I ask inspired by experiences with Google. Google/YouTube, for as long as I can remember, always had a strange habit of assuming absolutely anyone even near to you is you. Back when I had my first YouTube account (which was also back when I was in a completely different part of the world), for the last few years of having it, it had my sister's channel listed under "alternate accounts" and it wouldn't even ask me for the password to log into her account, I could simply click over to it like it was nothing (led to a lot of sister rivalry moments). Of note, on a less severe scale, something akin to this mindset is also credited to leading me to witnessing a documented and verifiable triple banning of cherished accounts, how lovely.

So yeah, my first curious hypothetical question I have of the year. How common/normal would this stance be on the net, with something like 2FA where it could mean the difference between data and makeshift DNA (secondary question, does it actually work as well as touted years ago)?

Suppose you had seven children.

All of them, having reached the age of maturity, were jobless and were encouraged to find a job.

Child one keeps applying for different jobs in the technology industry but nobody will accept them. However, they keep trying and trying. They are like Sisyphus. They also aren't doing anything as they wait.

Child two makes themselves exclusive to doing odds and ends for a decent amount of money. While child one thinks jobs should be sought via the application process, child two is averse enough to this that the inconsistency of what they do day to day is intentional.

Child three applied an actual application for an "actual" job and found one. The catch? It's an organized crime job. However, it's not immoral even though it's illegal. They're the personal household assistant of the mob boss. They too get paid immensely.

Child four also applied an actual application for an "actual" job and found one. The catch? It's not illegal but has ethical issues involved. They mastermind ways to monitor and deal with those considered national threats. They too get paid immensely.

Child five, too, applied an actual application for an "actual" job, but it's something they're utterly terrible at doing, skill-wise. They're tasked with therapy but have so little skill it's considered useless. Child five, despite this flaw, gets paid decently by the office building.

Child six applied for a job and was appointed into one that had the completely foreseeable result of causing many dozens of people to lose their own job. They maintain a scenery-modifying machine which caused and still threatens to cause many scenery workers to become like spare cogs wandering the streets in search of a purpose. Child six too gets paid well, despite also having a version of their job that undermines the importance of the profession itself.

Finally, child seven is a volunteer, one with no ethical or legal issues involved, no issues finding a job, and no limits whatsoever in what they can do for others, and they do it all for free. However, after a few months of doing it, they think "that's enough for me" and they never do a deed again.

One day, you realize you are passing away and summon all seven children to your home. You have specific things, all of which only one child can inherit, and due to the nature of these things, it has to be the child whose deeds make them out to seem the worthiest, as it's the only tiebreaker. Which child do you prioritize as being the best candidate for the one with the highest worth?

Lemmy is having a few hiccups for me, but as I reminisce, it's far from the worst experience I had with glitches, so as long as people know why the double posting is occurring.

All of us who have been paying attention to the news know there are six conflicts going on right now, ordered here in order of current intensity...

1. Russia VS Ukraine

2. Israel VS Palestine

3. Ethiopia VS Eritrea

4. Venezuela VS Guyana

5. China VS Taiwan

6. India VS Pakistan

One might ask anyone about the first two and it's pretty well-established at this point, but go all out and it's, well, perplexing for a lack of a better word.

How do you make sense of your perspective to all of these side-by-side?

Just recently I was in a conversation with a number of UK mainlanders and we had a debate over what "tories" meant, apparently disproportionately ordinarily it refers to a political party and it's not usual to use it as short for "territories" as I've used it (according to how the debate ended, it was half and half between them). And once again I'm reminded of how people feel to look back at their usage of a word/phrase over the years and cringe.

More tragically, me and a friend were embarrassed once upon realizing everyone was confusing "encephalitis" with "hydrocephalus" when talking to someone about their kid with hydrocephalus. Awkward because encephalitis is caused by HIV.

I would be here all night if I asked the Lemmy crowd every question I had, but one thing that always has stood out to me is what's on the tin. Call me one of those childfree peoples for asking it how I did (note ahead of time that I do not judge people who have kids, I just find the alternative better), but it's a topic I've always been in-tune to. It's noble if you ask me, and instinctively, I make a large mental note whenever it happens, when it's common amongst a group of people, etc. This shouldn't be seen as that unusual, it's just a good gesture and many would be expressing this up here if they have the incentive to.

That said, I noticed a deterence when it comes to "vegans" and "communists" (I put these in quotes to denote a broader category, not really to express a stance). Adoption is not something you really hear amongst conversations about the latter. They're sometimes stereotypically associated with orphanages but that's as far as things go. I would challenge people to find texts from such a nation that said something along the lines of "and then that child was adopted". It's like it doesn't happen. Meanwhile, we're "implied" (without it being clarified) that "vegan culture" is at odds with "adoption culture". And the people I ask of are unique in that there really is no avoidance otherwise, you could go to any group of people, nationwise/identitywise, and they'll have normal-to-idolizing opinions on the matter, with it being common to find clerical stories pertaining to it. I myself raise an eyebrow at this, especially with the way certain countries deal with the issue, through exportation and facilities and whatnot.

