your account has led me to perseverate on this conversation, so I'm going to make a comment that's definitely off-topic to satisfy my brain.

When I received the first response in this thread, I became curious about who I was conversing with. I looked at your profile and saw this in the account bio (or whatever it's called here):

Independent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.

And in this most recent comment in the thread:

I don't believe in free will nor self

I'm assuming that you are a determinist. I'm also a determinist! I believe that our actions and identity are ultimately the product of the way our brains interact with the environment around them. I believe that free will is an illusion many people see because the way our brain interacts with its environment is incredibly complicated and is almost impossible to quantify. I think we agree to some degree on this, although I could be totally wrong. I just wanted to see if I could establish a shared (if limited) understanding of how the brain do its thang based on the quote I've taken from this thread.

I wanted to write about emotions. I used to believe that emotions were not helpful when discussing fractious issues and when doing things like, say, software development. I've come to believe that I felt this way because I was not taught how to understand or process emotions. Because I didn't understand them, I was frustrated when they'd come to lead a conversation. I thought that if people could just be purely rational beings, we'd all be able to talk about hard things and come up with mutually beneficial solutions to our problems.

That sounds pretty naive because it is. I absolutely acknowledge that there are more nuanced arguments for why emotions should be kept out of debates, but I don't properly understand those arguments so I can't represent them here. Normally this would be enough for me to not make this comment, but I think I have a way to make my point that doesn't really depend on whether or not emotions should be involved in discussions.

Basically, I feel that it is impossible for two people to discuss something without that discussion involving emotions. I believe this is the case for the same reasons I believe in a deterministic universe (which is a ridiculous sentence lol, I sound so pompous right now). I think that a person's capability to express rational thought is either the result of emotions, or is inextricably linked to emotions. The human brain is a glorious fucking mess. The brain interacts with itself in ways that are just as dynamic and complicated as how the outside environment affects the brain. There's been a lot of research done to try and separate out what's responsible for cognition and emotion. Those efforts have failed, and there's now a lot of literature out there showing how you can't have one without the other. That's all really nice and cerebral and such, but I'm not qualified to talk about any of that and don't want to barf out another debate on the internet on "how does an brain work." There are enough of those. All I can do is talk about personal experience.

Like, emotions can be really useful in guiding rational thought. I'm a software developer by trade, and I've learned over the years that I architect, write, test, and debug software based on how I feel on a moment-to-moment basis. When I'm trying to filter a list, I just kinda let my fingers move and pound something out. I read it, and if I feel bad (e.g. anxious), I let my fingers delete some stuff and add more stuff, and I keep doing that until I'm happy. Sometimes I'll stop and think more consciously and "rationally" about what I'm doing, but like, I only do so when I've hit a point of feeling consistently unhappy for 3-5 minutes. My emotions and instincts have done most of the work in filtering out the contents of a list or coming up with a state machine or designing a class hierarchy or whatever, which is all pretty logical and rational shit. I work that way and my code works pretty well and is pretty fast and people generally like to read it and work with it. The times when I've struggled are when I've lacked the necessary instinct or "feel" for what's good and bad and have had to think purely rationally about what I'm doing.

I've found this to be true for debates as well. I'm far more convincing when I allow my emotions to guide my rational arguments. I've changed far more minds, and I've had my mind changed far more often when I include my emotions as an essential component of my rationality.

I'm just some random dude on the internet making a comment about something nobody asked about, so take this for what it is. I figured it'd be fun to write about, and I guess it was since I'm approaching kbin's 5000 character limit for a single comment.

For future reference, here is a direct link to the comment on my instance, and here is the contents of the comment:

I’m a cop and I can tell you that, at least in my country, you’d have no reason to not unlock your phone if you haven’t done anything.

I can understand that in some countries cops can be seen as criminals (and are behaving like criminals), but I don’t think a generality should be made. Just like a generality shouldn’t be made about people from an origin all doing the same bad thing.

Also don’t take advices from what you see on Lemmy as every user comes from a different country with different laws.

In my country, we can take your phone but we aren’t allowed to unlock it without your consent or without a prosecutor saying so.

I'm purposefully not including their username here in case they want to delete their comments at a later date.

That's a pretty rough thread to read. It makes me feel pretty damn bummed out. The cop (who I will refer to as "they", "them", and "the commenter" from now on) clearly believes in their position, and like, I get it. I think everybody would be happy to live in a world where following the belief that "you have nothing to hide" truly resulted in universally positive outcomes. They mention that cops in some countries act like criminals, which is a true (if perhaps incomplete) statement. I think there may be some defensiveness in their comment, but that's pretty natural when commenting on an article that's written on the basis that everyone doing their job is bad and should not be trusted. They probably have a hard job, and I'm guessing that part of the way they (and many cops) get through the day is to view their role as a protector of the innocent. That's not a groundbreaking statement or anything, but I figured I should include it. I'll also say that they did a pretty good job of avoiding aggressive language. It's natural to want to fight when dearly held beliefs are attacked, and they did a good job of avoiding that.

