Could you explain why? People are agreeing with me more than you so far.

Wasn’t Amazon’s whole thing for a while that they weren’t going to relentlessly pursue quarterly profits? So they can care, they just often don’t.

You won’t ever know if you don’t ever try. Find some third spaces you think are interesting enough and put yourself out there.

Potentially face recognition, but primarily through the signals your phone outputs, like WiFi and Bluetooth signals.

I’m assuming these are all songs where it sounds like the singer is saying “may” instead of “me”.

To be clear, I agree with you like 95% of the way, it’s that last 5% that I still think you are overselling and would like you to be more careful with.

The problem is that Hardin’s argument simply isn’t much of a scientific one in the first place and is instead much more of a logical one. (I was being sloppy when I asked for direct evidence, so sorry about that.) Hardin made the massive assumption that people are wholly self-interested. If people are only trying to maximize their own share of the resources regardless of what it might cost others, then it is impossible to escape the competition that creates for the limited amount of resources that the commons provides. All of the examples and articles you’ve brought up attack that assumption and/or focus on the conclusions Hardin made based on those assumptions, but do nothing to actually disprove the fundamental argument behind the tragedy of the commons.

I think you are overselling it’s incorrectness and so horseshoeing back around to being like the people who oversell it’s truthfulness. Yes, the tragedy of the commons is misleading if taken in isolation, but something being misleading does not automatically make it scientifically incorrect. Do you have direct evidence or an argument for why the tragedy of the commons isn’t the most likely outcome if the circumstances just so happen to match the assumptions Hardin made?

What electronic music do you listen to?

There might be a more accurate sublabel for your exact position, but so long as the label is serving well enough in it’s purpose as a communication tool and it isn’t getting in your way in other ways, then there’s no reason to fret about it.

I

What do you mean that it remembers that people care for it?

I’m not from there so I don’t know how they would define it, I just found him interesting and was using progressive Christianity interchangeably with the kind of Open Christianity I see in this community. Depending on what you mean by “not blabbing about it”, your definition seems to match very well to what he says he believes. For example, at 25:58 in the video he says we ought to have the same love for a child on the other side of the world that we would have for our children.

I don’t know whether she’s doing it intentionally, but she’s whitewashing the part about religion in the USSR. According to Wikipedia:

After the October Revolution … the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. As part of the campaign, churches and other places of worship were systematically destroyed, and there was a “government-sponsored program of conversion to atheism” conducted by communists. … The communist government targeted religions based on state interests, and while most organised religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools. In 1925, the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.

What rules do you believe make for a definition that isn’t contrived? How do you exclude asteroids from your definition or reject other dwarf planets like Ceres without making up contrived exceptions of your own?

Not the guy you’re replying to but the first half of your argument is silly. If I said “Everyone on Lemmy likes Star Trek.”, would you still demand that every exception be named or would you understand that I was talking in generalities?

As far as I’m aware, most people who think the world is naturally just think that such justice comes slowly, and with wild swings away and towards justice happening in the mean time. So you still need to turn the ideal of justice into reality in the mean time either way.

You have to be really careful to distinguish between the position that the canon is temporarily, functionally closed and that it is closed permanently. You can definitely find plenty of people who support the strict position, but I believe that it is less popular than the looser position overall, especially when looking outside of Christian apologetics circles.

There’s a few good reasons to think that the canon is only temporarily closed, not permanently closed:

1. The Bible wasn’t canonized or seen as a single book until after Revelation was written, so it is unlikely that John had the whole Bible in mind.
2. Revelation says that the restriction is on “the book of this prophecy”, i.e., the book of Revelation itself. Even if you correctly consider that “prophecy” is more than just foretelling, there are parts of the Bible that don’t count as that.
3. If you read them carefully, you’ll see that Deuteronomy and Proverbs do not say anything against saying God’s words in a different way or recontextuallizing them to apply them to a different situation. The problem only comes about if you change the meaning of the message.
4. At least according to both Claude and GPT, the idea of a strict closure didn’t take root until the Reformation (about 1.5 millennia later).
5. A non-strict interpretation fits better with the fact that the story of the Bible is not yet finished. If the story is unfinished then it’s likely that God will do more works which ought to be recorded. For example, it would probably be helpful to the people living through the great tribulation to know what the actual history was that led up to that event.

Can someone explain exactly how this “Trump-proofs” the Federal Reserve? I don’t get it.

I thought someone photoshopped Ryan Stiles of Whose Line Is It Anyway fame into the picture

I’m sure that often times “the economy” is used as an excuse for yacht money, but I don’t like the idea of pretending “the economy” doesn’t also include poor people’s grocery money.