• 1 Post
  • 44 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle




  • I thinknif you’ve lived in Britain that long most people would think of you as British, especially if you have a reasonably British accent. Where I live in Scotland, most people are happy to accept anyone who actually wants to live in Scotland as Scottish!

    Hut there’s always going to be racist idiots. I’ve been told I’m “not really British” just because I’m from Scotland (by someone who obviously doesn’t understand the difference between England and Britain. And I’ve seem the whitest, pure Anglo-Saxon English people being called “not really British” because they wanted to stay in the EU. So, try to ignore the idiots!





  • Sorry, genuinely trying to understand here. So are you saying “in movies, women who have strength of character are also shown as being ‘manly’ (big muscles, punches people, etc). Is that how it really is?”

    If that’s what you’re asking, I don’t think it’s true. Some movies have women of very strong character, who are physically weak, pacifist, etc. And some movies have women that have strong characters and are physically strong, cabable of violence, etc. And some movies have women who are douchey, flawed characters who can be physically strong.

    I’m not sure I see any correlation between strength of character and physical strength, or propensity to violence, for either men or women. It’s more of a genre thing - in action movies men and women are more likely to be physically tough, and in political dramas they’re more likely to be physically weak. And there will be a mix of people with “strong character” and people with flawed or weak characters.


  • Can you explain a bit more about why you feel it is easier to learn how to enjoy being alone than learn to enjoy being in a relationship?

    I defintely struggled with giving up my independence, and still find it hard to be responsible for/to another person. But I finally ended up in a relationship with someone who was also independent and we were in a very casual relationship for five years before we started to admit that we were a couple and another few years before we realised how much we now loved each other. I guess all I’m saying is relationships don’t need to be one way. I have a friend who only dates people who live in other cities / countries, because that way they only see each other occasionally and at pre-arranged times, and that works for them.

    But if you really feel you are happier on your own and it’s just internalised social pressure that makes you want a relationship then you could try developing “singleton pride”. Part of the reason gay people historically got into “gay pride” was to help the overcome their own internalised homophobia, because even if you don’t agree with something you still absorb it in your upbringing and it can be hard to get past it.

    So, you could try directly telling people that you’re single for life and that your happy with that choice. If you’re worried that society will think you’re a failure for not having a relationship then confront that fear immediately and get it out the way. You’ll realise that most people don’t care, some people will actually be on your side, and the people who do actually think worse of you are wrong so you don’t need to care about their opinions. But if you’re not confident enough in your decision to proudly stand behind it, then of course doubts will sink in and you’ll repeat the loop again.


  • Don’t think so! Defintely much heavier and more solid than bbq charcoal. I don’t remember it being very smoky, weird less so than wood fires (which have a distinctive and pleasant smell) or peat fires, which were also common in my region but would trigger my asthma. But possibly it was just that I was used to coal? Maybe someone else would have found it gross?

    Edit: Doing a bit of research, it seems like historically home fires would use bituminous coal, but by the time I was a child it was anthracite coal that was used. Which only releases 20% of the smoke of bituminous coal. But it’s still a fossil fuel, and not charcoal.





  • With the proviso that it depends how you define the scientific method…

    One strength is it gives us a reasonably reliable way to investigate and share information, moving slowly forward with problems even though the people working on them might never meet, or even be alive at the same time.

    A major downside is that (at least most popular versions of the scientific method) are designed to look at population level tendencies. And depending on the design and scale of these studies it can erase genuine differences. Let say we take a 50 people with skin rashes and give them some antifungal cream. For the vast majority of people this doesn’t help, and so our study shows that it’s an ineffective treatment for rashes. If we’d found a group of 50 people with rashes caused fungal infection, it would have been a highly effective treatment. So, if that’s the extent of our knowledge of rash treatments we would dismiss claims that antifungals “really helped me” as quack anecdotes.

    Obviously, this is the process of investigation and refinement that is part of the science. But in the interim period, when working with things that we know we do not fully understand, we have to be careful to not over privilege “scientific evidence”. In a relatively new field, if one approach has “good evidence” and others don’t, this doesn’t mean they are necessarily less effective. They might just be less amenable to experimental designs that allows for their effectiveness to be shown, or they are effective for a specific subgroup that hasn’t been clearly identified yet. (obvs, this is not meant to be taken to say any woowoo bullshit ‘could’ work, but that there’s a whole messy middle between those two extremes.)




  • If you just want to know, without further investigation, that’s going to be very hard. People say a lot of things, and often aren’t clear themselves if it’s something they actually know, or just something they’ve heard. All that’s happened is that something interesting / helpful has popped into their mind and they’ve shared it.

    If you are willing to discuss it, but don’t want to be rude by asking “do you actually know anthing about this?” you can just ask follow up questions, asking for more info / details. That way people who really know can answer, and people who don’t will probably just not answer or say that they just read it somewhere (often they’re not trying to deceive, just sharing something interesting they heard about).

    But as others have said, just be sceptical of stuff you read, especially on the Internet. Lots of people have first had experience of something and still have unhelpful or strange takes on things. People massively over estimate how representative their experiences are, and if you get two experts in a room they’ll pretty soon be disagreeing about something they both know throughly.



  • The article suggests the February update adds these features. If I check for updates on my pw2 it claims to be up-to-date, with January security updates, and none of those features.

    Is this just one of those roll outs where different devices get it at different times? Or is there something I can do to get the latest version. I hate the current app list, felt like a bit step backwards from wear os 3, so I’m glad they’ve changed it.

    Edit: just found that “Tapping the “Your watch is up to date” screen (Settings > System > System updates) multiple times initiates the download”. Worked for me after about a dozen taps!