SourWeasel

joined 1 year ago
[–] SourWeasel 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

…they won't be able to fix the tape even if they close the door when they leave.

Jokes on you, I didn't leave. I just re-tape the door before I hide under people's bed.

[–] SourWeasel 3 points 1 year ago

Actually, I quite like the idea of secretly setting up some pins and rolling the ball down the aisle on a Sunday.

[–] SourWeasel 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds great, but the local bowling alley in my rural redneck town was just sold and converted to a community church. 🫤

[–] SourWeasel 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No hate or downvotes from me, sorry if it seems that way. Perhaps it's my current mood or imagination, but the Lemmy crowd seems a bit more reactionary and prone to strongly worded dismissive comments than Reddit.

I'm also seeing a lot more downvoting of comments here that don't seem all that controversial. I'd rather hear why someone disagrees with a post than the rush to silently downvote, but I can't control that either. People are wound up these days.

[–] SourWeasel 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

…why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?

I repied to you because of your reply to Jake_Farm. Jake_Farm stated:

How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

To which you responded:

It's more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than nicotine alone.

By inference you are claiming that nicotine is more addictive than meth and I'm just pointing out that isn't correct — you can't use tobacco and nicotine interchangeably in discussions, whether talking about addictiveness, harm, or just about any aspect of their short and long terms effects. The addictiveness is drastically different, the cardiovascular effects are vastly different, the effects on lung function are vastly different.

To your credit, the overall conversation is about tobacco and I should have clarified that my point applies to everyone in this conversation who is talking about nicotine and tobacco in the same breath.

[–] SourWeasel 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

To clarify, the addictiveness of nicotine ≠ the addictiveness of tobacco. Even aside from the additives used by the tobacco industry, tobacco naturally contains an array of MAO inhibitors and other compounds that work in harmony with nicotine causing it to be far more addictive than nicotine itself. Pure nicotine is much farther down the scale of addictiveness, classed as a "weak reinforcer" in studies.

If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading the studies and posts by Maryka Quik, director of the Neurodegenerative Diseases Program at SRI International. I first found out about her in an interesting article published in Scientific American — LINK.

[–] SourWeasel 3 points 1 year ago

If the government insists on high rates of taxation for the reason that the product has a high potential for harm, then shouldn't the use of that tax revenue be mostly, if not entirely, re-directed towards harm reduction programs around that substance or product? How can anyone possibly argue any other use for that revenue? When the revenue generated by 'sin taxes' is used for other unrelated purposes, they are effectively exploiting the users by recognizing that they will continue to be a source of revenue because the product is habit forming or addictive. The last time I checked on the revenue generated by tobacco taxes, only ~11% was spent on harm-reduction programs related to tobacco use and the remaining 89% was just paying for other government projects totally unrelated to tobacco.

To suggest that the solution is to further raise the taxation rates rather than properly allocating the current revenue is immoral and illogical IMHO.

[–] SourWeasel 0 points 1 year ago

Your response is baseless and is a ridiculous attempt to maliciously slander my character, don't do that. You claim I'm building an argument in support of flying the Confederate flag or justifying it, I did not and I would not. You clearly are not reading what I wrote or you would have seen that I said I did not agree with flying the flag in my second sentence.

As I've already indicated, the person before me asked for the circumstances that this situation occurred and I feel I provided them with more details about the event. Discussion of an event is in no way condoning what took place and it most definitely does not make me a confederate apologist you blathering fuckwit.

[–] SourWeasel 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not disagreeing with that. They asked for context, I gave it. I think it was dumb as hell and disrespectful to fly it, but it still would be intentional blindness to not see that including the Confederate flag in a historical exhibit is different than some asshole proudly flying it because it reflects his shitty beliefs.

[–] SourWeasel -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My first post on Lemmy, instantly downvoted despite being factually correct. Ahhhh..... feels like Reddit already. Home sweet home. 🏡👨🏻‍🌾

[–] SourWeasel 1 points 1 year ago

As a heavy Docs user, I'm beginning to see lots of odd choices that they don't seem interested in fixing that ultimately result in a somewhat broken product. For example, there are still loads of things that can only be done in Google docs for web, so on an Android device you are forced to try to get a browser to load Docs in desktop mode to make a handful of changes all while fighting the OS trying to move you over the native app that lacks the features you need. I have similar issues with Gmail. Then there are things like Google Home that have the opposite issue, forcing you to move to a mobile device or emulate one on the desktop just to change a few settings.

And in some cases, their web vs. native app mentality makes zero sense to me. They actually built then removed the Google Shopping list Android app and now only have the web version, cause everyone shops with their laptop sitting open in the cart, right? /s I can use the web version on my phone's browser, but then for some reason it wants to arrange my shopping list alphabetically rather than the order I chose that matches the store layout. Wtf? It also previously had clear color photos automatically added for every item that made it much faster to navigate, but they removed them completely without comment.

[–] SourWeasel 4 points 1 year ago

I do kinda miss the new Bing assistant in Edge, that was neat to screw around with for free while I was on that OS

You can use it on other browsers with a little bit of work, changing user agents and things like that.

view more: next ›