Sailing, because it’s dozens of hobbies in one: It’s a competitive sport either with a team or solo, or it can be a relaxing diversion, or it can be a terrifying personal challenge. It can encompass skills such as sewing, woodworking, machining, plumbing, physics, mathematics, design, navigation, radio communication, astronomy, meteorology, geography, geology, environmental sciences, electronics/electrical engineering, history, linguistics, culinary skills, and more. You can basically always be thinking about it!

It’s not controversial to say that women differ sexually, right? For example, some women can orgasm from penetration alone, and others need more-direct clitoral stimulation. Everybody knows this, or should know this.

Would it be controversial to claim that, hey, perhaps men differ, too? What if we’re not exaggerating how much of a difference it makes? There are intact men right here in this discussion who say that most of their sensation comes from their foreskin, and they don’t feel much from their glans. It would destroy their enjoyment of sex to cut it off, even while many men wouldn’t notice much change, because most of their sensation comes from the glans.

id rather bust fast than not be sensitive down there

For what it’s worth, my friend tells me that in his experience, intact men have better awareness and control of their level of stimulation, and therefore last longer.

How do you organize an armed group that’s big enough to be effective without the fascists hearing about it in advance?

don’t face them alone

*pervasive surveillance state has entered the chat*

No, we don’t forget that! What, you think we’re idiots? In fact, we are able to distinguish the difference between logistics vehicles and people moving about in individual vehicles. Those are two very different things. A dozen or so semis to the grocery store every day is a far sight different than thousands of cars.

Walkable cities around the world still have stores. And vehicles. It’s not that hard.

Yeah, so what? This is the natural evolution of online communities. It’s a good thing. When the user base is small, we should have a few, non-specific channels/forums/communities/whatevers so that everybody is in the same place to talk to each other. Metaphorically, it’s like sustaining a nuclear reaction: The fissile material has to be in close enough proximity so that the radiation (posts and comments) can strike more fissile material (other users) to keep the chain reaction going. In the past, I’ve criticized the urge to immediately atomize Lemmy into thousands of highly-specific communities, and indeed, most of them have withered away.

Once a particular topic starts to dominate a community, once it’s reached critical mass, then it’s time to fork it off into its own community. I don’t think that’s happened to [email protected] yet.

Oh, certainly not! True, all of the men I know now who wear bow ties regularly are gay, but not the guy I knew back when I was a high school senior. Y’know, good, solid, conservative Limbaugh listener. Had a girlfriend even—back home, while he was at college—you wouldn’t know her. Real friendly, he’d invite me over to his apartment to talk computers, share his university Internet login password with me, that kind of thing. Yup yup. Totally. 110% straight.

I think they’re this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they’re told by them even if it’s not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world’s) at all.

And they always will be. The thing about one’s own best interest is that it’s self-interest, always at least parochial, if not outright selfish (as in the US). If the people comprising a billionaire’s private security force can obtain a better standard of living, more power, more perks, for themselves and their families than they could by cooperating with the rest of the proles in a (let’s be honest) speculative venture, even if it did pay off? Well, some people will take the billionaire’s offer, at least enough people to comprise a private security force.

Indeed, it’s not really a flavor, but that sensation is called astringent.

Oh, I’m a little drunk, so I forgot the second point. Maybe I’m not devious enough to lead a bioweapons program, but I would think that research into potential bioweapons would primarily focus on a vaccine or a treatment. Nasty disease outbreaks occur naturally, and as we saw with COVID-19, they affect everybody. Why would any nation release a bioweapon that’s going to hammer itself just as much as the enemy? That would only make sense to me in maybe a Dead Hand-like scenario, in which your nation has already fallen, and you release it as vengeance from the grave.

But, that still doesn’t make sense to me, because we don’t have any reliable way to look at a virus and determine its potential for causing a pandemic. That might not even be possible, since there are/were lots of viruses that seem like they should cause a pandemic, but just haven’t.

The America’s Cup.

Turns out it was hygiene theater for a while. In the early days, we just didn’t know how it was transmitted, so the CDC recommended hand-washing and surface sanitizing out of an abundance of caution. I worked at a grocery store through the pandemic, where both of the owners were very community-oriented, and one was a low-key germophobe. They took the CDC recommendations seriously, and we all had to wear disposable gloves, as well as follow all sorts of protocols to sanitize surfaces.

Later on in the course of the pandemic, scientists started to question whether COVID-19 could spread on surfaces, because the evidence wasn’t showing up. In fact, there was a study done back in the 1980’s here at the University of Wisconsin in which volunteers who were sick with respiratory viruses (incl. coronaviruses) would read newspapers, play cards, play board games, etc. in a room, and then the researchers would bring healthy volunteers into the same room to do the same. Zero healthy volunteers got sick, so the researchers had the ill volunteers cough and sneeze directly on the shared objects before handing over the room. Again, zero healthy volunteers got sick. They were unable to demonstrate any surface-contact transmission.

