theneverfox

Post a link... I believe you because that certainly sounds like Trump, but a transcript/video would really help it sink in

There's many reasons people pirate - sometimes it's a matter of means & availability, sometimes it's a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it's basically a hobby

Some people would surely buy some games if piracy wasn't on the table (assuming the terms were unacceptable to them), but I used to rewatch the same things and play the same games endlessly. I think the vast majority would do without

And rejecting a service you don't consider worth it isn't moral. That's just basic capitalism and self-interest.

This seems to be our core difference. I don't think capitalism is a moral system, and "enlightened self interest" only works with equity of opportunity and fierce competition - that's not the world we live in. And even then, I don't think it's a very ethical moral framework

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it's like enabling an abuser, however slight, you're contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others

Because now they have your login and password - not a hashed version they can only validate against, but the real thing that can be used to log into your network. They shouldn't ever have it, aside from them being able to sell credentials this also means someone else could probably obtain access to all of them

I'm not going to say pirating is some morally superior act, but there is something to be said for refusing to support companies that have user-hostile distribution

And I don't think that act is cheapened by accessing the content anyways - yes, you are not contributing to the creators while enjoying their content. If you weren't going to pay into the stream that they get a small part of anyways, then you're not costing them anything - if you wouldn't have bought it and didn't, it's the same result on their end either way

Ultimately it goes back to piracy being a problem of accessibility, and rejecting an inaccessible service is the moral part, I see the piracy in this context as just neutral

Source?

Steam, case in point. You can find cracked games fairly easily, there's even games entirely lacking drm that could be passed around effortlessly

But steam is very convenient, the prices are reasonable, and they have good customer support. That's enough that even people who pirate switch games buy pc games on the same device

Seed oils are like canola, soy, "vegetable", sunflower, etc. They're the cheapest, so they're used wherever they can be

As for alternatives, some people say grass fed butter/ghi is the easy to go, personally I mostly use olive oil (although I'm not super clear on why that's different)

Ultimately, something is very wrong with our diets, and seed oils + sugar are where the experts offering explanations seem to be pointing. There's other things it could be, like micro plastics and the million other containments in our food and water allowed in doses that don't cause obvious harm, and even foods like tomatoes and potatoes that contain toxins (ones that are minimal if you prepare them properly, but we don't prepare them how we used to)

I definitely recommend researching it, and I'd be interested to hear what you come up with

As for the thickening of the bowel, I have no idea, but it seems like the bowel movement speed and that are both side effects

And as for making it stick - here's my take. Animals don't become obese... Except when you feed them highly processed food. There's also a theory floating around that seed oils drive sugar cravings, and the fat they release does the same thing

So my advice would be this - use this opportunity to fix this. If you burn the old fat, get rid of your sugar cravings, and eat better food you might be able to fix your system in a way people mostly only do by moving to somewhere with better food culture for years

Avoid processed food and seed oils as much as possible. Take advantage of the time you have on it, and stack the deck in your favor while you can

Nah, ozempic and Co change sugar absorption and satiation. People on it primarily eat way less instantly, apparently they just feel full and don't feel any desire to keep going. It also slows sugar absorption which is why it helps manage diabetes, so that might also play some role

So far we've found it thickens the intestinal lining and significantly messes with the reward pathways, we're not sure what the long term effects could be. It seems like at best, you basically have to stay on it indefinitely or regain the weight (which is true of current weight loss drugs)

The real issue is that anyone can come up with an economic model, but politicians and public figures get to pick and choose the one that fits their beliefs most closely. The model can be crap and barely hold up beyond an ELIF narrative about why it's true, and people will base their careers around believing it

I think there are good economic models out there, it's just the convenient ones that are spread... Ones that don't generally hold up against actual observation

The majority of people who have visited clinics agree with the statement "chocolate milk might be a super food"

So you're saying that women are causing global warming?

Ironically, most technology is the opposite. At least when you're designing and developing things, it's all individuals - you can have assistants or small teams, but institutions don't invent new things, individuals do.

I don't mean that pedantically, I mean one or two people were the driving force behind near every innovation. A company can sit those people in a room and fund them for a decade, but you have to keep them happy and leave them alone - if they leave or they're meddled with too much, you're back to square one

Big companies can't innovate (except in monetization)... It's all done by start ups now. Then they get acquired, and all progress halts

Just makes me think, in science (or academia at least) researchers are tied to their research to maintain their position, rather than their position deciding their research. It's still a pretty broken system, but between that and the incentive for open collaboration it just makes me think. If every piece of technology was open sourced, if everyone from phone manufacturers to game designers existed in a world where designs could be improved upon, where would we be now?