You literally just rephrased exactly what they just said. Who do you think the ‘third of us who learn and try to repeat it but better’ was talking about?

What ‘good’ was he actually trying to do? Padme was in no actual danger, he just had dreams about her dying. A desire to force someone to live beyond their natural life through any possible means and despite all negative consequences is not ‘good’. There is no universe where murdering dozens of children is ok because he might be able to save his wife from something bad that might happen to her at some future point.

Having superpowers powered by emotion is dangerous, and the whole point of Jedi training is to understand and recognize your emotions, so that you don’t allow intense emotions to control your actions.

Anakin did not learn those lessons. Ignoring emotion is the antithesis of Jedi teaching, the entire point is to learn how to deal with them in a healthy way.

We’re talking about memory recall, not mind control. Memories are fundamentally unreliable and are very easy to influence, intentionally or not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

Hypnotics regression absolutely 100% does not work. You’re creating false memories, which is incredibly easy to do. Human memory is very, very, very fallible. This nonsense is exactly what triggered the satanic panic in the 70s, where there was a sudden proliferation of stories of childhood ritual abuse all coming from this kind of hypnotic regression, and every single one turned out to be complete fabrications from the subjects being hypnotized.

Don’t know why the headline is so shitty, but the “mmo” seems to be a splatoon-like multiplayer game unrelated to pokemon.

Which they’re obviously going to need after walking the 2,000 miles to the Canadian border…

Believe it or not, Canada also occasionally has floods that kill people and leave thousands without power for days at a time. Not to mention the wildfires that continue to escalate every year. We’re all struggling with climate change and how it’s affecting natural disasters.

No you aren’t, you’re using a record shattering disaster to try to make some really fucking stupid point about how vague ‘other countries’ are somehow much better than America.

Disasters happen everywhere. Get your head out of your ass, you usually can string together a decent point, but this is just idiotic.

One of the 3 founders committed suicide before the trial completed, one was convicted, and the 3rd still has over 30 charges that haven’t been ruled on yet. None of them are ‘roaming free’.

Your black and white view of this is exhausting. There is obviously a difference between making assumptions about a population based on inherent qualities, and making assumptions about a group of people based on all making the same decision. It is not stereotyping to assume that someone posting in a Donald Trump fan group is a fan of Donald Trump.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t approve of infringing on anyone’s actual first amendment rights on this kind of basis, but again, we’re talking about completely private spaces here with absolutely no pretense of free speech. People do also have every right to create whatever exclusionary communities that they want.

So, say I was anti-Trump and I posted there… I would still be misunderstood as an “other” and labeled, banned, etc. Then have to appeal a ban for a judgement incorrectly pre-passed on me.

This is extra weird to me. Isn’t this already the exact scenario you’re claiming? The one that started the whole discussion? You’ve been claiming to be centrist and that you only posted there once, but now you’re throwing it out like it’s some hypothetical? I’ve been trying to assume the best here but it’s getting increasingly difficult to believe you’re anything but a bad actor trying to stir people up.

You are inadvertently supporting the same bases of bias that racial segregation came form.

No, sorry, but that’s pretty dumb. There’s nothing wrong with creating a conversation space that excludes people who make certain choices. That’s the fundamental difference here. You weren’t born into the wrong subreddit, you chose to post there. And a hell of a lot of people that choose to post there aggressively harass anyone questioning law enforcement. It’s a nice way to weed out people who have no interest in good faith contributions, and there’s an easy way to get unbanned for cases just like yours.

That is not in any way the same ‘base of bias’ as excluding people based on their race, gender, nationality, or sexual preferences.

Your entitlement is incredible.

Of course it isn’t immoral to have private discussion groups. That’s an absurd idea. Subreddits are private conversation spaces, not a public service, you aren’t owed access to any of them. Do you have the same emotional reaction to invite only subreddits?

Have you stopped to consider for a moment why that filter might have been established?

If you had responded to the ban like an adult and simply pointed that out in a polite way, I’d wager they would happily drop the ban. It’s an automated process, and they included a helpful link for how to flag a false positive.

