You're not supposed to hurt your friends.

There's probably also a difference in the variety within each dish and the effect it has. "Eating the same thing" is probably better if you eat granola with dark chocolate, cashews, blueberries, and spinach topped with almond milk and banana for breakfast versus a banana for breakfast. The nutrient profile is still always the same and that's not great, but at least the former has different nutrient profiles within it.

Everything about Loblaws just screams "lol fuck you", because they're everywhere and there's nothing you can do about it and they know it. They're a bit like Putin - he knows he's lying, and he knows you know, but he does it anyway with a huge grin on his face as if to mock you. They're even worse than telecom.

I've actually gotten into niche stores like bakeries. I'm not the stop and smell the roses type, but there's nothing like a good loaf of bread. I'm also streamlining my diet, so that helps a lot because you can get the same "whole foods" virtually anywhere and you don't need a thousand fancy packaged branded foods.

K guys, I decided on a one week cycle with only a few perishables. Will update in a while on how it goes.

I'm not a dietitian either, but I am followed by one, and their recommendation for me specifically was to try it and report back with a list of what I ate and whether the Master Plan (TM) stuck. The lack of variation isn't ideal, but in my case, as per their rationale, the potential benefits outweigh the downsides because I tend to default to junk food when my culinary life gets too complicated (she isn't wrong). Granted though, I don't plan to eat the same thing daily, so for someone who's literally on repeat every single day or who already has a very healthy diet, I imagine the recommendation would likely change.

How on earth is TFA too female led? Han Solo, Kylo Ren, Poe... it's not even "female led" let alone "dominantly female", and even if it was that wouldn't make it inherently sexist.

I think there's two subsets of these people.

One subset is actually really smart, book smart even, but just doesn't have a personality that aligns with the format of the education system. Those people tend to do really well in a different environment where they have more intrinsic motivation to succeed. For example, I know someone who didn't do well in school even though he had the ability to because he just didn't really see any reward, so he had no motivation. He went into finance and got through uni and his first few job with flying colors, because there was a reward at the end of the tunnel to pursue.

The other subset just doesn't do well with any sort of "bookish" stuff - math, sciences, finance, engineering, etc. just don't really fly. A lot of them I find feel a bit lost because they feel pressure to find a passion or orient themselves around a career when they just don't have anything that sparks an interest. I find that those people tend to do well when they pursue "active" jobs that don't feel like school. A person I know in this category struggled with school throughout his life, but was really good at working with people and interacting on that emotional plane. He went into social services and now works as a crisis counsellor. Most of the "schooling" was basically just situational training, and the job itself is so intuitive to him. Honestly if he didn't have bills to pay I swear he'd do that job for free. Other people in this category are ok with a job just feeling like work, so any high paying trade tends to work well because they can go to work, do their hours, and then enjoy life.

I'm sure this isn't the biggest thing, but I used to work at a big chain grocery store and "accidentally forget" to scan certain items. Old woman with a food stamp in her hand vs. u/spez-level arrogant billionaire CEO? You pay me $10/hr you fuckers, if you want me to notice the toilet paper in the bottom of the cart you'd better up my pay or help that chick out. I was far from the only one.

The doc "Ivory Tower" really got me interested in alternatives to traditional higher education, i.e. the kind that will get you the same income without $100000000000000000000000000000 in debt compounding at a rate of 100% daily. Fuck colleges man, honestly.

I'm sure everyone has had at least a couple of cases. For me it was when a bank employee performed a cash advance, which I have never, ever consented to in my life, and then claimed I had given her permission to do it. Read: she fucked up and blamed it on me. I requested the contact info of her supervisor, who had the audacity to suggest that it wasn't a large sum of money and I should essentially suck it up. That branch manager got an earful and a half and a phone call from the competition bureau (which was great, because it usually takes multiple complaints for them to take action).

