When people have sex, they usually do it in private, without any witnesses. Whatever happens during that time is often difficult to prove afterward, since it typically comes down to one person’s word against the other’s. Unless there’s clear physical evidence of assault, it can be extremely hard to establish that something was done against someone’s will. Most reasonable people would agree that “she said so” alone doesn’t amount to proof - and isn’t, by itself, a valid basis for sending someone to prison.
Perspectivist
joined 1 month ago
"If we just trusted women"
We don't trust people based on their gender. We trust them based on credibility and evidence. If there's even the tiniest amount of doubt then it better to let the guilty walk free rather than put an innocent person in jail. And I'm speaking broadly here - not about Trump specifically.
But there are also index funds that are not ETFs.
Apparently I'm old enough to be a Lemmy user's dad.
Find an ETF index fund that’s highly diversified across both sectors and regions, with total expenses under 0.5%, and set up an automatic monthly investment into it. It’s the boring way to invest - but unless you’ve got a crystal ball and can predict the future, I wouldn’t start gambling on individual stocks. This is basically the same advice Warren Buffett would give you.
The few things I'm not buying out of principle are such that I wouldn't even know if someone else bought it or not. But no, I don't care. There's nothing I'm not buying because I think the company that produces it is literally Hitler.
You mean french fries sauce because that's all it's good for.
It's Finnish
I haven’t claimed that it is. The point is, the only two plausible scenarios I can think of where we don’t eventually reach AGI are: either we destroy ourselves before we get there, or there’s something fundamentally mysterious about the biological computer that is the human brain - something that allows it to process information in a way we simply can’t replicate any other way.
I don’t think that’s the case, since both the brain and computers are made of matter, and matter obeys the laws of physics. But it’s at least conceivable that there could be more to it.
Finland recently passed a law prohibiting under 15 year olds from riding electric scooters and similar vehicles. Up untill now, the average age of the people hospitalized for accidents with these has been 12 years.
Did you genuinely not understand the point I was making, or are you just being pedantic? "Silicon" obviously refers to current computing substrates, not a literal constraint on all future hardware. If you’d prefer I rewrite it as "in non-biological substrates," I’m happy to oblige - but I have a feeling you already knew that.
Not sure what the article is getting at, but there’s a thing called “weaponized empathy” - or “concern trolling” - which is a bad-faith argumentation tactic where you pretend to be worried about someone, when in reality you’re just using that as a cover for judgment or hostility.
It can also be used more broadly. Think of how often “think of the children” gets trotted out as a justification to invade people’s privacy, when the supposed concern for kids’ wellbeing is really just an excuse.