In the past my wrists used to hurt, my father had carpal tunnel and I didn’t want to risk it, so I switched to a keyboard centric WM and switched to a trackball. I haven’t experienced wrist pain in years, although I think it might be mostly related to the keyboard centric WM since I went back to a mouse for gaming a while back and when my trackball broke I didn’t bother getting a new one.

That being said trackballs are amazing for working on limited spaces or soft surfaces (e.g. a couch or bed), once I’ve gotten used to it I could work on the sofa just as efficiently as I would on a desk without extra monitors, but now my desk has two large monitors and plenty of space for the mouse, so it’s less of an issue.

There are a few misconceptions in your logic.

1. Force is required to rape
2. Erections are controllable

Both of them are easy to disprove, but not obvious at first sight.

For 1 consider any case where a woman might have power (not physical) over a man, e.g. blackmail, teacher, parole officer, boss, etc. Another possibility to remember are weapons or physical threats to a third party. Also you should remember that humans have a fight/flight/freeze response, so a third of humans would just freeze regardless of being able to overpower their attacker. Finally there’s also the possibility of even without any threat, even being able to think properly, and knowing that he could physically overpower a female attacker, a man might not do it for fear of legal or moral repercussions, e.g. being thought not to hit girls or believing that no one would believe that he was defending himself. In fact lots of women who get raped don’t try to fight back or escape, believing (sometimes accurately) that their attacker would worsen the offense if they did that, e.g. by killing them (even if no threat was made), it’s not uncommon for rape victims to feel ashamed and guilt about not having fought back, and by saying that men can’t get raped because they could theoretically overpower their attacker you’re indirectly saying that any woman who doesn’t fight back with all her might is not being raped either, because they could have overpowered their attacker of they tried.

For 2, erections (and even ejaculation) are physical responses, in fact you can make a corpse get a hard on and cum (some wives do it to preserve their husbands sperm). This is no different from women getting wet or having orgasms while being raped (both of which are common), it means nothing, it’s just a physical reaction to a physical stimulus. In fact lots of victims (both men and women), especially those in abusive relationships think they deserve that because of those physiological reactions. To put it in simpler terms, saying a men can’t be raped because if they got an erection it means they wanted it is like saying that people can’t be stabbed because if they bled is because they wanted the knife.

There are two important quotes I would like to point out from that paper:

It is certainly clear that hand washing can reduce the risk of infections (39). However, the deposition of potentially pathogenic bacteria on the hands after hand washing to remove transient floras reduces the effectiveness of hand washing

Note the wording: “reduces effectiveness” means you should still do it, it is still effective, just less so.

These results did not differ significantly from those for bacterial colonies deposited by hand dryers from the same bathrooms when calculations of the colonies deposited by hand dryers and small fans were corrected for the times for air exposure and rates of airflow from these two sources

In other words: moving the air around is the cause, so a bathroom with paper towels that also has an air conditioner or fan will produce similar results. You know what else moves air around similar to a small fan? You when walking around, your hands are moving air and contacting lots of it.

I could reply with a study that finds air dryers to be safer and filter more bacteria, and we could go back and forth until one of us grows tired. Instead I’ll leave you with a review of several papers published on the matter where you can see that it’s not so clear cut, there is discussion around it and it doesn’t help that the vast majority of papers out there are financed by either paper companies or air drying companies (btw, kudos for citing one of the independently financed studies)

https://academic.oup.com/jambio/article/130/1/25/6726080

If you don’t want to read this, the long story short is that we don’t have enough evidence to conclude whether they are more or less hygienic:

The second question we sought to answer is ‘Are PT safer than hand dryers relative to human infection risks?’ We found no data to support any human health claims relative to hand dryers vs PT use.

And finally I leave you with another quote from this paper:

Of notable importance is the need to evaluate risks from hand‐drying activities in consideration of handwashing scenarios, given that the greatest uncertainty in hand contamination is associated with the handwashing method, and not the drying method.

In short: not washing your hands is worse than any drying method.

So you only trust science sometimes? There are contradictions on whether air dryers are more or less hygienic than paper towels. But there’s no contradictions on whether you should wash your hands.

I bet you also refused to use masks because you couldn’t breathe.

Major Tom’s a junkie

I used to always want this wish until I adopted a dog under very specific circumstances (We were coming back from the mall and the car in front of us ran over him and kept going, we stopped, grabbed him and took him to the vet). Since then I always think that if I ever get to ask this wish it needs to be back to a moment where I had already rescued him, otherwise those very specific conditions might never happen. So I can completely understand someone with kids thinking the same way, that is a LOT more impossible to match the conditions.

That’s exactly what I thought of while reading that answer.

I know how Valve’s publisher API works, others are similar in case you didn’t know. But that is only true for games that need online validation of some sort, DLCs for offline games don’t need to implement this.

Valve is hosting the game, providing the storefront and bringing in a lot of customers. If you didn’t think those 30% were worth it you would not have put your game on steam.

Plus all of this is irrelevant to the point that Valve doesn’t enforce price parity.

They don’t. The thing most people who have never published a game on steam don’t know is that valve gives you infinite steam keys (for free) that you can give or sell as you wish. This is to allow studios/publishers to give keys to whoever they want, and also allows them to sell those keys on their own or third-party websites. This is a HUGE deal, Valve is letting studios/publishers sell games on a separate site without charging anything while hosting the game themselves. The only condition to those keys is that they can’t be sold cheaper than on Steam.