Now this is the Karen-y part. Whenever a company that I'm a regular customer of does something morally wrong (as opposed to a mistake or a less than competent employee), I boycott them until, in my estimation, I've cost them 100x the sum of the initial disputed amount (I have substitute actions for cases that don't have a clear dollar value). In this case I cancelled my credit products with them. My boycott is set to expire (i.e. reach the 100x mark) in February of 2024. The rationale behind this is that if 1% of consumers do it, it'll no longer be worth it for them to continue the practice, and it gives you a satisfying end goal. You can't boycott every company that wrongs you indefinitely - I only have a handful on my permanent blacklist - but I can make my peace with it if I know I've comfortably done my part.

But then everything's all wet. What do I do then?

We have a huge amount of resources for very little effort though. Back in the day you could work your ass off in the field all day, but there was no medical technology to cure illness, no vast swaths of entertainment options, no heating to keep you warm (unless you made a fire), and no hamburger that could be delivered to your door with the touch of a button. If you could not starve, lose a toe to frostbite, or die during childbirth, you were doing pretty well.

Right now you've probably never had to deal with hunger - even those under the poverty line can sustain a nutritionally decent diet (albeit an insanely boring one) in the developed world, your life expectancy is somewhere between 75 and 90, the water you drink is clean, there are no soldiers looking to skin you to death, and you're lying on a fluffy mattress stuffing popcorn into your face. If you're an average person, you probably have access to luxuries that were completely inaccessible just a few generations ago, and your working conditions are far better even if you find them boring.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the suffering you might argue exists is preventable. You're not obligated to eat unhealthy foods, watch crummy netflix movies all day, have children (well, unless an old white dude decided otherwise), smoke, etc. The balance of individual choice vs. external influence is debatable, but certainly preferable to having no choice at all.

Why could "getting you" not be a person's most important to-do item? Would Putin not benefit greatly from getting Zelensky? Would the person up for a promotion not benefit from sabotaging their competition? Would a drug lord not benefit if his competition accidentally slipped and fell and died? There are so many instances in which a person would very logically (not to mention emotionally) benefit from targeting you personally - that's basically the foundation of politics and resource distribution.

You can also ask an adjacent question, which is whether we should attempt to continue to exist as a species. My personal take would be a hard no - I think it would be preferable to seek to end our species within the next few generations - but some would argue that we should attempt to colonize space and maximize our presence.

The maximum level is the level at which a) the average sentient being of that generation can be expected to live a net positive life, b) the addition of another does not reduce the positivity of other lives, and c) the individual being itself would live a net positive life. What is considered a net positive is its own question since pleasure exceeding suffering is subjective, but there's a strong argument to be made that there is an increasing net negative, and that's not nearly limited to the climate change argument (in fact that's probably one of the weaker angles one can take).

You can also go sliding scale, though you'd have to compete with the eugenics argument (which is possible), and say that some children are worth bringing into the world and others are not. For example, huge net negatives would be someone who sucks up so many resources that they make the average human life worse or someone whose circumstances make them far more likely to live a qualitatively poor life.

I also lost weight, mostly out of stubbornness. We were sitting at the dinner table and people were making fun of my "mathleticism", I responded by jokingly saying that I could be super athletic if I chose to, and my sister then said she'd give me $1000 if I ever became "athletic". She still hasn't paid me. They still make fun of me, except now for going "from mathlete to athlete". So really I didn't accomplish much.

I'll contribute mine: I'm pro-extinctionism. In basic terms, I think it would be preferable for our species to slowly start to pack up shop.

That's an interesting thought experiment.

That's a political view though, not a philosophical one, unless it has a philosophical underpinning.

"He's so gay" was far less frowned upon in 2003. Shit changes.

Eating factory farmed meat. With the way politics is headed there will be some politician at some point in the future trying desperately to defend his high beef consumption in what will become known as Burgergate.

Also, islamophobia in the context of defending religious nutjobs. For instance, it is islamophobic to complain about a muslim (Sikh, in reality) man at an airport because he "looks like a terrorist". It is not islamophobic to suggest that female students should be allowed in public schools just like male students. Both of these things have actually happened, very recently, and the latter was defended because people were scared shitless of being called islamophobic. We have to have some minimum human rights standards that religion cannot interfere with, and blatant sex-based discrimination is one of them. I do not give a flying fuck what your religion teaches you.

