Yeah, it’s rich and fatty, which makes it more suitable than a carrot for a sandwich. But the flavour in its own isn’t hugely interesting to me, but with lime or chilli or something tangy the creamy texture works wonders.

I’m not a fan of that change, but I don’t really see it as an attempt to be more ‘politically correct’.

Han Solo was going to marry Leia, and you look back and say, “Should he be a cold-blooded killer?” Because I was thinking mythologically—should he be a cowboy, should he be John Wayne? And I said, “Yeah, he should be John Wayne.” And when you’re John Wayne, you don’t shoot people [first]—you let them have the first shot. It’s a mythological reality that we hope our society pays attention to."

I think Lucas is wrong, because even if he shoots first Han is being threatened with kidnap and death, so he’s not a cold-blooded murderer to shoot the guy threatening him. But unless we’re rolling all ideas of heroism and morality into woke/PC then I don’t think that example works at all.

Not only is it distracting and disgusting, but it starts normalising ads everywhere. Cigarettes were digitally removed so as to not set a bad example for kids. But letting them think that it’s perfectly normal to have glowing ads decorating the walls of your workplace is fiiiine.

What movie dialogue did they edit?

Here’s something from 2025 and it’s even better, because AI!

Its definitely just proof of concept for now, but it seems a grim, if inevitable, step in the war of ads vs adblockers.

My conclusion was that raising minimum wage gave people more money to spend (obvs), and although it could be linked to some increase in inflation, that that cost was borne over the wider economy, so those on MW still saw an meaningful increase in real terms spending power. The evidence for MW rises causing unemployment were mixed, but meta-regression analysis showed that there was significant publication bias in MW studies (preferring those that showed MW raised unemployment) and once that was accounted for, MW was neutral on unemployment. Apart, perhaps for a small effect on teenagers.

But it was a few years back that I had to look in to that, and the studies themselves are often focussed on data from decades earlier. And that’s the problem with a lot of economic research claims, while it is helpful to examine historical patterns and learn from them, it isn’t easy to isolate the confounding factors and get to some general law. I feel it’s closer to history than physics (despite the aspirations of some economists), you can learn from the past, but current society will be different in significant ways that might make things play out quite differently.

Funny meme, and natural part of human nature. But, while disregarding information that doesn’t agree with your worldview can be bad, the reason it’s a intrinsic bias is because most people are right about most things in their everyday life. If a stranger tells you that you owe them 20$, you’re probably going to trust your gut that you don’t, rather than start looking for evidence. Obviously, that breaks down when it’s about anything abstract or complex, and there when we get science involved.

But if you’re somewhat experienced and well read in a scientific area, you develop the same confidence in your understanding that leads you to dismiss some findings as unlikely. This can be bad, and one of things slowing scientific progress (see Planck’s principle), but it’s also a useful heuristic. If you’ve read enough economics papers, you develop a reasonable bullshit detector. Not that the research on the wealth tax you referred to is necessarily bad, but it’s going to be using a model or drawing conclusions from some related data, in ways that (I suspect) would not convince me if I read it. Once you’ve read 30 articles showing that raising minimal wage cuts real spending power vs 30 that show it doesn’t, you see how ‘good economic research practice’ can lead people to very different conclusions.

Yeah, given that that account got deleted not long after that (if it’s the one I’m thinking of) then it quite probably was a bot…

Looking at this data Norway seems to have low levels of economic inequality, low rates of poverty, and a high median disposable income (behind Luxembourg but around that of France and Austria).

Its far from perfect, but I imagine social inequality for stuff like gender and race is pretty low, officially speaking at least. I get the feeling that Scandinavians can be a big negative about foreigners, but I have zero firsthand knowledge on that.

Think he looks pretty good!

They’re already paying for fossil fuels (7$ trillion worldwide)

Glad that you’re a human! The worst part about the rise in bot posts is that it creates an atmosphere of distrust. The fact that you’ve commented, and hopefully don’t delete your account in a few hours, is very reassuring.

I still think someone going to jail for posting a meme is beyond mildlyinfuriating. But that’s a matter of opinion.

This is more than mildlyinfuriating. Also, this new account has posted ten times in its first hour. Mostly politics.

