First of all this isn't an anti-weed post, I use weed regularly and enjoy it. What I'm arguing against is occasional use, once a month or less, at that level your tolerance usually resets between uses. The thing they don't tell you in health class is tolerance goes both ways, you become tolerant to both the positives and negatives of use. For weed the negative im referring to is anxiety, though short term memory loss also goes down with more regular use. Whenever I take a break and then start doing weed again I get way too in my head and anxious which usually goes away after a couple sessions. This has also become worse with modern legal strains that have become way too concentrated. Dispensary edibles are a bit better since you can dose them easier but even then the longer the time in between uses the more likely you'll forget what's a good dosage. I see this a lot with friends who don't regularly do weed and they smoke with me, get way too high, have a bad time and then won't do it again for a while and repeat the cycle. So for those type of people I'd recommend not doing weed at all or doing it more regularly so you can keep your tolerance up. No shame in picking either but the middle ground kinda sucks.

EDIT: a lot of people are saying get lower percentage strains or higher CBD ones, to that I'd say I wish I could. I always try and get the lowest percentage stuff I can find at the dispensary and that stuffs still usually in the high teens percent THC with less then a percent CBD here in SF. So I guess part of this is just a rant on how stupidly concentrated modern weed is and how it leaves little margin for error.

People here like to say "I don't use social media; I use forums" like there is a difference between the two. There isn't.

Forums are places where people post and comment on user generated content, other comments themselves.

The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.

Driving, gymnastics, break dancing (ESPECIALLY break dancing)... Anything that can't be timed or measured or otherwise objectively decided should be removed from competition.

How do you quantify "style"? How do you ensure there is not biase from judges based on their knowledge of the competitor, be it country they are representing, or personal connections, or racial / religious opinion? How do you fairly compensate for what your personal opinion considers "worth" more when it comes to a trick or routine compared to another?

Swimming, running, jumping, throwing things a distance are all things that can be measured and ruled against a standard that every competitor uses. It's fair and it's removed from any bias.

The Olympics are supposed to be about competition between athletes and shouldn't be affected by popularity or politics, which anything with an interpretive aspect to the result will suffer from.

So yeah, remove the feels sports and limit the Olympics to reals sports.

I like the bit of minty burn and it doesn't feel greasy afterwords like the non-alcohol based ones I've tried.

This is no way disregards the difficulty of living with an actually severe case of ADHD but is not what most of these people are dealing with.

EDIT: many seem to have misunderstood what I mean by this. I'm not saying these people are only claiming to have ADHD to use it as an excuse. What I mean, is that they may very well do have, and they're using it as an excuse. Mostly to themselves.

Don't know what it is, but I much prefer the Crazy Frog remix, and have always enjoyed it.

Just in general, while Queen is still good, I think they're overrated whereas I also think Crazy Frog gets too much flak.

Idk, I found it weird, quirky and kinda cute on it's own way.

After the trial, she even let out a statement, which in my perspective, tells me that was what she was going for, something different, something fun !!!

In the posts I have seem the comments were a bit mean, like :

• How did she got in the Olympics ?!
• WTF was that ?
• Was that a joke . . .

...

I am not even Australian, but I really enjoyed the trow down.

my unpopular opinion is that they are a waste of time and effort.

Schools shouldn't be treated as these magical places where you're put in at some age and over a decade later you emerge a complete human being. You have parents and you spend more time at home than at school for a reason: you're supposed to learn from your parents.

A school can potentially give you a degree of financial literacy instruction. Your parents should be the ones paying your allowance money and driving you to the bank to get your first checking account. A school can teach you how to cook something. Your parents should be the ones eating your food and helping you cook it better. A school can show you some level of DIY. Your parents should directly benefit from teaching you how to fix the sink when it gets clogged. A school can tell you what kinds of careers exist. Your parents should love you enough to tell you that either your career ambitions or your financial expectations need to change. A school can tell you how to build a resume. Your parents should be the ones driving you to your job interview and to your job until you buy your first car. A school can give you a failing grade when you do poorly on a test. Your parents should be able to make you face the real, in-the-moment consequences of doing something wrong.

