I remember seeing a video of a rubber arm experiment that goes through a series of exercises to convince someone’s mind that a rubber arm placed against their shoulder is theirs, while the real one is blocked out of sight. Once these phantom sensations are in place, the organizer then hits the rubber hand with a hammer, causing great shock in the subject but no real harm. The immediate panic is exaggerated by the fact their mind can’t actually move “their” hand out of the way when they see the swing coming.

Another study had organizers shine a harmless light on participants’ arm for a few minutes and see how they react, allegedly for some sampling purpose. The twist was that they would have the real subjects stay in a waiting room beforehand and watch actors leave while appearing to be in considerable pain from the session where the light was targeting. They then experienced a significant burning sensation from the “laser” despite the organizers insisting it was harmless. Some would go as far as to raise their voice and demand the experiment stop.

The idea is that people can be convinced that something is painful just from others’ reactions to it. This may have been what the organizers were actually testing for, and the electrical shock wasn’t real or was barely large enough to felt. But OP was just immune to being influenced. I would expect the ability to follow cues from others has strong correlation to success at socializing, so considering they use 4chan OP might actually just be built different.

I only played Stellaris off and on, but I went years without buying an expansion and always thought the new systems were complete and better than what they replaced when I returned. Breaking current saves is frustrating, so I guess you would need to delay an update if you had one you planned on returning to.

If you didn’t know, you can roll back to older versions of steam games with some work. A few games have a built-in system, but most of the tile you have to manually replace files after redownloading the old versions.

Most if not all of these have one side that is clearly in the wrong. Real life is more complicated. Conflicts are usually gray vs. grey, with both sides having identifiable faults and justifications. But even then, if you spent all your time seeing the world from the perspective of certain designated protagonists you’ll likely sympathize with them anyway.

This is a great response that captured my feelings well. I’m not sure why the replier assumed the ex was initially angry, to me it just sounds like they were telling a story about something that happened to them that day. If I was describing this to a partner and they assumed it was traumatic for me, I would be perhaps a bit flattered by the concern, but mostly just confused. Because that is a significant overreaction to a common experience.

A professional mechanic is going to know much more about taking care of cars than us, that’s what we pay them for. And it’s normal (and thoughtful) for them to give people advice that we may need to look into more later on. And if the partner kept thinking I would internalize feelings of inadequacy from these mundane experiences even after I corrected them, it would be both annoying and insulting. If anything, that would be patronizing.

Also, if I told a story where I described not knowing something that would be useful in the future, and my partner did know about it, I would want them to offer to teach me about it. Accusing your partner of being manipulative just because they try to help you with a problem is both cynical and immature. I pity people who are so jaded as to see genuine offers of help as instead malicious, but I would encourage them to at least try to assume others are engaging in good faith until being given a reason to suspect otherwise.

Is that saying meant to cover baseless assertions about someone’s actions? Hillary Clinton was involved in enough shady shit to not need to make stuff up. If someone says that she donated to her opposition’s campaign they should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise they just give ammunition to people convincing others to ignore real, substantive criticisms against Trump.

That article mostly describes her campaign focussing on criticizing stronger and more likely candidates early on when the Republican nomination was still up for grabs. That just makes tactical sense. Otherwise you might as well also accuse her of being involved in a conspiracy to get Vermin Supreme in power too.

You can say the fact that Hillary is a woman contributed to her loss. You can even argue that it was enough to make the difference in Trump winning. But the main reason she lost is because she was still otherwise a weak candidate overall.

If you mean they are donating from their own profits, yes they can write that off. But these customer donations are not income for them and cannot be written off by the company.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

But people should research charities before giving, some are many times more effective than others.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/best-charities-to-donate-to-2024

They do not. It is not income, so they can’t claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I’m sure they really aren’t worth tracking for an individual.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don’t have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren’t easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize “the other side” and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.

For free speech, that would be similar. A company can have a social media account or make broadcasts or advertisements, and having to have an individual as a proxy would just be cumbersome. And yes, that includes things like lobbying. Otherwise, you could have a company pay for private individuals for the service of lobbying on their behalf and essentially have no cap or regulation. Formalizing what they are allowed to do also allows you to go after them for things they aren’t, again without needing to prove individual culpability. And if we decide they have too much influence in politics, it gives us a lever to pull to reign them in.

