• 0 Posts
  • 254 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • KombatWombat@lemmy.worldtome_irl@lemmy.worldme_irl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Well yeah, subjective honesty is useful in a lot of social interactions. But this isn’t lying to your boss or teacher or whatever. This is lying to your therapist. They have very little authority over you and an official interest in your wellbeing. It might be a good idea to lie if you are actually a suicide risk and don’t want to get institutionalized or if you are actively planning a crime which isn’t covered by confidentiality. But otherwise, you’re hurting yourself by not letting them effectively work on your problems.



  • And the replies explained that to them. It sounds like they were actually about even on upvotes to downvotes, but it was enough for an automod to act. They got unbanned after a real mod intervened. It is a frustrating experience, but one that’s going to vary by instance and community. They mentioned in an edit that they might give it another shot.

    The other post did have some legitimate complaints about lack of content, most activity being tech bros, far-left politics, and shitpost, cumbersome ui, bad moderation, and elitist users. All of these I agree with even if I think they were exaggerated considerably. But they have all gotten better over time or can be much mitigated with some effort on the user’s part.




  • Chess is an old game, and stalemate wasn’t always considered a draw. At other times, creating a stalemate may have been considered a win or loss or partial win, or it may have been illegal altogether. But the modern draw makes sense if you keep in mind a few things. First, the victory condition is putting the opponent’s king in checkmate (or accepting their concession). Second, exposing your king to an attack during your move is not just a blunder, it is actually an illegal move, to the point that you can’t even do it as a pass through while castling. So stalemate is a unique outcome where neither player achieves their victory condition, yet the game cannot continue, since the player who must move next has no legal moves available.

    In a practical sense, stalemate offers a means of giving a player in an inferior position a means of escaping a loss by punishing the dominant player for not being able to capitalize on their lead. It helps prevent someone from being able to brute force a win by making safe moves that do little to actually progress the game, like advancing all their pawns until the game is trivial. It’s much less interesting to have the end game strategy be more about not losing one’s lead rather than extending it.

    So a win requires being more than slightly ahead of an opponent. It’s worth pointing out that most high level chess games end in a draw where neither player has a sufficient lead to force a checkmate. There are other rules in modern chess that also force a draw to make sure the game is more about getting a win than just avoiding a loss. Otherwise there would be plenty of ways someone could stall forever to try to get their opponent to concede, and that’s not very interesting.



  • KombatWombat@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone¯\_(ツ)_/¯ rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    Personally, I would consider making a public post about something on social media as an open invitation to talk about it in comments. It doesn’t excuse being rude or anything, but if it was about an issue in my life that I was comfortable sharing, I would expect others to appreciate giving and receiving perspective if they didn’t specify otherwise.

    Not sure who would be demanding anything in this scenario. People choose to comment or not, including the OP. Everyone is communicating only as much as they feel comfortable doing, unless there’s context I’m missing.




  • This seems like a big overreaction to me, so I see it as a clear PTB. I dislike the idea of banning people based on history in other communities, other than to check if they are a bot or advertiser or something obviously malicious. Trolling could mean something as simple as being sarcastic, and glancing through OP’s history they seem to be a real person who believes what they say, even if they can be quite rude about it.

    But the upvote/downvote split suggests the community is more divided on this.




  • Thank you for saying this. I’m a vegan and the only comment I’ve ever had removed on Lemmy is one pointing out that the official definition the vegan community uses is different than the one used by the historic coiners of the word, and by non-vegans, and probably by the majority of people that consider themselves vegan today.

    For all the division the mod team creates with others on the platform, they make just as much within their own community. It’s hard enough to convince people to give veganism a chance when you don’t first have to distance yourself from those unwilling to engage with anyone below their moral high ground.


  • Harry is someone that already exists and has relationships in the world, usually those sorts or RPGs don’t let you customize much. It’s like Geralt or Link. But you do get to develop your personality more through dialogue.

    As for the tie skill check, the rest of the game is better about saving skill checks for more difficult tasks. It’s just there at the start to reinforce how much of a mess your character is. You can come back later when the negative modifiers clear and it’s easier.



  • Yes, people often overlook that evil (in the form of suffering) exists in our world without free will as a cause when trying to respond to the problem of evil like this. Why would our world be designed to require suffering? And even if we were willing to concede that the ideal world should have some suffering, surely it should have less than this one, right?

    Also, this response takes for granted that free will exists when most people in my experience concede that we live in a deterministic world. So if some version of free will exists that people nonetheless act predictably, and have their nature pre-determined rather than chosen, why would an omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent god not choose a nature for them that would avoid inflicting suffering in their expression of free will? I haven’t found a good answer to these, if one is even possible.



  • This doesn’t even need to be for a crime if you consider eminent domain. And all industries still face regulation in a capitalist nation like the US, meaning industry is only given as much leeway as the state allows.

    Private “ownership” is an exaggeration for convenience; the office building you own may still be searched without permission or notice if you are suspected of a crime, it may be seized if you are late with paying taxes or simply do not maintain it, you may not own mineral rights or the right to restrict aviation above it, and you need the approval of the local government to make certain construction projects on it.

    The definitions I hear for socialism could often apply to the US or any other capitalist nation.