Exploring diverse perspectives on contentious subjects.

Sharing my honest beliefs, welcoming constructive debates, and embracing the potential for evolving viewpoints. Independent thinker navigating through conversations without allegiance to any particular side.

  • 0 Posts
  • 64 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle



  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyztoFirefox@lemmy.mlOh no youtube
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    While I basically agree with what you’re saying, I’d also like to point out that the money they get from you watching ads is miniscule. I don’t remember which YouTuber it was, maybe Matthias Wandell, who said that if you donate just one dollar, that’s more than they’re ever going to profit from you watching ads.




  • What makes you think he’s short on cash? Wealthy people don’t store their wealth in cash anyways. The money is tied to the stocks of the companies they’re running. That’s why he needed to lend the money for twitter too; he doesn’t have that kind of cash, but people are willing to borrow it to him because of his wealth.

    If you just had read the article you’d see that they have lost 50% of the advertisers and are losing money. This isn’t about wanting more money just for the sake of it. No company can exist if their finances are on the negative.



  • Don’t quote me on this but I believe his thing is what the handle says; knees over toes. It used to be considered to be bad for your joints doing exercises such as deep squats for example, but his belief is that it’s the exact opposite. He used to have really bad knees himself, and couldn’t really play basketball like he wanted to, but by doing these exercises he was able to strenghten his knees to the point they no longer cause issues for him. The main exercise he’s recommending is pulling a sled backwards. He tells about Finnish lumberjacks who used to drag logs backwards like this and how they had super strong knees.










  • No, I see your point, and I agree. These companies are almost guaranteed to cherry-pick those stats, so only a fool would take that as hard evidence. However, I don’t think these stats flat-out lie either. If they show a self-driving car is three times less prone to accidents, I doubt the truth is that humans, in fact, are twice as good. I believe it’s safe to assume that these stats at least point us in the right direction, and that seems to correlate with the little personal experience I have as well. If these systems really sucked as much as the most hardcore AV-skeptics make it seem, I doubt we’d be seeing any of these in use on public roads because the issues would be apparent.

    However, the point I’m trying to highlight here is that I make a claim about AV-safety, and I then provide some stats to back me up. People then come telling me that’s nonsense and list a bunch of personal reasons why they feel so but provide nothing concrete evidence except maybe links to articles about individual accidents. That’s just not the kind of data that’s going to change my mind.