Expecting a school, public or private, to teach you everything you need to know is a grave mistake. You need people in your corner who are taking an active part in raising you all the way to adulthood and beyond. If you have kids yourself, that goes for them as well. If you aren't there for your children, to teach them the things that schools don't teach because they can't mass produce the lessons to nearly the same quality that you can give them, they'll blame you and the school for having failed them. And they'd be right to lay the blame at your feet.

My tools serve me, not the other way around. It's not worth the time and effort to wash by hand or sharpen on a whetstone. I don't need an expensive knife to cook at home. A pull through sharpener and honing steel are adequate. Get the right material and you don't have to worry about the metal in the dishwasher.

I've recently noticed this opinion seems unpopular, at least on Lemmy.

There is nothing wrong with downloading public data and doing statistical analysis on it, which is pretty much what these ML models do. They are not redistributing other peoples' works (well, sometimes they do, unintentionally, and safeguards to prevent this are usually built-in). The training data is generally much, much larger than the model sizes, so it is generally not possible for the models to reconstruct random specific works. They are not creating derivative works, in the legal sense, because they do not copy and modify the original works; they generate "new" content based on probabilities.

My opinion on the subject is pretty much in agreement with this document from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-two-pager-ai

I understand the hate for companies using data you would reasonably expect would be private. I understand hate for purposely over-fitting the model on data to reproduce people's "likeness." I understand the hate for AI generated shit (because it is shit). I really don't understand where all this hate for using public data for building a "statistical" model to "learn" general patterns is coming from.

I can also understand the anxiety people may feel, if they believe all the AI hype, that it will eliminate jobs. I don't think AI is going to be able to directly replace people any time soon. It will probably improve productivity (with stuff like background-removers, better autocomplete, etc), which might eliminate some jobs, but that's really just a problem with capitalism, and productivity increases are generally considered good.

(Fisrt time posting on Lemmy, please be patient)

I don't know if it was also like this before, but I feel like recently every social media is focused on getting comments, likes, views, people sharing your post, being popular, when the before that (late 199X- mid 201x) was more about being unique and just sharing your own creations and remixes. What makes me feel like this is that whenever I (rarely) open Twitter and go to the homepage most of the posts are something baiting the viewer into commenting or sharing. When your post doesn't has many interactions or views, you're deemed as "a failure". It seems like the (anti)social media is empty with baits and overshared memes. Long gone were the days of being original without having to directly copy someone to have validation and recognition.

CDs are in every way better than vinyl records. They are smaller, much higher quality audio, lower noise floor and don't wear out by being played. The fact that CD sales are behind vinyl is a sign that the world has gone mad. The fact you can rip and stream your own CD media is fantastic because generally remasters are not good and streaming services typically only have remastered versions, not originals. You have no control on streaming services about what version of an album you're served or whether it'll still be there tomorrow. Not an issue with physical media.

The vast majority of people listen to music using equipment that produces audio of poor quality, especially those that stream using ear buds. It makes me very sad when people don't care that what they're listening to could sound so much better, especially if played through a hifi from a CD player, or using half decent (not beats) headphones.

There's plenty of good sounding and well produced music out there, but it's typically played back through the equivalent of two cans and some string. I'm not sure people remember how good good music can sound when played back through good kit.

Spit naturally dissolves, so it cleans well, and fast too. It's not not harmful to any common materials afaik, it's always immediately available. You need some way to wipe it off of course, just like with any other cleaning agent.

Just don't let others see you, cause they'd be grossed out.

(Well it might be a little unhygienic, which is why it's best as a quick/temporary solution, and you can do it properly later)

it is regulated by many the same groups who utilize the system, and so it is inherently corrupt.

... so you could type anything at the terminal and the artificial intelligence would provide documentation + suggestions for corresponding commands. Of course, the a.i. should never be able to run any commands by itself.

No one can mention any real life examples of both theories and that is because they are fictional theories.

• Socialism assume that companies could work with no centralized ownership which is impossible in real life, it's like the believers of this theory ignore all the human psychology and assume the perfection in the world.

