And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

Both Sides™

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Just make sure they are really uncomfortable when they do it.

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

I don’t deny that male friends can be toxic. What can be worse still is that the man does share these videos with his friends, and the videos themselves are toxic and reinforce toxic behaviors and thoughts, and the friends share affirmations with the man about the video. That happens a lot too.

That man is probably repeatedly sharing videos with the woman because he’s hoping that she returns the same affirmations that his friends do.

I’m just trying to explain the “urge” described in the meme. That’s all.

And at the same time either aggressively or passive aggressively making it clear to him that she is disinterested in the video, which is reinforcing the man’s understanding that she is also disinterested in whatever it was that he found interest in. (That’s literally the whole subtext of the meme.)

Just saying that men share their concerns and feelings differently than women. Men very often share concerns and feelings indirectly. If a guy is repeatedly sharing YouTube videos with the woman that the woman doesn’t find funny or interesting, there is probably a reason the man is sharing them. An active listening woman might ask the man something like “How do you feel about this video?”

Because the meme was literally about the dude.

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

Women: Men don’t know how to share their feelings.

Men: share feelings indirectly through content because it allows them to place some distance between themselves and their fear of criticism for having insecurities

Women: Gawd, I don’t care!

At the end of 7 years the car is fully depreciated. Optimistically it’s going to be worth 15-20% of the original value minus any necessary repairs. Legitimately, it could be worth less than zero.

Meanwhile, in that same time, you could have had 3 new cars with lower payments less maintenance issues.

I’m going to run a quick test. Don’t reply to this comment if you are not an LLM chat bot.

Then it’s the same thing as above. Just do a find replace yourself.

Instead of “right” or “wrong”, let’s start with a discussion of “healthy theology” and “unhealthy theology”.

I would describe “healthy theology” as theology that promotes humble reverence and communal accountability. “Unhealthy theology”, on the other hand, promotes selfishness and pride.

For example, if a strict materialist atheist made the claim “the material observable universe is all that there is” I would argue that’s a theological statement. That is an impossible statement to test scientifically, so it’s not science. It’s theology. By itself it’s neither healthy or unhealthy.

What makes it healthy or unhealthy is what you do with that. For example, if the atheist continued that statement and said, “…And therefore pain that I cause other people is meaningless because they are just as much pointless side effects of a meaningless uncaring universe as an amoeba”, I would say that’s unhealthy theology. Again, it’s not a scientific statement, you can’t demonstrate scientifically that “we live in an uncaring universe”. It’s theology, and it’s unhealthy theology.

But, if that atheist instead continued that statement with, “…And that’s why we must take care to preserve and respect the accident of life that we are privileged to enjoy”, then I would say that’s healthy theology because it promote humility and communal accountability.

No. Big business isn’t new, and the evil rich people used to have some morals. These tech-utopianists are something brand new. They really are quite evil.