Corporate personhood is mostly for convenience. Otherwise a company would need an individual to buy and sell corporate property, and they would have to rearrange stuff like that whenever that person dies, retires, or does something else that restricts property use. And it means an individual wouldn’t be able to be a tyrant for everyone else working at the company just because everything is in their name.

Importantly, it makes it much easier for customers to sue, since they only need to show the company wronged them in some way rather than an individual being personally responsible. Usually they would have no way of knowing who makes which decisions and has which responsibilities, and by suing the company as a whole. they don’t have to. The same applies for governments, police departments, school boards, etc.

Oh, today I learned!

No one has mentioned Vivaldi yet. I haven’t found it slow in the years I’ve used it. It does hog memory with the amount of tabs I open, but no more than any other browser I’ve used. Fortunately it has inactive tab suspenders as an option to help with my bad habits (natively now, and through chrome extensions before that). Also, it is undoubtedly the most visually customizable browser I know, so it being ugly is really you making the sandwich.

If this was just bait, I guess it got me. If not, anon could try Tor if they value privacy, or maybe something minimalist if they really care about performance.

I like most of these changes. Several jokers that immediately justified building around got toned back.

Magician giving two lucky cards instead of one makes lucky cat a lot stronger, and it’s getting buffed independently already. Steel joker nerf and glass joker buffs seem good too. Campfire nerf is harsh, but justified.

I’m surprised hologram isn’t getting nerfed. It quickly pays off with already good stuff like DNA or even certificate, and even without much synergy just buying standard packs makes it strong.

The vampire and midas mask nerfs seem overly harsh though. It was a powerful combo, but it required two specific uncommon jokers and time to scale. With both parts being harder to proc, and the payoff being cut in half, I can’t think of a situation where you would really want vampire. I guess if you have face card synergy you could run midas mask for a while until you have most of your deck golden, but even then I would be tempted to swap to something else pretty quickly. Golden cards just don’t have much payoff. I would have buffed the devil tarot to target two before the magician for the same reason.

FEMINISM HAS CONTRIBUTED INDIRECTLY TO THE MALE LONELINESS EPICDEMIC BY EMPOWERING WOMEN TO SUCCEED IN SOCIETY WITHOUT RELYING ON A TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIP. WHILE THIS SOCIAL PROGRESS SHOULD BE CELEBRATED, WE SHOULDN’T DISCOUNT THE STUGGLE THIS CREATES FOR DISENFRANCHISED MEN SUFFERING FROM MOVING GOALPOSTS AND A LESS DEFINED IDENTITY WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES. PRESSURE TO MEET OUTDATED EXPECTATIONS CAN INSTILL LINGERING FEELINGS OF FAILURE IN THE WAKE OF A SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL SHIFT. SO REMEMBER TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE STRUGGLES OF THOSE AROUND YOU! ARRROOOOOOOO!

This could probqbly an alias for “user error”.

IIRC, the hiring people said they worried candidates scoring too much higher than average would be more likely to show turnover from finding more prestigious jobs later or would not fit in well with their colleagues. Whether or not you agree with the decision, those are reasonable concerns to have when hiring and were applied to everyone, so he lost the discrimination suit.

This is relevant to a lot of the points people are making: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RequiredSecondaryPowers

Also, this thread reminded me of a video from many years ago: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-vQ2RVqJCNM

Ideally, an audience would pick up on the bad-faith side not addressing arguments, engaging in personal attacks, making unjustified claims, etc. and be unimpressed. The interrupting especially should prompt some intervention by a moderator, but usually they don’t have a means of preventing it from happening other than chastising after the fact so it still relies on some degree of human decency.

I’d still call it a debate, just a poor quality one.

You may be thinking of r/ComedyHomicide. It captures examples of when needless captions and reactions dimish the humor in something. Humor is subjective of course, so you also had stuff like r/ComedyNecrophilia, for when a dumb reply enhances it in some way.

If he’s committed to the chair, it’s going to be rolling around with the slightest movement when it’s just on a wooden floor like that. He should put a tasteful towel underneath it to add some friction.