According to the original source the majority of Albertans do not see it that way (only 44% think she’s a traitor), which are realistically the voices who matter the most in getting her out of power.

I was hoping it was an April Fools joke but now I’m just disappointed for two reasons.

A bit of a strangely organised article. The relevant information is actually near the end of the article, with the start just providing general slaughterhouse tactics. Here’s a summary of the relevant info:

• Chickens and turkeys are being slaughtered in horrible ways (this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone) and they’re killed in mostly the same ways for avian flu.
• The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) hired some companies previously convicted of animal cruelty to carry out killings for avian flu, in some cases paying them more for these avian flu killings than the previous fines (in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars).
• The CFIA has to compensate the company for killing their animals, which can be millions of dollars.

Unfortunately the original order makes it very annoying to read if you don’t care about the website’s agenda. They’d probably have more success in reaching other audiences if they skipped the general slaughterhouse tactics part since it isn’t about avian flu at all.

We are discussing what someone would use when writing about a hypothetical person.

And that changes it how? It’s insulting to misgender someone, though I can understand how you’d think that there’s no harm in insulting someone hypothetical.

I suggest you do some research on the history of language

Per your suggestion, “they” has been used to refer to a singular person since the 14th century. “He” is currently masculine-only. I apologize if you misunderstood my use of “never” to refer to things around the 18th and 19th century (when it apparently was considered bad to use “they” in the singular) when I presumed that there was an implicit limit to modern usage of English.

Someone with undetermined/unknowable gender would use the pronouns they/them, never he/him.

This sounds like open weights but not actually open source (which requires an open training set), but we can only hope they are true to their promises when they actually release it. Bonus points if they also release how much energy they wasted to train it and how much energy it wastes to run it.

If you don’t want to follow other people’s suggestions on how to communicate your information better, that’s fine. But insulting people who are just offering friendly suggestions (and explanations) is not ok.

Despite what you have seem to believe, I actually agree with your post’s general thesis. It doesn’t really matter to me whether you believe that though.

It’s not about being able to verify, it’s about the amount of effort to verify. I.e. people are lazy.

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived

This is quite ironic seeing how you’ve posted something that qualifies as “the worst” without any verifiable evidence.

Ticketmaster is doing their very best to make paper tickets unusable with refreshing barcodes. Funny thing is that “anti-theft” feature is needed because of their own systemic failures. I do like tickets that are just sent to my email or similar (e.g. as an attachment that I can save to my phone) though, it’s better than wasting paper when I know my phone won’t fail me.

Regular smart watches are such a luxury good that I’m surprised they’ve been growing up until last year. Realistically most people don’t need a smart phone that’s more than like $300 and I can’t imagine spending more than that on a smart watch which just duplicates most of the features of a smart phone (and adds a few more sensors if you’re lucky).

The rise in kids smart watches is a bit alarming to me, though. If the reason for it is truly that parents want to track their kids more, that’s really bad for the kids for two big reasons. First being that kids need to learn how to behave without their parents always watching, and second is that if the parent can see where the kid is then probably so can the company who made the smart watch. Maybe they’ll make a smartwatch which sends location data over something like the Signal protocol to mitigate 3rd party tracking, but I doubt there’s a big enough demand for that for any of the major companies to do that on their own.

I think the joke is that we already do all of those things (except the stop booing part)

Just don’t host it with a USA company.

(Self-promo: https://git.ngni.us/mirrors/Ryujinx is still up, hosted in Canada)

I do almost the same thing as a(n unpaid) hobby that I do as my (paid) job. I’m a software developer who writes open-source software on the side.

I’ve also seen a few of my other hobbies grow into serious industries with real employees. The (hobby) drone industry and the 3D printing industry are quite large and growing (I assume).

Prefacing this with some of my relevant biases, so you can weigh the opinions in my response accordingly: I’m a single man, my best friend is a woman. I’m not much into dating or romance and I don’t want kids. I’m arguably demiromantic, though I don’t actually tell people that because it’s only relevant for dating. I also have way too many ongoing hobby projects, all that I love to do and that I don’t want to sacrifice to do other things.

somehow i left my “cave” and i forced myself to physically interact with women. i no longer can use the excuse of “i am unattractive” to avoid women or love or whatever i am avoiding. possibility of having my own kids became real in practice, not just in theory.

