KredeSeraf

joined 1 year ago
[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My condolences. She was a terrible bitch but if you're into that sort of thing.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Always cool to meet someone good with a ouija board.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

22tb emby server. For my home videos and pictures.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago
[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (18 children)

I am super confused by your take here. Liberals who, and let's be clear, regularly push for better if not universal health care (and are the only major party to do so) jerk off big Pharma to you? How exactly do you get to that conclusion?

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound. And I am all for pointing someone on another path. Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn't at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with. I reserve my efforts for people with any level of an open mind. Disagreement can be productive, but only when people engage honestly.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is well known that Paris is perfectly representative of all of France.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I think it's more about the spirit and legitimacy of the disagreement. "I checked the numbers and stuff seems fishy" is very different than "Facebook told me essential oils cure cancer and doctors are lizards harvesting our brains". Discussion with people who are also seeking the truth helps. Denial of a point you don't like because Infowars says otherwise doesn't.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I believe you, random intermet person, actually work in medicine entirely because you didn't spell it "superventricular".

Thanks for saving lives.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That still doesn't address all the issues surrounding it. I am unsure if you are just young and not aware how these things work or terribly naive. But companies will always cut corners to keep profits. Regulation forces a certain level of quality control (ideally). Just letting them do their thing because "it'll eventually get better" is a gateway to absurd amounts of damage. Also, not all technology always gets better. Plenty just get abandoned.

But to circle back, if I get hit by a car tomorrow and all these thinga you think are unimportant are unanswered does that mean I might mot get legal justice or compensation? If there isn't clearly codified law I might not, and you might be callous enough to say you don't care about me. But what about you? What if you got hit by a unmonitored self driving car tomorrow and then told you'd have to go through a long, expensive court battle to determine fault because no one had done it it. So you're in and out of a hospital recovering and draining all of your money on bills both legal and medical to eventually hopefully get compensated for something that wasn't your fault.

That is why people here are asking these questions. Few people actually oppose progress. They just need to know that reasonable precautions are taken for predictable failures.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Sure. But no system is 100% effective and all of their questions are legit and important to answer. If I got hit by one of these tomorrow I want to know the process for fault, compensation and pathway to improvement are all already done not something my accident is going to landmark.

But that being said, I was a licensing examiner for 2 years and quit because they kept making it easier to pass and I was forced to pass so many people who should not be on the road.

I think this idea is sound, but that doesn't mean there aren't things to address around it.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

No. But they are prohibited from political action including financial supoort of a governmental candidate. This is just a way for them to overpay on bibles in order to financially support him with some level of plausible deniability.

view more: next ›