What’s more chaotic than a goose? Two goose!

It also pays the creators better than ads ever did or ever will.

Sure you could pay them all individually, but that gets tedius real fast when you like hundreds of channels.

Becoming more like the competition might make sense, if you completely blind yourself to the fact that the customers you do have are the people who don’t like the competition.

This is kind of a huge turning point.

It would mean reddit is discarding the biggest thing that makes it different from all the other algo-driven “engagement”-fueled social platforms.

Ugh. Taking care of myself is so much effort.

Tum

Dyamn this person draws them ears big

Well, I’ve been updating my posting tool to start linking back to artists fediverse accounts for those that have them.

I’ve not implemented any kind of check on activity, the idea being that if mainstream social media shits the bed, artists that I’ve been signal boosting get to have a jump-start in terms of followers from those of us already here, even if they haven’t been using their accounts.

Linking to their twitter’s is all well and good, but people browsing on here are unlikely to actually start following creatives that only have a presence on the kind of social media that we’re trying to out-grow.

Borked image link?

Also floofsmear is on the fediverse?!

incorrectly consider anecdotal experience superior to statistically significant data

I’d point out that by recounting your personal experience and bringing up your coworkers, you essentially admit to this being one of your errors in logic.

You act as if your personal experience is “the average” when in reality you are an edge case who was able to suffer an infection unvaccinated, with mild symptoms. That’s rare.

Others, like your coworkers, may have needed the vaccination just to survive, because without it they would have suffered symptoms severe enough to kill them.

You can’t know. And the statistics, which you can’t determine based on personal experience, say that’s exactly how it works. That the vaccines saved millions.

Unfortunately, by doing that, you were one of the people who decided to give the disease the time and space to develop into new strains, which could then re-infect both people who already suffered the disease and got vaccinated against it.

Herd immunity, had it been successfully achieved by vaccinating a large enough portion of the population, fast enough, would have eradicated the disease entirely.

In a way, you contributed to the fact that even your vaccinated co-workers still got infected by a strain that could also still do a lot of damage.

But somehow you can’t see why someone may not trust the vaccines on a personal level?

Of course I can. Given enough bias, paranoia, and pre-conceived notions, I am perfectly capable of picturing how you arrived at your current views. But a path to believing what you believe (that long COVID is caused by the vaccine, or that the symptoms of your co-workers were caused by the vaccine rather than suffering the disease) can only be utterly deranged.

Different people suffer widely varying symptoms during an actual infection. That all you experienced was a cold, does not mean that your co-workers more severe symptoms were caused by the vaccine rather than the disease. For fucks sake, even when unvaccinated the effects ranged between literally nothing and straight up actual death. And once vaccines were available, data showed that people who had been immunized suffered significantly less severe symptoms, and were a lot less likely to catch and spread the virus in the first place.

This benefit went down as new strains appeared, but there was still a significant improvement in symptoms compared to suffering the disease unvaccinated.

Had you been vaccinated, your symptoms during an infection might have been actually nothing. Had your coworkers not been vaccinated, their more severe symptoms could have led to death.

By comparing your symptoms to those of your co-workers, you’re drawing invalid conclusions based on a false equivalences. You assume their symptoms were more severe due to the vaccine, but you literally cannot know that. That kind of logic only works using statistically significant sample-sizes, and when you do so, your assumptions instantly fall apart.

Your anecdotal experience is utterly worthless in this line of thinking.

You accept the experiences of your co-workers as an influence on your decision-making, but when told you’re wrong by literal hundreds online, with links, logic and arguments, you plug your ears. That makes no sense.

Since you put such weight on using the experiences of others as evidence, here is mine: I was vaccinated thrice with no complications, and then suffered COVID twice, again with no complications. Before the vaccines were available, an average infection could take around two weeks to beat. Both times, it was over in less than four days for me.

Both of my sicknesses occurred during holiday family get-togethers, which led to my entire family suffering COVID over the holidays. Two years in a row. Everyone was vaccinated at least twice, no-one suffered complications from the vaccine. No-one suffered from the infection for more than a week.

Finally, the immunity gained from suffering the disease is literally identical to the one your body develops in response to the disease. The biological mechanisms engaged in your body are exactly the same. That you think the vaccine might come with more risk than the disease, shows you’ve made no real effort to look into how immunology actually works.

Your immunity is no stronger than that which has been gained by the vaccinated, and you can still be re-infected for the very same reasons vaccinated people can.