Since I think this informs some of your questions/quibbles later in your post, do you want to have kids? How much do you want to have kids? Would you be fine not having them? Would you be fine not having them if you had a partner? Would you be fine not having kids and not having a partner? Those should inform how you’d handle being alone or the other options you ask about.

anyway, one woman acted like she kind of adopted me. she also acted like she is kinda my responsibility. like imagine a kid looking at you with some expectations. kinda like she attach herself to you. she kinda acted like she’d be open to everything to do with me including whatever i might want related to her. i felt like she’ll always love me. it’s difficult to verbally describe what i felt or understood.

btw somehow we understand a ton of things from actions (or energies?) of others if they are close. i didn’t know i was capable of understanding that much because a lot of the time, things happen really fast, and i wasn’t aware that i knew what i seem to know. anyway.

On the internet, it’s a pretty normal thing to joke about extroverts adopting introverts as friends/partners. It’s based on real life experience – it’s partly how I have one group of friends, as an introvert myself. The understanding you describe is pretty natural from being around someone for enough time. You will learn the subtler signs of their behaviour and you’ll also get to know their personality well enough to have a good guess on how they’ll react to situations.

this isn’t exactly about her. if someone is like her to me, i kinda don’t know what to do with that. it kinda feels like taking responsibility of another creature. her having expectations from me. what do you do with a woman if she loves you, and kinda acts like both your mom and your kid?

isn’t that too much love or bond or emotion? maximum reality of a connection or something like that was what i wanted and i accidentally got it. now it feels kinda too much. it feels too good/intense for me to maintain a control in my life or something. idk. i am not used to having what i’ll call love in my life. when i am around other humans i don’t exchange love with them. my family betrayed me so i no longer have a family. i don’t have friends and it seems i kinda don’t want friends.

If you want to be in a relationship, you’ll have to accept that you’ll both rely on each other to some extent. How much you rely on each other depends on what sort of relationship it is – acquaintances rely on each other less than friends do, and romantic partners rely on each other more than friends. Reliance depends on the specific people in the relationship too, but I can’t give general advice about specific individuals. If you want to have a romantic partner who is super independent you should definitely seek that out. Just be aware of the consequences of a relationship like that – emotional attachment is a large part of romance so you run the risk of finding someone who’s actually just cold and distant instead of actually independent.

As an armchair psychologist (as in, I have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about), I’d like to point out that you’ve described family trauma that could negatively impact your ability to form healthy relationships. Talking about that with a therapist might be worthwhile.

i want to proceed to gain experience but eventually i want to end the relationship. i can’t spend my entire life with the first woman who acts like that to me, although i don’t want to be unappreciative. anyway if i end this, i would feel bad for ending it. like she looks at me so happily and that just looks so nice. its like a mix of she acts like my mom in some ways and my kid in some ways towards me because… its me kindof. i wouldn’t want to make her go from being that happy to sad, and i wouldn’t want to be responsible for that change. i could tell her this and leave it up to her. idk

Not to spout too many truisms, but people change. You can avoid that by never being around people, but you have to ask yourself is that worth it? Is a month of sadness after breaking up worth years of happiness together? I’d say yes – I think you’re too scared of getting hurt to try to be happy. It’s worth noting that usually you get over short relationships faster than long ones. So your net happiness (i.e. days happy minus days sad) is much higher for long-term relationships even if they end in sadness. Same thing is true for everyone – your partner included. The end may make them sad, but the happiness before that also matters (and matters more). Minor aside: Similarly, that’s why breaking up is better than staying in an unhappy relationship. Break ups allow for people to heal and get over their sadness, while an unhappy relationship is theoretically endless sadness.

next problem. maybe i really want to be alone my whole life. if i genuinely do not want to stay in a relationship with anyone, what would happen?

There’s no harm in being single. Personally, I think there’s more harm in society’s expectation that everyone finds a partner and has children. Just let people do what makes them happy (and doesn’t hurt other people). I sometimes worry about what I like to call “toxic independence”, though. To me, someone who is “toxicly independent” is someone who takes independence too far, to the point where they self-sabotage their relationships so they can be more free or not be burdened by the responsibility of caring about others. Sort of like how toxic masculinity is masculinity taken to a ridiculous, destructive extreme. All that to say, don’t be so tied to your independence that you aren’t willing to connect with others. We live in a society and we’re social creatures so having relationships is inevitable and important, even if you don’t want the full romantic relationship with anyone.

Being alone can be bad for your health, though. Loneliness kills. So please be careful with signing yourself up for being alone, and know your limits and take care of yourself.

next problem. lets say somehow i changed and i wanted to stay in a relationship and she became my family, somehow. people change. she might change too. look at past few decades. a concept called x used to be bad. now it is somehow good. how did that happen? what made that happen will keep doing it. lets say she changes. she is no longer good to me or for me. well… did i just lose my family?

is there a more stable and less intense way of having your own family? also it’s kinda weird to create your family by fucking a woman.