Not one to turn down an opportunity to ask/address everything in one fell swoop, I wanted to ask many of you due to experience, is there a reason or is it just not something that culturally comes to mind?

It's no secret I'm on the misanthropy spectrum, but as such a person you could say that about, I wanted to ask this ever since hearing this conveyed in response to recent events which sees three spheres of influence now arguably possessing the potential to deliver on such promises. Like... what's the deal?

I was having this conversation with a friend. Albert Einstein was known for saying the following...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

By that, he was referring to the idea that atomic and nuclear power would complicate human development so much we would have it thrust back at us, unless we reached a point we could manifest a cycle. And frankly, especially with current events, I'd believe him over Oppenheimer, that movie was just modern political fuel (people might also argue that the constant act of trying to make war obsolete through more powerful weapons ignores the fact that our very goal is to learn from history).

I get a few takeaways from this, one of these being that progress, people foresee (or think they foresee), will turn out to be a merely forward thing, where we can only get better at inventing, which means better tech, which means the ability to improve how we destroy, and another being that nation states, themselves having been a can of worms on their own when tribes contemplated no longer being tribes, will be targeting other nation-states, but that tribes, being nomadic and not as technologically in-tune, would have less incentive to be struck down by a nuke, as would city-states to a lesser degree due to the second thing and/or the fact that everyone existing in the form of city-states might make people more careful. I personally am intrigued by both ideas albeit particularly the city-state one, as it would allow for a larger pool of identity.

My friend, however, says that people who hold this view are assuming all the factors they see are all the factors that exist, and that there are factors unforeseen (by adherents) that would have no reason to be seen by most people talking about this that would amount to unexpected developments that would render a return to tribalism (or city-states) to be in vain. Bringing the matter here as it comes to a draw, being someone who questions whether they're assuming all the natural factors can be inferred, I'd like to ask you, would you say yay or nay to the idea of reverting to tribes, and/or yay or nay to the idea of reverting to city-states (if we consider them separate ideas)?

This question will require some explaining, so bear with me (I phrased it how I did because I wanted to emphasize one of the connections). I ask this here because economics seem to be a huge topic here, especially when it comes to certain schools of thought (not that I'm judging, you have your reasons).

So here is me trying to explain my question.

First, I must admit I find the concept of a minimum wage to be, for a lack of a better word, incomplete (weird? not well-oiled? I couldn't find the word). While being based by the hour albeit not factoring in the amount of work done, I understand basic existence amounts to a certain etimated value, and you don't want overhaggling, so a glass floor is made. But a glass floor can break under pressure. But I digress.

Anyways, I was talking to someone about the concept, and we started using analogies using letters in place of concepts: "W cannot pay X a certain amount of Y so in order to pay to live she goes to Z."

It was one of those no-context moments, so our minds were drawn to a third friend who related to it platonically, this person wasn't mentally compatible with most social groups, so then criminals (the Z) would come and say "come join us, we have the friends you're looking for".

He added, "police consider 'bad crowds' a huge problem, but nobody pays the involuntary loners any minimum due, no glass floor provided by the public sector, no nothing, and the wrong people get the upper hand here because they're there to farm you while you just want someone to value you enough in a way that translates well to you, and our bedroom community becomes a gossip-cursed cesspool because there is no adhesive". Should point out this isn't a new thought process, in fact it's relevant to me occupationally.

Promoters of universal basic necessities of Lemmy, why is there a lacking here? Is it not weird we (officially) have it out for one aspect but not the other?

I have a lot of indirect experience/knowledge with caves. I don't have to be one of the people who directly explored one to know one of the first things one learns about caves is how ill-suited for wandering around they are. Slopes can change on a dime, it's incredibly rocky inside, and they fill with whatever falls from the sky. Imagine hiding in one of these, as someone with less intelligence than us, and not expecting to even stub a toe, let alone fall or suffocate. I assume it must be a concern because all the cave hobbyists I know (even if I only know a couple) say they have to split up based on their physical skills (so one chooses a slope-free while the other a rain-free one as would be the case for me as someone who never learned), though I admit I'd be amused if cavepeople didn't ignore these slopey checkpoints and instead it caused them to make some inventions.

Another thing that sticks out to me is the rule against fire. When cave explorers (not me) venture in, the most important rule of all time they learn is that it's an absolute cardinal sin to light so much as a match in a cave, let alone a torch (in contrast to Indiana Jones movies where that's the first darn thing he does). The heat from fire is enough to interfere with the stone composition, which in turn threatens to collapse a cave. Imagine having just discovered fire, and you go running to show your family but everyone dies before you can say "hey Mario look what I made". I wouldn't expect a caveman to know about that rule, but I would expect them to feel tempted to find out the hard way.

Finally, there's the fact they're filled with disease. Most notably from the cave animals; while things like ticks and rabies are not common in cave animals, they do happen. If that wasn't enough to outright stigmatize dwelling in a cave, even the environment itself is viral. There are caves where the reservoirs are like 100% condensed bacteria. That's got to send awful mixed messages to seek refuge from an oasis and suddenly you have a fear of water like me.

How did caves become such a go-to and one where nobody is depicted as having any serious accidents in?