However, I can also understand how that comment makes some people very, very angry. For example, it makes me feel frustrated because I feel like it is missing important context (e.g. roughly where they're from and how the police and community interact there), and I feel that it is presenting an argument that is problematic and evidently untrue in some contexts. I also feel like it's a potentially reckless comment. When I read that comment, I feel I'm being told that I may be less safe if I try to maintain my right to privacy. I personally disagree with that idea, and I'm guessing that the people who made very aggressive responses feel much more strongly about that than I do. I won't claim to understand all the reasons why people are so angry at the police, so all I can do is share my reasons for feeling upset when reading that comment.

I dunno. I'm torn about that whole thread. I think the commenter was arguing in good faith and was communicating somewhat effectively, but I also don't think they considered how hurt and angry people are. It's not their job to avoid provoking trauma responses and angering random people on the internet. I have had times where I had to say something that I knew would really upset and activate my partner. However, I have found that I have better outcomes when I take some time to empathize before saying something that I know will potentially activate someone. I can hear them out, show empathy (or compassion if I have the resources to express it and am comfortable giving it), help them come back to the here-and-now, and then continue the discussion. That wasn't done, and the folks who have a hard time regulating their emotions made aggressive comments.

I don't feel like they were expressing vulnerable feelings, so I'm hoping that they had an emotional shield up and didn't experience harm. I'm sure it was hurtful, but I hope it wasn't harmful. I hope that the people who clearly feel such deep rage are eventually able to find peace and a safe place to recover from whatever shit they went through, assuming they have unprocessed shit to deal with. I obviously hope that we'll someday look back at police brutality some day and be horrified that we ever lived like that, but that's a nothingburger of a statement in this context. The commenter has expressed their desire to move on from the topic so I won't leave a comment over there, but I figured I'd share my thoughts here. There's not really a point to what I'm saying beyond that.

I have some perspective on this that's a bit hard to share, but I'll try to do so briefly. My partner had a very traumatic upbringing and has spent several years processing all of that trauma in therapy. She has occasionally said things while in an activated state that she later came to deeply regret. When she has said these hurtful things, I've been able to see an injured and frightened 18, 15, 12, 10, 7, or 5 year old kid lashing out as the only defense to an existential threat. There was no existential threat in our time or place, but the trapped knot of trauma that was smashed into her brain by her circumstances saw it as one and tried to survive. With that understanding, it became hard to feel anything but sadness and compassion on the very rare occasion when her anger turned to me.

This has had a profound impact on how I view angry discourse out in the world. Most people haven't been through the shit my partner has, but most people have absolutely been through something terrible that has wounded them. Those wounds often turn into trauma, and that trauma can sometimes explode out into the world.

I don't think that having trauma means that adults aren't responsible for their actions. My philosophy is that every person has a duty to take care of themselves and to not harm others, in that order. Harming someone else is not acceptable to me unless it must be done to protect your present self. I just no longer feel like I am able to assign blame or worthiness to these types of comments and the people making them. When I see someone saying something like "ACAB" and expressing really painful trauma, I think of my partner and all the pain she's gone through and all the work she's done to get to the bright place she's at today.

All of this is to say that I just can't agree with calling them assholes. I think that there are times when they could be misguided and hurtful and even harmful, but that makes me sad rather than angry. The comments that make me angry are the ones made in bad faith, but thankfully the block and report buttons are easy to reach.

I'm curious about the incident you mentioned. Would you be able to link it to me? I might like to comment over there if possible.

EDIT: I was not, in fact, brief.

EDIT: Found it: https://kbin.earth/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/353424/-/comment/2994009
I'm shit at the fediverse so sorry for my dumb link. I think there's a better way to link stuff, but I don't know what or how even.

People get angry, and sometimes they need to vent that anger. There's nothing inherently wrong with being angry, just like there's nothing wrong with feeling any of the feelings a person can have. There's not even anything wrong with expressing that anger. The body keeps the score, and it will not forgive someone for their unprocessed emotions. Expression is often a part of that processing.

Everything after this is my opinion and should be taken as opinion, not any sort of expression of fact.