That’s a completely different thing from what you’re claiming. This means that games can be cheaper on GoG, Epic, etc as long as they don’t give you a steam key together (which they could, for free).

Yes, if Valve limited the price games could have in other stores that would be anti-competitive, but that’s not the case. Their price parity clause is just for selling steam keys.

Steam also enforce a strict key price parity.

No it doesn’t. The price parity thing is only if you are selling the game on Steam platform, i.e. selling a steam key, it’s essentially a way to allow publishers to sell the game on their own website, without paying the 30% to steam, but don’t allow them to undercut steam entirely while still taking advantage of their platform.

Games on GoG, itch, Epic store, etc, can have any price they want, as long as they don’t give away a steam key valve doesn’t care what price you sell your game elsewhere.

This is one of the most annoying fake news out there, Valve are going above and beyond what any other store is doing, and they get bad rep from people who have never read their policy, published a game there, or talked to anyone who has.

For automating things you know it’s useful, I would be weary about using it to learn new stuff.

If it gives you a correct answer: you learn nothing, since you can rely on it to do it.

If it gives you a completely wrong answer: you learn nothing, have to do the work again, and risk learning the wrong stuff.

If it gives you a slightly wrong answer: you learn wrong, and don’t understand that you learned wrong, you might keep using it and keep producing wrong stuff or reproduce what you learned and reproduce wrong things.

So I wouldn’t use it to learn.

Because you vote that the government shouldn’t help the poor. Whatever you do on your own personal scale is meaningless compared to the impact that could be caused if you voted to have the government do the helping.

As to why you hold such contradictions in your mind, I don’t know, maybe you feel guilty about depriving the poor of healthcare and education that you try to make out for it? Maybe you are a good person with good intentions who never really thought that whatever help a single person can give is meaningless on the large scheme of what the government could give so you think you are helping by serving soup to the people you deny healthcare, or maybe you’re just an egoistic bastard who likes to see people in misery to feel better so you vote for them to be miserable and you do volunteer work to be near them. I don’t know, I’m not in your head, but your political views directly contradict your thoughts, if you think people deserve help when they’re vulnerable you’re left leaning.

This is the exact answer I was going to write, it’s an awesome technology, and sometimes I’m cooking or doing something random and thinking that if I had a neural interface with my computer I could keep doing what I was doing, or taking notes or anything which would be great… But there’s no way in hell I’m going to trust any of the companies that could produce this, and I doubt that even if one came out soon there would be a viable open source alternative any time in my lifetime.

If anyone thinks we’re just crazy open source guys, consider that both Adobe and Microsoft just changed their terms to include owning essentially anything you do inside their platform to train AIs.

I’m not insulting you, but thinking that facts are always knowledgeable is a childish vision of the world.

You put quotes around expert because you know they weren’t, actual experts were saying vaccines did not cause autism. Let me ask you then, how do YOU know that vaccines don’t cause autism? Because to me the answer is simple, I’ve listened to the consensus of the experts, but to you that’s a fallacy.

Facts are not always knowledgeable, authority in a field gives one credibility over the facts they claim.

The thing is that facts are not as clear cut as you think, that’s a very childish vision of the world (to think that it is always possible to differentiate a fact, don’t believe me? What am I wearing now? There is a factual answer, but you have no way of knowing it)

Plus if Neil deGrasse Tyson claims something about astrophysics and you claim he’s wrong, you better have at least someone as knowledgeable as him in astrophysics to back that claim, otherwise I’m siding with the expert on the matter.

Plus all discussions rely on the backing of experts, otherwise any discussion is impossible, I could just claim your argument is wrong because some word you used means the opposite of what you meant, your only counter argument would be to point to a dictionary, which is by your own definition an appeal to authority fallacy.

That’s a common mistake, an argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority in the field. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson on political views is an argument from authority, quoting him on astrophysics is not.

I know the point of your answer was not to dwell on these things, but:

And what would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?

Is actually very interesting, would’ve we designed it as a normal chair but we would rest our chests instead of backs? Or would they have a place to rest the legs instead of on the floor?

Let me preface this by saying that I’m a man and I too would choose the bear.

That being said the statistics you shared are not an apples to apples comparison because humans are more often in touch with humans than with bears, so the fact that we get attacked way less by bears than by other humans is to be expected even if bears were the most violent aggressors out there. To kind of put it in perspective think about the opposite, how many times have you been close to a human and the human hasn’t attacked you, then compare that to encounters with bears and it quickly becomes obvious that an encounter with a bear is statistically a lot more dangerous than an encounter with a human, because people meet with hundred if not thousands of humans on a daily basis, and only get attacked by one of them periodically, whereas if humans were encountering hundreds or thousands of bears daily the number of attacks would be way higher.

Which is not to say that you shouldn’t choose the bear, like I said before I would choose the bear, but the reason for me is that bears are likely to be more predictable, if a bear decides to attack me I’m fucked, if a human decides to attack me I have a chance of survival, but the likelihood that the bear would attack me is easy to calculate, as long as I’m not threatening him and he has some food, we should be good. on the other hand the likelihood that the human will attack me is completely random, some people will have a 0% chance, while others will have a 100%. So it’s like asking would you prefer to play Russian roulette with the normal rules (1 bullet) or with a random 0-6 bullets? I personally would go for the 1 bullet, because while I can get 0 bullets on the other way I might also get 6 bullets.