This news came out, but the CDC was slow to update its recommendations. There was a period during which I was highly annoyed at having to wear the gloves, and spray surfaces with the extremely-expensive electrospray gun, when it was already scientific consensus (minus the CDC) that COVID-19 didn’t spread through surface contact. Eventually, they did update their recommendations, and we were able to stop with the rigamarole. Sales of hand sanitizer and wipes dropped off (but still were high, because the new information wasn’t universally known). If I understand it correctly (eh…), the virus which causes COVID-19 is relatively delicate, and its structure is supported by the water droplets which spread it. Once the droplets hit a surface, the protein structure of the virion collapses, and it’s no longer capable of infecting a cell.

Anyway, yeah, it was an abundance of caution, which turned into hygiene theater.

The other commenters have covered some of the points I’d make, so I’ll add: After decades of investigation into Patient Zero for AIDS/HIV, there wasn’t a single, identifiable transmission event to which the epidemic traced, but rather evidence that the virus was present here and there long before the disease was identified.

Intuitively, I think it’s the same with COVID-19, that there wasn’t a single, discrete animal-to-human transmission event. Even if my analogy to HIV is faulty, China built the lab in Wuhan to study endemic coronaviruses; that means that anything in the lab had been in the wild for years before researchers collected a sample of it. Therefore, it’s overwhelmingly likely that humans had already been exposed to some form of it, and it was present in local populations. At the very least, there would have had to be multiple exposures, because not everybody exposed to the virus got infected, not everybody infected showed symptoms, and not everybody with symptoms transmitted the virus to other people. That, and the fact that it’s a respiratory disease, and does not spread by surface contact, makes a lab leak seem exceedingly unlikely.

So, even if the Wuhan lab failed at biocontainment, and people caught a strain of virus it was studying, that wasn’t the cause of the pandemic, which could have kicked off any number of ways. I’m not going to dismiss the possibility of a lab leak outright, but on the other hand, even if it’s true, there’s little practical value to the knowing about it other than improving biocontainment procedures. It certainly doesn’t justify the Sinophobia that tends to accompany the lab leak theory, and the Sinophobia is what I think makes people reject the lab leak possibility so vehemently.

(The other “lab leak theory,” that it was an engineered bioweapon that escaped, is for drooling morons. Nobody has that technology, not even close.)

“Carbrain” is a real mental disorder, though. How else do you describe somebody who looks through a windshield and sees a long line of idling cars into the distance, and thinks, “fucking bike lanes!”

Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it’s so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn’t get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn’t be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.

And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it’s entirely logical that I’m afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I’m talking about.

Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.

You don’t understand what fear is like?

They’re not the same. This is privilege speaking, I know, but gun violence mostly occurs between people who know each other. I’m not in those circles or neighborhoods, so only the occasional mass shooting might affect me.

But cars? They’re omnipresent. There’s a steady stream of them in front of my home, so I can’t avoid the danger. My life is threatened by cars every damn day, and my quality of life degraded by them. And you can’t tell me that driving a car around a city is anything but sociopathic disregard for the well-being of others, because that’s what it amounts to.

Cars as bad as guns? No, they’re worse.

An automobile, at the end of the day, is a luxury item. A toy. Humanity existed for most of its history without cars, and even today, you can get to work or the grocery store without one. (Granted, often not easily, but that’s only because we’ve made it difficult to get there any other way. But making it difficult was a deliberate policy choice designed to exclude poor people.) One could argue that the automobile is an anti-tool, as its use is making our lives materially worse (traffic violence, health impacts, pollution, ecosystem destruction, climate change, the burden on government and personal budgets), but that ignores a car’s major function as a cultural identity marker, and for wealth signaling. We humans value that a lot. Consider, as but one common example, the enormous pickup truck used as a commuter vehicle, known as a pavement princess, bro-dozer, or gender-affirming vehicle.

In that way, they’re exactly the same as firearms, which are most often today used as a cultural identity marker. (Often by the same people who drive a pavement princess, and in support of the same cultural identity.) Firearms are also also luxury toys in that people enjoy going to the firing range and blasting away hundreds of dollars for the enjoyment of it. But beyond that, the gun people have a pretty legit argument, too, that their firearms are tools used for hunting and self-defense. They are undeniably useful in certain contexts, and no substitute will do. One certainly wouldn’t send mounted cavalry with sabers into war today.

Yes, mathematicians first encountered equations which could only be solved with complex numbers in the 16th century.