It is my opinion that an angry statement like "ACAB" isn't harmful as long as the audience is right. I have no issues with someone saying "ACAB" under an article about police brutality. I would be displeased with an ACAB comment as a direct response to someone who is a cop and was expressing vulnerable feelings about being a cop. It's been my belief and experience that that type of moment is where the right words can actually change someone's mind a little bit, whereas the wrong words can cause harm and push someone to double down on their beliefs. The only times I've managed to change minds is when I first try to express some degree of understanding before attempting to reverse the connection to show the other person why they would benefit from understanding.

I do see the irony present in my specific example here, since bad cops generalize and act out those generalizations on individuals in painful (and sometimes lethal) ways. I am not able to feel or act that way, so the bad cops get to do something that I can't. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Basically, as long as a commenter is venting at a distance, I think it's relatively harmless. It makes me unhappy when a human is being directly and aggressively dumped on, because the chances for real harm are greatly increased.

I don't know if I feel quite the same way about "muskrat." Like, that's very much about a specific person, but the dude is literally never going to read that comment. I very much dislike Elon Musk and usually don't say his name in conversation without the word "fucking" in front of it. I personally don't believe that an internet comment can ever make that man act in a better way, so I don't know that there's any point in trying to treat him nicely. I dunno. Feelings and shit are hard.

EDIT: I should also mention that ACAB is not an insult, it is a symbol of a movement. That symbol can be insulting to some, but it can also provide a sense of solidarity to others. I am a very privileged person that hasn't had bad experiences with the police, so my understanding of the anger behind it is the product of empathy and relating it to my own traumas. I would not personally say that to a cop in a situation where I might be able to change their mind a bit, but I haven't suffered from oppression and pain at the hands of the police. Props to themeatbridge for their comment, because it made me realize that I was framing ACAB as a pejorative rather than what it is.

It's a shame that nobody has produced a molecular test cheaply enough for free distribution yet. The fact that you can get PCR quality tests entirely at home makes the antigen tests a non-option for me and mine. They're too expensive to recommend to most people, however. The ones I've been using are $25 per test, and you also have to pay $50 for the reusable test reader. That's way cheaper than they used to be (Lucira COVID tests were like $75 a pop, and the fact that the entire unit was single use was terrible from a waste perspective), but it's still just not good enough.

EDIT: lmao, Pfizer bought Lucira and is now selling combo COVID+flu tests with the same single-use tester. I wish they had converted to a reusable central unit with disposable tests like most other molecular COVID testers...

EDIT: yikes, the Lucira combo tester might be giving false positive results for the flu. Dunno if this Amazon review is accurate, but it's certainly concerning:

I wish I had a better source, but it appears that the details are hidden in the agreement people sign to become partners on YouTube: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/177353i/you_should_at_least_know_that_55_of_youtube/

Basically, YouTube does a 55/45% split between the individual and YouTube respectively. I'm not totally clear on how the actual value of a Premium view is calculated based on the contents of the contract snippet included in that post. All I know is that I've heard several YouTubers say that it's much more than they get from ad revenue per watcher. That was enough evidence for me to continue on with Premium, but I haven't done extensive research on this.

Ikr? Nowadays, I'm quite fond of the idea of forcing media companies to license to all comers if they license to one company. Movie theaters don't have exclusive rights to movies, so why do we let streaming services pull this shit? Having the same content across all platforms would mean that streaming services would have to compete on price and service quality.

The article says that he refused the prize because he felt that he hadn't earned it. He felt that the prize should be awarded to Richard Hamilton who developed the theory Perelman used to fully solve the Poincaré Conjecture. I'm not saying it was the wisest or easiest solution. I was only trying to express my opinion that I find his adherence to his strong principles admirable.

I'm absolutely not advocating for anyone to turn down a million dollars. For anyone in a position where they can just, like, get a million bucks, take that shit and live a happier life!

I miss that :( my partner and I always talk about how that was such a nice time. I gave them my $8 every month and had access to all the shows I wanted to watch and it was great. I completely gave up on piracy, and I was more likely to rent/buy the occasional movie that wasn't on Netflix.

I pay for it as well. I started when it was Youtube Red because I absolutely fucking despise ads. I learned later on that YouTubers get paid a lot more per Premium view, and that's helped to keep me paying for it. I tend to watch channels that don't do sponsorships, and many of those channels have videos that are quite expensive to produce (Project Farm and Torque Test Channel stand out in that regard). I like these people and what they do, so I want to help them.

It's expensive (I have the family version so my partner and her dad can be covered as well), but I have the means to afford it.

If YouTubers stop getting paid more for my views, I'll probably drop it and switch to NewPipe (which I already use on occasion for videos that have intrusive sponsorships).