There have been so many such articles in the past few weeks, who cares? Nobody knows what he is feeling or how well he is really doing, this is all make pretend to feel good on the consumer(!) side and money making headlines for the media.

All these “news” about him going down, any moment now, are super annoying. All just for the clicks and people, even here on Lemmy, gobble it up.

At night, I hope you drive with your lights on and see that the light somehow can not make it through the entry of the tunnel.

Das finde ich beides gleich schlimm und sehe bei beiden das gleiche Grundproblem: Die Bereitschaft, andere zu schädigen. Ob aus rein privaten Gründen (kein einwirken 3.) oder mit Einflussnahme von 3. spielt dabei keine Rolle. Am Ende sind beide Personengruppen sogar austauschbar.

Das passt nicht zum Thema, ebenso wie einer 3. Person helfen. Es geht um Angreifer, nicht Verteidiger o.ä., die müssen natürlich keinerlei Vorstellungen folgen um sich gegen einen Angreifer zu wehren. Sie reagieren dann nur noch auf die Situation, die im Zweifel rein passiv, ohne Zutun, aufgezwungen wurde.

Warum sollte bei solch einer Tat die Strafe pauschal maximal ein? Sie basiert auf absurden Vorstellungen, wie viele andere Taten auch. Wer schädigt andere Menschen direkt und absichtlich OHNE absurden Vorstellungen zu folgen?

Mate, even the AI slop from Google gets that right:

Christmas originated as a Christian holiday celebrating Jesus’ birth but was strategically placed on December 25th by early Church leaders to coincide with and transform existing pagan winter solstice festivals, like the Roman Saturnalia and Sol Invictus, absorbing traditions like feasting, greenery (holly, mistletoe), and gift-giving to attract converts and give them new spiritual meaning, making it a blend of ancient winter solstice customs and Christian theology.

They made everyone call it Christmas, but the holiday was there before that.

It feels like you are talking about something else, not the issue from the TO. It is specifically saying something, intentionally, that is either wrong or unknown but in either case confidently, as if you know/are correct. And that is not the right thing to do. Perhaps there are rare edge cases where that would be okay.

Is that so?

Sports etc. seem super subjective, so it does not really apply there. I specially mean knowing better but still saying something wrong.

But you were not wrong and instead did the right thing? There is no need to confidently say nonsense.

People get emotionally attached to pretty much everything, from pets over sentimental presents to random stuff. Really has nothing to do with those things being tools.

If only they would feel that way too. I assure you almost nobody driving a car feels like that. Hell, a ton of people even fall asleep while driving, that is how non-stressful and relaxing it can be. People treat cars like they are toys, not understand what they do (but thinking they do), that is a core issue.

How can that be more important? What moment?

95 % is the range, since it goes from 0 % to 95 %. Only the top 5 % are not in that range.

People can also be confidently wrong.

I still don’t get it, even with their reply etc. I fail too understand the point.

The same argument applies in every other voting system and that is simply not how it works. If you never vote what you actually want you will never get what you actually want. Saying all need to change at once is nonsense, a gradual shift is more than enough. But people argue exactly like that and so never vote what they want, that is the core issue. Other voting systems still see few % parties get nothing and the argument people use to not vote them is exactly the same. The has to be some cutoff below which you get nothing and there is no way to prevent that in a real system with integer numbers.

They have them, they just don’t vote them. The big brain argument is “because nobody does”.

How this compare to Winamp?