But instead you just threw a tantrum and acted like an ass. I would have muted you too.

deleted by creator

Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

Temperature is not the problem. No climate scientist has ever worried that plants won’t produce well in higher temperatures. Acting like they’re ‘exploring the consequences of climate change’ is a smokescreen, it’s a way of making it seem like the fears are overblown. They’re testing a hypothesis with an obvious conclusion that’s somewhat related to global warming, while conveniently ignoring the things real scientists are actually worried about.

The fears come from the other effects of rising temperature and greenhouse gasses. Most of the real scary stuff is happening in the oceans. Things like the potential for massive amounts of algal death and the loss of potentially 60% of the oxygen creating organisms on earth. Plants are gonna grow great when oxygen levels drop to 15% and people have to wear breathing masks anytime they venture to the surface.

We are absolutely not a hardy or fast growing species. It takes years, for our children to be remotely self sufficient, and over a decade to reach sexual maturity. We have a similar growth pattern to elephants, outside of whales, we’re some of the slowest growing animals alive. We can’t survive extreme temperature swings, radiation, loss of oxygen. We’ve created things to overcome our physical mediocrity, but those things can very quickly disappear for most of the population when the infrastructure supporting global shipping and manufacturing collapses. The fact that we make up such a huge portion of mammal biomass mostly just means we’ll be a great food source for whatever bugs evolve to eat us. Keep in mind that we may be about 30% of mammal biomass, but livestock make up more than 60%. That’s not because they’re small and adaptable, it’s because they’re food.

This is a ‘transition period’ on a geologic scale. We’re talking about the next 50,000 years at best, it’s not something we’re just to ride out and things go back to normal.

Because higher temperatures aren’t the problem, the rate of change is. I assume the worst because we’ve seen it before in the fossil record. The best comparison is the Triassic-Permian extinction. Rapid change in temperatures led to global ecological collapse and the death of 85% of all life on earth. Now, during the Triassic-Permian extinction CO2 levels rose from 400 ppm to ~2500 ppm over the course of ~50,000 years, with an estimated rate of change of around .05 ppm per year. We’re starting out lower at 280 ppm before the industrial revolution, but we’ve already hit 420, and we’re now adding about 2.5 ppm every year, with that number increasing every year. So we’re currently experiencing warming that’s 50 times faster than the most devastating extinction event in Earth’s history.

The fact that our entire food industry is based around genetically engineered monocultures is just another point of failure. It’s a constant game of cat and mouse to continually keep each generation of plants protected against changing diseases and pests, and because the vast majority of the seed is coming from one company, if something does adapt to overcome the engineered defenses, it’s devastating to the entire global population of that crop.

Look at who funded that study, and the actual contents.

According to this study - funded by the Chinese government, the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions on earth - we’ll see increased plant growth in the short term under controlled warming. Even ignoring the incredible conflict of interest, the fundamental assumption of the study is that we’ll be able to get warming under control and stick to the goals of the Paris agreement, maintaining only 2 degrees of warming by 2070. That’s absolutely absurd. We’ll be incredibly lucky to not hit 2 degrees of warming by 2040 at this rate. Besides that, they are essentially just looking at how plant growth responds to changes in temp and CO2. Of course plant productivity increases with higher temps and more available CO2, that’s not where the problems come in.

The problems occur when those hardy, fast growing species start really exploding. Cyanobacterial blooms that deoxygenate massive swaths of the ocean, killing millions of fish at a time. Population explosions of pests, contaminating food supplies and starting future pandemics. The ecosystem is complex and interconnected, things will adapt eventually, but the transition period will be catastrophic.

We are not a hardy, fast growing species. I have no doubt that people will survive, but it’s going to effect everyone, and a lot sooner than you think.

Where do these “mass death everywhere” ideas come from?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

The problem isn’t that it’s going to be warmer. The problem is that it’s getting warmer so quickly that populations won’t be able to adapt. Ecological collapse is absolutely on the table here. There is no real debate in the scientific community about this, just deceptive propaganda that’s disguised as ‘conflicting science’ but is simply a smoke screen to keep people ignoring the problem.