No, it's not just the taxes, though that's obviously a component of it. A quick google search will lead you to find that they are obligated by law to directly contribute to Russia's military efforts by registering its draft-eligible staff, turning over information relevant to the war, assisting in the delivery of military equipment, and providing physical infrastructure, among other things.

Ukrainian or not, this isn't just "oh well you're kind of indirectly supporting the war by funding the government". It is a very direct form of involvement.

Frankly that's an excuse, and a lazy one at that. Ethical products are widely available outside of the US, and I say this as a digital nomad who has lived on three continents and lived in the US for less than a year in total. If the inconvenience is unbearable for you then that's your prerogative, but don't try to justify it by saying things that simply aren't true and thereby discouraging others.

These are pretty common products. There are tons of ethical alternatives, in fact personal care items are among the easiest and cheapest products to find ethical alternatives for and a good starting point if you want to develop more ethical consumption habits. You don't need to make your own soap in order to avoid sponsoring genocide.

You're definitely right on the cyclic thing - you can get a lot of stuff for free or close to it. It always used to blow my mind that parents would pay actual money for baby clothes. Like... there are SO many second hand ones out there, and they're going to grow out of it in a month.

Ouch, that sucks. I only had a handful of things from my dad when he died and that was already too much, especially the sentimental stuff. I allow myself a small box of trinkets, but if I'm honest I hate sentimentality and the fact that I would be upset if I lost those items even though it's completely irrational. Having to deal with a whole lifetime's worth of stuff would be overwhelming. I wouldn't even know where to start. Every dress that hasn't been worn in 20 years and box of random papers that are damn near impossible to trace. Luckily I have some packrat siblings who I'm sure will scoop up a lot, but I dread having to clean up shop when my mom dies.

Not judging or anything, but this is one of the many reasons why I'd never have kids. A lot of people just have kids because they're on autopilot in their lives, and then all of a sudden they realize it's completely incompatible with their lifestyle. I think that contributes to the popularity of being child free within minimalist circles. I grew up with younger siblings and can remember moving with them a few times, and the physical volume of stuff that such a tiny human needs is crazy, as is the immense marketing pressure on parents to buy stupid shit. It's super predatory to see companies pressure parents into buying the most expensive car seat because otherwise their baby won't be as safe. They can fuck off. Imagine gatekeeping safety, real or imagined, based so directly on money.

Why on earth would anyone oppose this? The only people who gain are companies who are ok with distracting you so that you pay attention to their commercial.

I quit meat and it was similarly amazing for my budget.

Marry me

If that happens I'm going to see it as an opportunity to go no-social media for a year. I've done this with other things, for example not buying clothes for a year, and my habits have changed permanently with each exercise. I'm convinced that if you can do it for a year, it starts to become part of the fabric of who you are, and if that's preferable you're unlikely to backslide.

It depends on the growth curve. Right now it's exponential, which means it will keep growing. When you see it stay linear for a while, it'll probably start to flatten. At that point, it's either big enough to stick or it's not.

I use Sygic to figure out what I'm going to do there, it's such an underrated app. It gives you an idea o how long things are going to take and where your accommodation is relative to everything else and what your dates look like on a calendar. The logistics I physically draw out and write down on paper because otherwise it would be too complicated. I also have a very strong tendency to "wing it", so planning beforehand is necessary to counterbalance that.

Unfortunately that's on lemmy.ml, which as the mod has already acknowledged, really limits how far they can go. I agree that it kind of sucks, and a huge migration like this is never going to go perfectly, but I'd much rather get it right and have a viable community than not create one at all. I'm happy to make them a mod though so that they can administer both, I'm not trying to "compete" with them or anything like that, in fact I'd much rather not have to put the work in all by myself.

Yeah, that's the point.

As the name suggests, it's for digital nomads - people who work online and generally live abroad or hop around.

Don't worry, I'm sure spez is on it.

I highly doubt this is anything but a sad attempt at getting some good PR. We've seen other big mods suspended supposedly permanently who suddenly negotiated their way out of it. Reddit has no reason to lose such a great employee, if they did this person would have been banned years ago.