But then why spend so much money on a phone? I also don’t care about the specs of my phone, but this means I usually buy some $100 phone that gets the job done for a couple years.
I genuinely don’t see a reason why someone would buy an iPhone besides as a fashion accessory/ status symbol
There’s also quite a bit of English, eg.
Window -> vindu
Leather (animal skin) -> skinn
Yes, terminal means “end” or similar. Eg. “Terminal cancer”, “the airport terminal” etc. same root word as"terminate"
MQTT is great! There are clients available in Python, JS, etc
I’m sorry but how is a couple million “not rich”
This doesn’t answer the question at all though?
Is the entity an immortal snail?
Norway. There are many reasons, but the big big one for me is the absolutely incredible nature AND the ability to properly enjoy it via Wildcamping. Being able to simply venture out into the forest for a weekend is such a nice thing.
Think about it. If the only purpose was a desire to kill the person, why write a song, why not actually do it? The obvious answer is, because he knows that would be wrong, so writing a song about it instead is a way to vent and express emotions.
The topic of the song is literally about killing someone, but that is not why it was made (how could it be, writing a song doesn’t kill someone) and it’s not why people listen. There is more to art than the literal subject matter.
To be fair, this applies to any bed
I like this, but I think that the goal to be tested must be a set of tests which are agreed upon by a large majority, not just the current party in power. That way there can be tests as to how effective the law is, but also tests whether it is having other unwanted side effects.
A pot plant which he might try take care of for a while before realising it’s plastic, but has already grown attached to it.
But where are you basing your definition of “fairness”? If you exclude people with a biological advantage, since that would be unfair, then literally all current athletes would be excluded, since by qualifying for the Olympics they have proven that they have a strong biological advantage over the average person.
No matter what arbitrary divisions are in place, be that gender or weight or race or whatever, there will always be people who dominate the field. That doesn’t destroy the Olympics as a sport competition, that is the Olympics as a sport competition. Competing in order to find the best of the best, the “freaks of nature” who manage to far surpass the average person.
I’m currently reading a book which argues that “most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent”. It’s really good, highly recommend to anyone. It’s called “Human Kind” by Rutger Bregman
not the online assholes
Honestly you’ve made yourself seem like an online asshole here. Who else besides an asshole ragebaits people for their own enjoyment?
It was a very vegan oriented meme though, and the comments were filled with lots of pro vegan comments. But what this guy said was just stupid, hence the score. To get this low I think most vegans were down voting him too.
Well first, I don’t think that “is ok to eat meat” is a moral. But it’s true that humans haven’t tended to find it immoral (though there are exceptions to this in certain cultures, regarding certain meats).
But you make a good point, and I think the answer is that since humans make morals based on their circumstances, and the circumstances of society can and does change, then certain morals become less relevant compared to others. Murder is a fairly constant moral, because regardless of how a society changes, a murderous individual is gonna be bad for it. But on the other hand, there used to be pretty strong morals regarding how dead bodies were treated; you leave them alone. And this used to make sense, since people who messed with dead bodies were likely to get diseases and spread them. But as medicine and science and hygiene improved, this became less relevant as compared to the need to investigate dead bodies to improve understanding of disease and human biology. So our common morals regarding respect for the dead changed.
For veganism, it used to be for most societies that they couldn’t afford to simply not eat things, unless they were poisonous. So this need overwhelmed morals of kindness to nature and animals, even though this moral of kindness was still there (respecting nature is a moral found in very many cultures). But in modern day when we now have an abundance of food to the point of large waste, the need to eat whatever you can is no longer as important, and the moral of kindness to animals (and the environment) can be expressed more freely.
And indeed, I think the vast majority of vegans would agree that eating meat is not inherently immoral if there is no other choice, it’s only when meat is chosen over other alternatives that it becomes immoral, because it is unnecessary.
Sorry for the wall of text
That’s a fair point, I was mostly thinking that many people consume far too much meat, and that reducing it would be healthy, but if it’s only being replaced with trash then it wouldn’t be any better
You can be mad at both. Those in power should be changing the system to make it better and more fair, but they are not. That deserves anger. But while we are stuck with the existing system, and while the results of the system have serious consequences, then refusing to participate (and voting 3rd party in such a system is refusing to participate) means allowing the serious consequences to occur, and therefore also deserves anger.
It’s almost exactly the classic trolley problem. Voting democrat means pulling the lever: you cause some harm, but far less harm than if the trolley had not been diverted. Voting 3rd party is the equivalent to not pulling the lever, allowing much greater harm while feeling morally “clean” for not having caused it yourself.