Williams syndrome is a rare condition in humans that causes them to have particular facial features, a very friendly and extroverted personality, and some intellectual disability. It occurs when a certain chunk of genes are deleted in development.

Dogs have an equivalent region in their DNA, and friendliness in dogs and wolves seems to correspond to which variant they have for one of the relevant genes. So our domestication efforts are kind of like breeding the closest thing we can manage to a disability into them.

https://www.aip.org/inside-science/rare-human-syndrome-may-explain-why-dogs-are-so-friendly

I see people hold the door open for strangers all the time, so it doesn’t seem unpopular to me. In fact, I can’t remember ever having someone let the door close on me when they know I’m behind them.

Honestly if I’m more than a couple of steps behind them I’d rather catch the door or just open it myself than feel pressed to hurry while they wait for me. I appreciate that they’re being considerate to me though.

For others, I’ll hold it open if they’ll be at the door in a second or two but not if it means standing around or pressuring them to hurry.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

It’s a kind of natural selection. The most fit pieces of art succeed so much that we see their good traits echo into the future and become the norm. But we iterate on them further and continue to improve until the ancestor would no longer be able to compete with its descendents. Audiences adapt to what was once a trailblazing stroke of genius and it just becomes the standard.

Personally, I’ve found the trend to be very true. There are very few classics that I like nearly as much as the modern popular pieces that were inspired by them. Music might be the exception.

Pierre is worth the upcharge simply because you don’t have to walk all the way across town and back. In real life, grocery stores are unfortunately more convenient than farmer’s markets.

What’s wrong with it? It’s somewhat aggressively worded, but it seems like a reasonable thing to be annoyed about.

It doesn’t fit the community well. It uses the phrase but sarcastically instead of sincerely. It’s also somewhat political. And without trying to be insulting to OP it’s pretty low effort and not particularly funny or insightful. Some people are going to downvote for those reasons even if they agree with the implied sentiment.

It’s why I personally dislike memes that are essentially just a picture of someone’s opinion. People will also upvote them just to agree, so it encourages echo chambers instead of good discussion or learning.

Well I liked reddit overall. My main annoyances with it were the prevalence of power tripping mods/admins and the removal of third party apps (and too many ads otherwise). Lemmy at least gives options and accountability when it comes to the former and fully resolves the latter. You still have meta drama and at times annoying community members but overall I view it as an improved alternative.

Lemmy is just simply a spinoff of Reddit, just a place where the rejects go to, to shit up on everyone at any given time.

This doesn’t seem like a fair judgement. I know some people got banned on reddit but for the most part Lemmy’s users are here because they prefer to be here. It’s not like there’s a high bar to pass to be a redditor. I left from the API apocalypse, as did many others. The bad apples are the most memorable but I’ve found the vast majority of people here to be assets to the community. Also, when making broad judgements about the user base you should remember that you’re here too.

I didn’t look through the other thread so I won’t comment on it too much. But I don’t think it’s fair to complain about other people looking through an example you introduced to see how it supports your argument. And if you did say you wanted to kill someone there then that would be fair game to bring up as a significant ommission from your summary of the “otherwise civil discussion”.

Probably best to start contributing to an IRA after exhausting the employer match on a 401k. You have more flexibility with it and don’t have to worry about later rollovers. If you can max that out, then go back to the 401k until that is maxed, but most people aren’t able to do both each year.

Here’s a flowchart of the best order to spend money from one of the financial subreddits. The best yields are on the earlier investment types each year, so if you are reading this please try to save at least a little regularly. It will save you so much later on. If you don’t know what to invest in, historically an index fund like SPY or Vanguard will get you good returns with lower variance than individual stocks and doesn’t need to be closely managed. A 401k will have more limited options but I would still try to look for a wide market index fund.

Yeah, I’m not sure how those would be affected overall. Housing unfortunately has been going up in price quickly for a long time despite largely stagnant wages. But I expect having a reliable stream of income would be a significant benefit for low income people to be able to afford at least what they would have otherwise. It’s an area that really warrants more attention regardless of whether UBI is implemented.

Increasing the money supply does lead to inflation, but it’s not as simple as you make it seem. It’s worth pointing out that generally people intend UBI to redistribute money rather than add to the current supply. If necessary, there’s no reason that you can’t have stronger price regulation for any destabilized industry.

Because even if there is inflation, that doesn’t mean prices go up evenly. For example, staple foods are fairly insulated from inflation because of steady demand and low barriers to entry. If it seems noticeably profitable, a lot of people can start producing it and undercutting each other. Industry collusion is very hard to achieve the more players there are that can sabotage the group.

If UBI covers only basic needs (implied by the B) that are purchased at steady amounts regardless, that opens up the lower classes to a lot more optional spending. So you would probably see the most price increases on things that are currently bought by the upper middle class. Expensive hobbies, premium brands of things with cheaper alternatives, and services in general would probably become more expensive from induced demand.

But Genesis 3:16 seemingly has God setting man above woman, so a Christian could just use that instead.

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

I suppose you could argue it only applies to a husband and wife, or possibly even just Adam and Eve specifically, but that seems unlikely given the first part applies to women as a whole.

There’s also Timothy 2:11-13, and Christians tend to hold the new testament in high regard.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

(from the NIV for both)

So it seems like the Bible explicitly has God himself commanding sexism, rather than it needing to be inferred from symbolism.

Which scenario do you think is more representative of the average cow’s life?

People have their own standards for upvoting and downvoting, but I wouldn’t say it’s trivial. Nearly everyone would intuitively agree “I think more people should see this” is a reason to upvote and vice versa and so act accordingly.

With a controversial default sorting order, you would be incentivised to downvote a popular, quality comment and also downvote unpopular spam to affect visibility appropriately. The difference between high updates and downvotes disappears. The current default sorting order doesn’t incentivise changing your vote based on a comment’s current score to influence its visibility, which is nicer.

Yeah, and you can argue with them. That doesn’t mean controversial comments should be assumed to be higher quality than those with widespread support by default.

I suppose you might also leave trash at your seat in a movie theater or restaurant. After all, cleaning up is someone else’s job and you don’t even work there. Plus, you can pat yourself on the back for contributing to that person’s job security with your added burden like some of the people here.

more like wokémon

I like spending time with my friends when I am in the mood to socialize. I want to be able to opt in to hanging out. Needing to improv a conversation outside my “office hours” is frustrating.

In America, literally 99% of livestock is factory farmed. Here, the idea of animals living a life that is anything but miserable on a farm is largely a myth. If you don’t expressly know how the livestock animal that was used for meat was treated, you can safely presume it was tortured.

People are demonstrably ok with animals being mistreated. They continually endorse the abuse in the industry when there are other options available to them. It is simply not important enough to people for them to bother changing their behavior.

From memory, much of its advice could be summarized with “act with humility, treat people well, and show an interest in what others have to say, and they will generally like you and be willing to do what you want”. It had a lot of anecdotes from people describing how they handled difficult confrontations with others as part of their jobs at usually small businesses. Notoriously annoying customers would reflect on their behavior and change it after someone hears out their complaints and offers to accommodate them.

It is manipulative and can be used maliciously, but it’s also just generally good advice to prevent and de-escalate conflicts. I don’t think it’s any more evil than a hammer is for its potential to harm people as well as build things.