KombatWombat

Of course they change over time. But that already happens in every other civ game. You gain and lose territory by settling, war, and diplomacy. You build infrastructure and wonders. You develop technologically and culturally. But changing everything in one turn rollover is both unrealistic and disruptive in gameplay.

People just use religion to mean a popular idea now I guess. The invisible hand is an abstraction of general observed trends. It's a metaphor. Unlike gods, no one thinks it exists in a literal sense, and to say it doesn't exist figuratively would be absurd. Anyone can acknowledge a society's needs can sometimes be met by someone with a profit incentive. You don't have to think that's a good way to address them to admit that the selfish interest and the collective interest can align. I don't know how society could function at all if this wasn't the case.

And who ever said growth could be infinite? A basic idea of microeconomics is that marginal profit decreases with increased production until it inevitably becomes negative. Capitalism, like all economic models, is a proposed way of managing scarce resources efficiently.

People may be over-enthusiastic about these things I guess, but that doesn't make them religious any more than someone being keenly interested in model trains makes them some sort of zealot. These comparisons are really forced and relies on intentional mischaracterization which serves no one.

Saying something obviously fake like "it's always been my dream to work here" is a bad idea, unless it's a prestigious company where that could be true. The question is actually a good opportunity for the candidate to show off something if they want to, without being too awkward if they don't.

You can say you've done research into the company online and are impressed by the work-life balance/leadership/worker loyalty/innovation. Sincere interest is not only flattering, it also makes you look thorough and driven. You can say you were recommended to apply by someone you know who has a connection. You can also give them some idea of what you are expecting, which can potentially save time if it's not actually what they are offering. I had a friend get redirected to applying to a better position than what had been listed like this.

And if you truly are not a good fit, you can actually address that your previous experience doesn't directly apply by saying something like "I'm looking for a change" rather than trying to dance around it for the entire interview. If your interviewer has any familiarity with the role, you won't be able to trick them into thinking unrelated experience makes you well-qualified. And when that's the case, acknowledging it early makes it much less awkward by establishing expectations appropriately. Basically, you have to be careful to limit your lies to things you can actually sell.

Obviously you shouldn't cancel on someone because something more interesting came along. But I would say telling them that's the reason is worse than just not giving one or making up something.

I read a book a while back called "The Courage to be Disliked". That title could be used for some manosphere nonsense but it was instead an overall positive book about determining your self-worth based on your own honest evaluation of yourself, with the goal of improving things that you otherwise make excuses for. It was helpful to me as someone who's been a people pleaser with low confidence. Hearing that mantra reminds me of it. I think it's certainly not universally applicable, but it can be good advice for the right person.

It shows they have that one thing in common, and that's all.

During a stream, his dog moved off the platform she was supposed to stay in. Hasan told her to stop and reached for something off screen, followed by her flinching with a loud yelp. So it looked like he shocked her, and since Hasan is a popular streamer people made a lot of memes about it. I don't watch Hasan, but she had apparently been laying there for 4 hours.

I don't know if it was ever truly confirmed but I believe he did it. Hasan denied it and showed the collar the next day, claiming it was a "vibration" collar instead. But others claimed it was a shock collar that had had its prongs removed. And later he said that she wasn't even wearing the collar, despite that contradicting his previous statement and it being on video.

I want to slap a [citation needed] on so many of these things. They're just saying nonsense as fact with no explanation. I want to dispute it but it takes so much more energy to disprove a bad faith claim than it does to create one.

Which suggests emitting a sound is not a good way of distinguishing between them. No one is defining sentience as the ability to emit sound, and no one is saying vegans use sound to determine what they eat. It's really not relevant to the discussion.

The vegan's argument isn't valid, but it's on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn't sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the "name the trait" argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.

The carnivore's argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.

Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.

A version that's a bit easier to read