I’d argue fucking is more of a way to join a family. Your family right now is just a family of 1. But I think this take only sounds absurd because you’ve oversimplified it to that point. I wouldn’t consider the act of hooking up to be creating/joining a family. I do consider getting to know someone really well and growing to love them to be a pretty stable and non-intense (if you don’t do it faster than you’re comfortable with) way to have a family.

i thought about creating a movement and having my group of people as something to love or see as family but idk if thats realistic. i guess i’ll love sun, trees, sky or wooden figures i build or something but thats stupid. so what do. idfk. why can’t i be an empty idiot like others so i can just fuck around freely?

What you’re describing is friendship. People who you love but you aren’t fucking and you aren’t related to (by marriage/adoption/genetics) are called friends. Some people call them good friends, but personally I think that’s just because lots of guys call acquaintances “friends”.

And with that, I think that’s enough generalizations for today. Hope this helps and I hope you find what you’re looking for!

If you thought about the planet you wouldn’t be using smart devices at all, especially not completely unnecessary ones.

Twitch Plays Pokemon is still better

Interestingly the article about steganography does not mention the term even once.

Relativity would prevent this. If the train moves at the speed of light, then nothing inside it will move because time will stop. The amount of trains inside trains doesn’t really change much except the effect of time dilation (slowdown) on each train. You can’t actually accelerate to the speed of light.

While light bulb sockets don’t change much from region to region, they definitely aren’t all the same. For the bulbs (not the bars), there’s two large categories: Edison screws and bi-pin. Edison screws also come in a lot of sizes. When compact fluorescents were rolling out, they got a new bi-pin connector from the USA: GU24. My whole home has GU24 fixtures (not by my own choice), but my lamps are Edison screws.

It’s confusing why it’s such a big leap.

Because saying “I’ll do [thing] until I die” is not the same as “If I stop doing [thing] you can kill me”.

Also it’s odd to assume you’d break the vow after not accepting them cheating. From my cultural POV when you cheat. You’d forfeit the vow.

If the vow is broken by cheating, then the part of the vow about being lawfully wedded until death is also broken. So then you’d also lose your right to murder them to get out of the vow, since you’re already out of the vow. If you’d like a fun take on divorce as murder, see The Orville’s Moclans.

Which would bring dishonour upon your family and that includes a direct disrespect of the other family.

Is your culture Klingon? Because honour is not a real thing, it’s just an excuse to shame people for doing things some don’t like. If you’ve got a good reason why it has to be this way, I’d love to hear it. As it stands, that’s just intolerance by peer pressure, which are both bad things to do. I’d encourage you to spend a bit of time doing some critical thinking about your culture, since I saw some of your other replies saying that some of your beliefs come from your culture. I come from a culture that still likes marriage a lot (Canada + Catholic), but that same culture is also responsible for (triggers incoming) genocide, child abuse, cultural cleansing, and rampant pollution.

Hey I cheated, or tried leaving (Not leaving because of abuse) since I believe if someone was abusing you. They’d also break the vow since the vow is to protect, love and care until death.

I’m not going to defend cheating too much, but the vow has no statement about monogamy (though that is usually and reasonably assumed to be the case) so the pedant in me would like to point out that cheating is not breaking the vow. Even with the reasonable assumption that cheating is breaking the vow, the vow does not set consequences for breaking it. Technically, divorce does not even break the vow. It is also possible to protect, love, and care until death while ending the marriage. Even after a divorce, your partner was still your lawfully wedded partner. (I don’t really agree with this paragraph, but it’s a totally valid opinion with some strong arguments so I wanted to mention it)

For Time do us part. While it may seem lesser. It’s acknowledging the flow of time and how someone can change throughout life. Though in reality there could be a better option but it’s more making it apparent the importance of meaningful statements.

I’d like to believe that the vow is acknowledgement that they intend to fulfill it until death. From that basic tenet and knowing that humans aren’t perfect [citation needed], it’s easy to come to the premise that somebody might grow to realize they can’t fulfill that vow, and so they want to get a divorce. It’s actually probably the most protective, loving, and caring thing a partner could do – realize they aren’t good with their partner and so leave. The fact that they broke the vow does not invalidate their intent to fulfill it when they started the marriage. This is basically the idea behind no-fault divorce, btw.

If you want to acknowledge time by changing the vow from “death” to “time”, you’re definitely allowed to for your own wedding. But don’t presume that people don’t understand the meaning of what they’re saying because they made a vow that they ultimately didn’t keep.

Here’s a parting thought: Would a good partner ever murder their spouse? Is human life truly valued lower than this made up concept called “honour”?