There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.

Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.

My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.

Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.

Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.

Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we’ll all be happier.

I feel like it’s more rooted in racism than actually foods. Plenty of other cuisines have more fiber and more spices. Mexican isn’t really special in its ingredients or it’s preps.

Then why specific hate for mexican? I really can’t come with any answer than racism.

Internet is weird. Some stereotypes and racism are easily accepted and considered funny.

I’ve edited it for clarity.

That’s what I said.

Misandry seems to fly pretty often on the internet too.

Most specifically towards CIS white men. Even though I’m not that specific subset, I feel bad for them. Racism, bigotry and etc are tolerated when it’s directed at them and they can’t even defend themselves. Anytime they try to, they get met with whataboutism. Most of them are just flipping burgers. Just very tiny portion of CIS white men are iconic powerful people.

Pretty sure you’re replying to sarcasm.

Session ID is stored by the client. So…? I literally just explained how to hold uniqueness on server side without using session ID.

Besides using session cookies, they can track user agent and IP address. The two in combination will be unique enough. There are further metrics to make a unique identifier, but I think this is sufficient explanation.

Edit: Seems like people who don’t know how to program besides super default methods are downvoting me.

You don’t need cookies to hold session ID. If you programmed in the earlier days, you’d actually even know cookie session wasn’t even the most common method before. For example, session ID can be passed around in the URL as another query parameter. You can even literally turn off cookie option in sessions in languages like PHP (ex: https://www.php.net/manual/en/session.configuration.php#ini.session.use-cookies). These kind of practice is still relatively quite common as it allows greater flexibility and not have your session ID bound to a domain.

Furthermore, you don’t have to be restricted by the confines of whatever existing tools you already have. Like in the example I gave at the beginning, you can create your own unique identifiers. You don’t have to use preexisting concept of session at all. If you can create any unique key-value pair, you can track and keep data without the use of sessions. Programmers are hired to create things that never existed before, be more creative.

I checked. I saw dead babies (hard to say 2 of them are actually babies as they’re too charred). But nothing beheaded.

Though I’ve never had issues with wearing ties, perhaps a clip-on tie is something you could try if you have to wear em.

I don’t really care what the contents are. If someone’s using excessive emojis or doing this stupid clapping shit, that’s a down vote for me.

They’re all referring to corn subsidies.

If you grow corn with subsidy and then sell that corn as livestock feed to cows, then you’ve indirectly further subsidized beef.

Though… this viewpoint is partly misleading people. Corn stalks and pith which humans can’t eat and need ruminant animals to process is what gets fed to them. We don’t always feed corn kernels to cows en masse, though many farms do. If they can find a buyer for the kernel for other consumption (human, fructose syrup, etc), they will sell it that way as it is more profitable. So even if it wasn’t subsidized and we only produce high priced corn for humans, we’d still feed the stalks and pith to cows.

I disagree that this is a right wing talking point, but whether it is or not is irrelevant. If it’s a problem, it’s a problem. There is no “buying into it.”

It’s a genuine problem that billionaires create literally ONE MILLION times more carbon footprint than 90% of the people. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135446721/billionaires-carbon-dioxide-emissions

It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

That’s not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

The only issue I have with the compass being used here is that it’s used wrong.

Only the Stalin quadrant is passable. Everything else is super stretching at best while ignoring the purpose of why political compass was made.

Racist remark and gay sex has absolutely nothing to do with economic policies. Being a racist isn’t even authoritarian. It’s just that people who tend to have racist pov tends to be authoritarian and economic right. Historically, they would often advocate for restrictions on another race, but racism by itself is neither as it’s not a policy itself. While LGBT ideology is libertarian, it has nothing to do with economic. It’s that the people who tend to be pro-LGBT is on libertarian and economic left. OP is making correlatory claims rather than direct. And the political compass came to exist precisely to get people out of the mindset of over simplistic team mindsets.

Selling your mother into slavery requires authoritarian government, and libertarian would be for freedom of individuals. So, this is on the wrong quadrant entirely. Actual slavery should be more important factor than an anti-authoritarian movie. It’s just a piece of entertainment.

Whenever there is a major affordability housing project, it usually gets shut down by its area residents who get to have a say. They’ll often say things like how it’s unsightly because it blocks their views or overshadows their detached homes. Which in turn decreases their own house value. There are plethora of reasons, but I believe that is the one OP is making. NIMBY in other words. Alternatively, OP may be making comments about how government housing projects is socialism/communism and some people are rejecting simply on that basis.

Lack of supply in housing is a severe crisis in certain regions, like Toronto for example, which is now rated as the #1 housing bubble in the world according to some banks with the biggest reason being lack of supply. There’s an estimated shortage of nearly 6 million homes for the Canadian population, most of which is around Toronto. The rapid housing prices is in turn making homelessness spike up.

Indirectly, but effectively, the local population is saying they’d rather have tents pitched near their homes rather than an affordable apartment near by.

You’re kinda telling people to waste time. It is not a myth.

League, rating scale, etc. are a measurement that’s made from the outside. Not internally. Everyone wants to date the best that they can date. A fit muscular guy is likely going to garner more attention from more people than a fat guy. That is a fact. Subjectivity in attraction certainly exists, but it’s not that widely swinging. A very few curve extremely outside of the norm (i.e fetish). For example, almost every person attracted to a male would find Brad Pitt very attractive. Etc.

So if you go after the attractive person, they’re also going to get many alternate options. And they’re going to pick someone they find most attractive among their suitors. If I had 100 matches on a dating app for example, I’m only going to bother spending my time talking to 10 of them and ghost the 90. I just can’t deal with the rest, humans only have so much time. If I get 1000 matches, I’m going to ignore 990 of them. My criteria in picking who is most attractive is likely not that much different from anyone else.

Question of if they’re out of their league means are you in the ignore pile, or the talk to pile, and sometimes the friendzone pile (i.e. you’re the backup). You can try to claw your way out of the ghosted, but your chances are slim. So it’s better use of your time and resources to retarget to another lower tier person who might only get 20 matches and will bother talking to 10 people. If that still doesn’t work, you keep going lower. This is effectively how the “dating marketplace” puts values on people.

You can keep trying to date the higher tier people, but you’ll keep getting outright rejected or not have a long term relationship with them. Because they know they can do better because they’ll keep getting suitors throughout their life.

World was certainly easier to date in the era of pre-dating apps or social media. Since the pool of people around each other is a lot smaller. But thanks to online interactions, we’re literally competing against countless others. So, it’s better to not waste your time on someone out of your league. You aren’t going to keep them. All you did is waste time (and probably lot of money if you’re a guy, and that money is going to be proportional to the gap between your leagues).

When a girl says they like certain things from a guy, they really mean certain things from a guy who has already met her base standards. Like attractiveness. So they want an attractive guy to be funny.