• Anarcho-Capitalisim assume that it's possible to live in 100% autonomous society while ignoring all the big issues(unfair laws, corruption in law and protection agencies, ...etc)

TLDR: People who criticize capitalism are still using it and benefiting from it more than they should, hoarding resources more than their essentials.

I see a lot of people online who criticize Free market economies without thinking about the people who make it work which is them.

If people collectively in masses had stopped buying luxury items for example that industry would die out in a couple of years, apply that to any other industry (with the exception of necessary ones like medical industries) and the same results is expected to happen. why do people do not do that and kill the bad industries you ask, because they are in need of Free market economy and it's results.

It's like people who are looking to change from free market economy like to think of themselves as week enough to not be able to change it but strong enough to hate it, while in reality they are strong enough to change their economic system but week enough to not think about the problems in other economic systems. I think that most believers who think that the world is making a mistake by committing to free market economy are people who believe in idealistic values without looking at the science or history of application.

Most popular figures in the modern age who associate themselves wirh other economic systems, don't bother to even try to apply it to their lives and a lot of them are very rich with millions of dollars(Example: Bernie Sanders networth is more than one million dollars).

I fully understand that everyone dream of a better world where everyone in the world has good food, healthcare and education, but sadly that is impossible and the best that can be achieved in real life is to collectively have a system to support the people who need help in hopes of making capitalism easier on them.

Hear me out. There's a lot of signs that I see that Tywin is actually trying to help Tyrion. The key moment is when Tywin yells Tyrion that he is worthless and doesn't anywhere near the family or Kings Landing and that he should disappear and do his own thing. Afterwards Tywin forces Tyrion marry Sansa that would have not only secured Lannister and Baratheon support to secure the north, it would have made Tyrion a lord, and a lord to one of the most honest and noble houses in the entire mythos.

Tywin never made any claim to another person that his son disgusted him Tye only time he would same something of that sort was in front of Tywin himself. He would always defend him as a Lannister no matter what. Tywin was even well aware of Shay and let it go until the king died. Tywin was calculating and wise. He would know how to talk to his child to guarantee they seek their own path. Another show of this is at Tyrion's trial. Jaime sacrifices what he wants for his brother and Tywin accepts it without hesitation.

My theory is Tywin was never meant to hate Tyrion, but knew that Tyrion could be doing greater things than the politics of his house, and wanted Tyrion to be free of the house because that would be the only way. Tywin even tells the story that he was going to throw Tyrion into the ocean, but he didn't. He let him live. He never explains why he let Tyrion live. He just did. Was it love for your child? I think so. I don't believe Tywin wanted the same life for Tyrion, but thanks to Cersei, Tyrion was just pushed too far

This is not to say that seasons after the first one are bad, but sometimes I feel as though later seasons exist because of the show’s popularity and not because the creator had more to say (The Last of Us, even though I love Part II). Also, it’s okay to have an open-ended ending with loose ends, leave it to our imagination on what’s going to happen next (Westworld).

They are much more predictable, well understood and easier to dose than the chemical cocktail of natural compounds. Please note that I am not saying that there aren't any useful natural medicines. I am stating that it is better to isolate the active components.

I feel that outside the memes community , no one had ever said a joke in the comments and I rarely see sarcasm here.

I think that if an outright war is raging in the comments, let it run it's course. All parties are willing participants, free to disengage at any moment.

The exceptions should be when illegal content is being shared or illegal activity is occurring (CP, doxxing, etc).

It's always frustrating when a juicy argument gets locked because it's "unproductive". I was having a great time watching it unfold, both sides hurling both creative and uncreative insults, oblivious to how low they are sinking to. It's great!

I don’t like to sleep in near pitch black rooms. It just feels unnatural to me. It may be more the fact that it prevents the gradual transition to daylight unless you’re using an artificial light, so that bothers me more because you don’t know when morning is. But even when traveling I love to keep the curtains open through the night and sleep to whatever the natural light level is around me even if it’s in the middle of a city.