Little_mouse

joined 1 year ago
[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read explodicle's comment as a reply to DeSantis who said "She has no role in this" in his rant.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

The way it's set up it sure looks like Saskatchewan is still technically collecting the tax and just paying the amount right back from their own budget. And Saskatchewan citizens are still getting the carbon payouts from Ottawa.

Saskatchewan citizens will still have to pay for Moe's stupidity, but the deficit will be in the Saskatchewan budget, not an individual extra tax bill.

Mainly means that Moe will just continue to destroy Education and Healthcare, which was his main goal anyway.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 36 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Linnaean taxonomy classifies apes and monkeys as two closely related groups. This is the classification system most people are taught in grade school.

Cladistics is a style of classification that seeks to organize species and groups of species from when they branched off of other groups of species. In this style, everything is defined by novel features, but they are still members of the more ancient clade. Birds for instance, would be a novel clade emerging from Dinosaurs, and thus all birds are also dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.

Because there are two groups of monkeys with unique characteristics (new world and old world), and apes have unique adaptations not found in either group, we have no way of cladistically defining a monkey in a way that meaningfully does not also include apes.

As a side note, this is where the phrase "there is no such thing as a fish" comes from. 'Fish' in the Linnaean sense are a huge and diverse category. Two random members of the fish class would likely be far, far more distantly related than a random mammal and a random reptile.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 months ago

Probably until either the nurses stop panicking in my local area or the immunocompromised people in my life die of a preventable illness.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

https://aquamodesta.com/

https://www.splashgearusa.com/

Are some options for people who don't want clothing that is skintight and revealing.

I've very occasionally seen brands like this at box stores. But the vast majority of time if you want something that isn't skin tight you have to get shorts designed for men and some sort of sports top with a shirt.

Yes. Baggy clothing isn't optimal for swimming, and trunks will tend to stick awkwardly anyway, but a lot of guys would feel uncomfortable if speedoes were the only option. I know I would.

It's a double standard plain and simple.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Maybe people are setting it up at home using a numberpad? In that case it would be just running a finger down the left side.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago

Well the first step is to reduce or at least drastically eliminate the amount of CO2 that is being released in the first place. Removal of carbon from the air is necessarily going to have to be a down the road plan. It literally cannot happen to any scale if we are still relying on fossil fuels in the first place.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Of course, "always cheaper" in this case means less money up front, but much, much expensive more down the road than the initial cost.

Of course, the down the road cost isn't usually that visibly connected to the "make it illegal" plan, so conservative governments love it.

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

It might be similar to a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Though that one is more focused on distinct but related definitions than it is for distinct but related situations. Not the exact one that you are looking for, but the related concepts might be a path towards an answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 15 points 9 months ago (9 children)

You don't necessarily need to roleplay, but something like "I would like to play on their guilt by seeming hopeless." or "I would like to bring up the horrible acts of the orc warlord to stoke their anger." or "I would like to convince them to help by pointing out how their oaths may apply in this situation." would really help sell the specifics. If you are just trying a flat check I have no real way to know what you are planning on doing other than just sort of charmingly asking "Please?"

[–] Little_mouse@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

"But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else."

Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.

If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that's when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.

view more: next ›