Given what we’ve seen in the last few weeks about the scale of paid actors using social media to increase tensions and divisions, I’m getting very sick of this kinda behaviour.

I fucking hate CK and the way the American right is using this story to push their agenda. But that doesn’t mean I want to see bots trying using that to reaction to push our buttons.

Wow, that site is unhinged. Also, that article feels like it’s been heavily rewritten by AI, if not pure ai slop. Normally I enjoy crazy paranoid rants about demonic symbolism on cereal boxes, or whatever, but that article was shallow and vacuous.

This account new and suddenly posting a suspicious amount in short time. Possible bot.

In case any non-British are reading this, ‘chav’ is a term used to describe a small subset of British working class people. It used to describe young people with “loutish (ill-mannered) behaviour, violence, and particular speech patterns (all of which are stereotypes)” (Wikipedia.)

It is not a term used to describe the general working class population of Britian.

A survey or poll is different from a vote. You’re right that unless we ask every single person in a group we don’t know precisely how that entire group would answer. But this irrelevant, being able to establish patterns in smaller sample groups and extended them to larger population is one of the the cornerstone of science and knowledge.

An engineer needs to know how much weight a specific size and shape of lumber can safely take. They can’t test the indvidual beam to breaking point and still use it. So they test other similar sized pieces of wood, under similar conditions, and generalise. This can be done well, or done poorly, depending on how well they can isolate confounding effects.

So with a survey, if I just ask 100 people I know, it’s would be a decent survey of the beliefs of my social circle, but it would be a poor survey of national beliefs, because my friends are not a balanced representative sample of the wider population. That’s why most polling / surveying uses methods to try and achieve a sample that is actually representative. When done well, these ensure the survey respondents correspond to the demographics of a population (gender, education, religion, location, health, etc).

Obviously this approach has its limitations, and can be done poorly, but there’s a bunch of research and evidence for what methods help achieve more accurate results. Saying “this poll can’t be accurate because they didn’t ask me” is like saying “I don’t know if the sun will rise tomorrow”. You’re right, we won’t know for sure until we actually see it rise, but we can infer from past events and confidently predict the likely outcome.

If you want to say “this survey isn’t accurate because it uses an older demographic model that has been shown to be ineffective at representing contemporary attitudal choices” or “this survey is inaccurate because it only controls for age, race and gender, but didn’t account for patterns of social media usage which are highly relevant” that’s fine, that’s engaging with the methodology. But if the problem is “they didn’t ask everyone so it’s wrong” it really seems like you don’t know how surveys works.

There’s lots of architectural guidance, building codes, etc. normally linked to number of people in the household. But it’s all pretty damn relative, both culturally and individually.

When I lived in the city, I was pretty comfortable with a small appartment, because I spent a lot of time out of my home in cultural spaces. Now I live in the country, and in city-terms our house is gigantic for just the two of us. Netherthless, we’re continuing to convert old out buildings into more space because the demands on our home are much higher and we have lots of unused space.

Not only do we live there, but we’ve got jobs that involve a lot of remote working, and it’s also a building site/workshop as we renovate and make our own fixtures and furniture. Plus, because it’s more remote, we want guest bedrooms and extra space so that guests can come and stay for a while without feeling cramped. Then we’ve got animals, who bring their own clutter, and we also want to create a guesthouse that we can rent to tourists. Even without those extra requirements, we choose to sleep in adjacent, but seperate, bedrooms because we have sleep issues. And I know that is a crazy luxury that we wouldn’t have been able to afford in the city, but when space is cheap, there’s no real reason not to.

I know that my example is pretty extreme, but everyone’s needs are different. I have friends who basically live in one room and love that, because everything is within easy reach and they don’t want to have guests. But I know it would be depressing and claustrophobic for others. Sharing an apartment with four adult strangers is a different experience from a family home with four children.

I think there can be rules (you can’t claim something is a bedroom if it’s smaller than 6sqm) but there isn’t a one size fits all solution.

I’m assuming you know how surveys work? If you’re genuinely interested in their data sampling methodology, you can easily find it on the website of the company that conducted the survey (who are named on the infographic).

I’m not making any big claims about YouGov and their reliability or freedom from bias, but this isn’t just some random unsourced poll, so props to whoever made the infographic for bothering to include a source.