And your second infection is likely to be milder than the first, for the same reason that those who are vaccinated, and suffer an infection anyway, benefit from milder symptoms than if they hadn’t been.

Also the one about trans people which was almost reasonable, but failed to stick the landing.

You’re trying to twist the definition of the word “bigot” to apply to those who refuse to entertain obvious invalid logic.

There is always room for discussion, and no position is absolute. That you think this is news to me is one the hurdles you will have to overcome before you can attempt to discuss things like this with someone who builds up their world view through disciplined reason.

That view on vaccines is crazy, because to arrive at such a conclusion, you must intentionally ignore facts, confuse feelings with evidence, and incorrectly consider anecdotal experience superior to statistically significant data.

You should examine how solidly you stand by your own unveriable beliefs, before you try to use the percieved solidity of mine as a point of critizism. I’ve change my mind on many things, many times, but you cannot make me do so by simply telling me to. “You’re a bit too sure about that” is not a counterargument. You must explain, and you must explain thoroughly. More thoroughly than I think you can, considering a watertight chain of reason that leads to your position on vaccines, does not exist.

Your vaccine comment was straight up misinformation, in no way supported by available evidence. The matter is “open to discussion” in the same way you might discuss whether exercise is good for you.

There are edge cases where a workout or vaccination can be unadvisable for certain individuals due physical or immunological factors, but the idea that the utility of these things in itself has room for questioning is madness. And legitimately dangerous as a view when held by people deciding over the lives of others, or voting on it.

And it WAS discussed, people had plenty to say in response to you, including me. But none of what you said was a bona fide contribution. You simply stated something you appear to consider true, but with no supporting logic or evidence. That’s not a discussion or a proper exchange of thought. It’s just spitting out words as if doing so in itself makes them truthful or worthy of consideration

A lot of people believing something, doesn’t make it true. Your conviction alone will convince almost no-one. Without further elaboration of the kind that others can actually follow, you may as well be speaking an alien language no-one can understand.

If talking about your opinions isn’t possible in a way that makes sense, consider, that your opinions may not make sense.

Because that is what you’re really admitting when you claim that certain things you think “cannot be discussed” on Lemmy.

If someone straight up insults you, that’s against the rules on most instances.

People trying to walk you down from a position that doesn’t make any sense by dismantling the logic behind it isn’t intolerance of you or your opinion.

You’re perfectly free to defend your position, but if your logic only works in your head, then it’s not logic, it’s delusion. I’ve seen you multiple times now, you say your words, then get them completely debunked in the replies. But you don’t actually engage in a back and forth. You have no actual arguments. Yet you still reappear in new threads, still spouting crazy, completely unfounded, “opinions”.

A refusal to accept an opinion as valid is not intolerance. “Tolerating” does not require acceptance or agreement, but merely abiding by your presence. No-one owes an instantly debunkable claim the time of day.

And when you cross the line into something that demeans a person or persons, then yes, there will be no tolerance, bans. The only valid intolerance is the intolerance of intolerance.

It’s a video container. If apple is using it for audio only, that’s like using a pickup truck to transport two bags of groceries.

Of course it’s “possible”.

That ball is dead. The hand? Amputated.

I know.

I didn’t claim you could do that.

I said you could close the file and open it using something else. Not save and then open it using something else.

Video containers don’t determine codec. You can use any video codec as well as any audio codec. Which means the audio inside an mp4 can be mp3, or flac, or aac, or wav…

If you’re just storing audio, just use an audio file directly. Putting the same exact audio stream inside a video container just makes it slightly more difficult to play, because them you can’t use a lot of audio players to play the audio.

Why yes, video containers typically support audio tracks.

And you could encode such files with only an audio track.

But why would you?

One thing I haven’t seen in the thread yet, is that there ARE elevators which are intended for use during fire-related evacuations. I’ve been in buildings where signs by the elevators make it known that during evacuations you are SUPPOSED to use them.

I don’t know the specifics, but I would assume these have self-monitoring sensors to allow the elevator control system to determine whether it is affected by whatever is going on.

I suspect the way they work also changes, instead of prioritizing getting around different floors, the computer would start shuttling them up and down specifically to get people from each floor down to ground level. No-one already in the elevator gets to pick what floor they’re going to.

Modern buildings are constructed in a way that significantly slows the spread of a fire, and I would assume that the machinery and shaft of evacuation elevators, doubly so.

And same as any elevator, they are built using a level of redundancy that means several cables can fail without issue, as well as emergency brakes that arrest the fall of the cabin should the worst occur.

MP4 is video.

Do you mean MP3?