Sounds like a great way to evolve vaccine-resistant rabies

Your and his age are gonna be major variables here. Conversations and relationships work very differently at different life stages.

You sound like you're maybe a teenager? Try asking interesting questions that require some thought to answer, but still leave room for your friend to give an easy thoughtless answer if they want to. Where do you think we'll be in X years? What's something you thought you wanted but as you've gotten okay have realised you actually don't? What do you think we do now thar future generations will think is crazy? Listen to his answers and ask followup questions.

Personally, I've always been most impressed by directness, honesty, intelligence and courage.

I very much agree with your take. I wish mature-thinkers had more influence on contemporary politics, instead of the populism and black-and-white moralising that seems to be dominating our world.

Also, the quality of discussion on lemmy is surprisingly good!

Yeah, the point that the musicians seem to be making, from the very brief quotes he shares (I haven't been following this independently), is about the efficacy of music boycotts as a tool for political change. You can object to a nation's political actions and still think that performing music for your fans in that country will make things better.

The author just insists that Israeli government genocide is bad and that the ordinary citizens are complicit. I think the implicit logic must be: bad people should be punished, depriving them of music punishes them. While it might satisfy a craving to hurt the bad guys, I think it's much harder to claim that this would help stop the genocide.

I think the musicians have a stronger case that actually performing would be more likely to change people's minds and improve the situation. Plus the broader benefits of keeping music and art apolitical, rather than trying to make everything in life a tool for political manipulation. I'd have actually been really interested to hear some substantive arguments about those points, but was disappointed to discover that, as you say, it was just a hit piece.

Wow, what a terrible article. The author doesn't engage with any of the substantive points Radiohead and Nick Cave are making, he just disparages them and insists on his obvious moral superiority. It's dressed up in some, admittedly, very nice writing, but this is just childish name calling.

Still, interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Sounds amazing. Could you provide a link or at least enough names that I can google it?

The actual results are in the text. 56% personifiers among autists vs 33% among not autists, p<0.05. Self report is p=0.06.

Scientific papers are often titled "What it's actually about: something witty." This one is about object personification and so after the colon they personify the paper itself by giving it an emotion.

Allow me to introduce: Firefox vim keybindings extensions. So many more shortcuts if you don't need to worry about typing characters in normal mode.

A friend of mine just used it to write a script for an Amazing Race application video. It was quite good.

How the heck did it access enough source material to be able to imitate something that specific and do it well? Are we humans that predictable?

They have a pretty detailed discussion section. The main hypothesis they support, based on plenty of other evidence, is that these drugs increase appetite. They motivate you to eat more calories, even though they contain fewer calories themselves.

What!? That makes no sense.

They saw an association between sweetener intake and change in fat over 25 years. Not relative to the population, relative to their past selves. How would a weight loss tool increasing your body fat over 25 years be obvious?