Yes! Thank you!!!

It was really more some kind of oscilloscope that needed to be programmed then it played the whole animation.
I have never heard of that before or after seeing that video and I think it’s a bit of an obscure technology.

I agree this is all about semantics, you seem to consider nature only for its bad sides (but don’t forget we also get all our food from nature).

Nature is really terrible, actually. It’s an endless cycle of violence, death

Dying sucks but I don’t think we should ever stop doing that (at a reasonable age, let’s be clear).

I agree that being above the violent killing part of nature should be an ideal, but I’m sorry to say I don’t believe we’re there yet, people are still killing; for food, for fun, for greed, just look at the news… :'(

I resent this “man is part of nature” argument because at face value it romanticizes suffering.

Here you raise an important question: does being part of nature exclude us from using technology?

I don’t believe so. To me being part of nature does not mean to live like our ancestors did when there was no manmade things, or when you would get burned at the stake for doing science…
(I’m not sure in what periods of history you would consider we were part of nature).

The way I see it, we could be part of nature while using a lot of the technologies we use today. We would just need to tweak (a lot) of them and drop the use of many more, but I’m convinced that, if everybody started taking their responsibilities, we could find effective ways to produce enough medicine and food without the damage that those currently cause.

So yeah, I get you, you get me, we just don’t mean the same thing when we say nature :)

Thanks for a well thought, well written answer!

I guess I missed the point of the comic a bit…

I think you’re right, they either expressed themselves wrong or misinterpreted the panel.

So, for this I guess there was whoosh! My bad.

I should’ve thought some more before replying to you.
I saw someone defending ecology under a post that could be seen as ridiculing it so my brain went all white knight towards what seemed to me like a pedant dick… But turns out I was the dick.

The point the comic is trying to make is that things were not better in the past, right?

That’s a pretty broad take that is obviously full of holes.

Pretty sure no whoosh happened here and the person you’re replying to was just pointing at one of those holes.

Saying we’re above nature sounds like we’re better than it/better without it (which some people seem to think but please, let’s not give that idea more traction by declaring it a fact).

I think it’s more like humans are trying to separate themselves from nature.

So did you! Pretty sure you’re right about the artist being a dude for the reason you mentioned.
Thanks for giving my point a thought.

I agree with the sentiment but “Absolutely no woman has ever fantasized” about that?

Do you really believe that? If not, why use these words? I don’t think it serves your purpose and it’s too bad.

Don’t hate me please. I’m just talking semantics which are important to me

Where I live there are few unused radio frequencies.
And if you drive for 20 minutes to another region you’ll find that whatever frequency you were on is being used…
I doubt that’s a problem in the USA though.

Toothpaste

Reminds me of this quote by George Orwell:

“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”

Try to forget about the weird mascot choice. It’s just a rallying cry.

I also don’t really get why the clippy and he probably could have picked a better avatar for people to use.

The point is (I think) that people who know what it’s about will feel the support of all these strangers sharing their view, and people who don’t know might look it up and get sensibilized to the cause.

Look it’s my opinion from personal experience, just disregard it if it bothers you.

I read the whole series of posts but didn’t see them, I guess I needed to search some more - my bad.

I’m not saying social media doesn’t let you do all those things, I’m saying you don’t need it to do them.

I don’t have kids and never used Snapchat, but what does Snapchat provide that helps them communicate better than let’s say WhatsApp?

Edit: I went to dig on Burnett’s page for the links you tell me about. All I found was a radio interview of a doctor on radio Boston, an article from the Sunday times about Burnett’s book and an article on Wales online, also about the book.

Could you link me to the relevant articles I must have missed?

Edit 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7364393/ Found this article that combines different studies made on the subject. Around halfway through the page you will find the results of some of these studies and you will see the answer isn’t clear.

Let’s remember the ban in Australia concerns platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit and X. Exemptions will apply to services such as YouTube, messenger kids, whatsapp, kids helpline and google classroom.

The account you provided starts by stating that “the most rigorous analysis” found little/no significant evidence , but fails to link to them. He immediately lumps together smartphone and social media, then goes on justifying the importance of both with arguments that clearly concern almost exclusively smartphones.

This ban is about social media, not smartphones altogether.

Garwboy’s arguments:

• they let kids stay connected with friends, foster a community, allow coordination of activities: he’s talking about smartphones.

• they allow access to school work, references, important resources: again, smartphones/the internet

• they allow access to support, help and guidance from experienced and informed individuals and groups: this point I’ll give to him; as for years, Reddit has served that very purpose for me. Who knows what that site has become though.

• he compares them to roads (roads kill children every year, but they save many lives, make the world go round,…): again this whole comparison is only valid for smartphones.

• they are a refuge for children who experience abuse at home: this is probably true, but it is not an argument about how social media helps in these situations. I could say the same about drugs .

Which brings us to my point of view: social media are, for many, a drug. A bit of it can be good, fun and even sometimes make your like better, but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion can have devastating effects in a person’s mental, especially when the mental is still in its forming stage.

I’m sorry lots of people on here apparently need to be dicks about pretty much anything they’re trying to say… I don’t disagree with them but there must be a less toxic way to say it. Thank you for making new content, Lemmy needs it!

How? Can you whisper in a throat mic? (Genuine question)

If I understand correctly he’s not saying he thinks it was a proper joke, only that it seems to him that Elon thinks it was a proper joke.

I see you dude, just wanted to say at least one person gets what you’re trying to say (hope i’m not alone). Sadly, according to lots of people, you can’t give the enemy the benefit of the doubt without it meaning you agree with them.

Did you read the article?