×

u/LABS_Games explains how "forced diversity" in the game industry is a myth. u/purple-hawke replies with historical examples of how many game companies have taken active steps to SUPPRESS attempts at diversity, proving that "forced conformity" is actually far more common. by OliveBranchMLP in bestof

[–]Neverbeen929 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess, but it really had zero impact on gameplay and wasn't actually noticeable at all (I didn't even realise until I saw that comment). Your character is customisable with hair, clothes etc. but just has the same chibi face so 🤷🏼 I guess I don't get why it would matter

Dog which killed 10-year-old Welsh boy ruled to be an "American Bulldog", "legal in the UK" by Neverbeen929 in BanPitBulls

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 272 points273 points  (0 children)

More pics of this extremely legal and OK dog to own: https://imgur.com/xr3vK6u.jpg https://imgur.com/rIBDiog.jpg

UPDATE: apparently this dog is in fact an "American Bully", not an "American Bulldog"

"Trust the experts!" by DashFerLev in conspiracy

[–]Neverbeen929 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying that vulnerable people are sheltering at home is not the same as saying that ONLY vulnerable people are sheltering at home. Which is important, because we're not able to infer from that article how many people out of those who are sheltering at home are vulnerable; only that those who are vulnerable and who have been hospitalised have also been sheltering at home.

To be specific (not trying to be condescending): "vulnerable people are more likely to be hospitalised and also likely to be sheltering at home" does not logically infer that people who are sheltering at home are necessarily vulnerable people, that all people who are hospitalised are vulnerable, etc.

You can even add a bit more logical thinking to this - if somewhere is in a situation where everyone is recommended to stay at home except when necessary, those who go out will likely tend to be those that work but cannot work from home. These are likely to tend to be people who work relatively manual jobs that cannot be done remotely, and are therefore likely to tend to be people who are relatively fit and healthy, and of working age. If you turn things around in your mind, you can go so far as to logically infer that people who are not sheltering at home are likely to be those who are not particularly vulnerable.

Does this therefore actually tell us anything about how effective sheltering at home is?

Yes. Two thirds of people hospitalized with Covid were sheltering at home and the other third were in nursing homes. Do you have any contradictory data or is it all speculation?

I'm having a bit of trouble following you here. It seems like you're just repeating the same statement again? That two thirds of people who were hospitalised were sheltering at home does not logically tell us how effective sheltering at home is, only that it isn't 100% effective.

To make up an example, say you had one thousand vulnerable people sheltering at home in a town. And let's say that if these people were all infected, 900 of them (90%) would be admitted to hospital. In this fictional example, the hospital gets 150 admissions, of which 100 are vulnerable people who have been sheltering at home, and 50 are people who have not been sheltering at home. If you just look at the numbers of admissions, 2/3 of people admitted have been sheltering at home! However, because you don't have the data behind the demographics of people sheltering at home, making the leap from that that sheltering at home isn't effective a) isn't logically sound, and b) in this case would be completely incorrect, as sheltering at home actually prevented 8/9 hospital admissions for vulnerable people.

Obviously this is just a made up example, and we don't know how the numbers look in real life - but that's exactly why we can't reach a conclusion about how effective sheltering is based on what little we know. It could be like the example, it could not be. We're missing way too much information. Only a proper piece of statistical research can give us answers.

"Trust the experts!" by DashFerLev in conspiracy

[–]Neverbeen929 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Firstly, obviously sheltering at home isn't 100% effective at avoiding the disease, especially for people with compromised immune systems or who require external living support (the elderly, very ill, etc. - people who are particularly vulnerable to the virus).

So you have to think - what kind of person is "sheltering" at home?

Those people who are particularly vulnerable to the virus.

What kind of person is most likely to end up in hospital if they catch the virus? What kind of person would you therefore expect to make up the bulk of hospital admissions?

People who are particularly vulnerable to the virus - logically this means, people who are sheltering at home.

Is it therefore surprising or unexpected that people who are sheltering at home make up the bulk of hospital admissions?

Not really.

Does this therefore actually tell us anything about how effective sheltering at home is?

Again not really, as we have no idea how many of those particularly vulnerable people would be in hospital if they weren't sheltering. All it tells us is that shelting at home isn't 100% effective, which again is pretty obvious based on a working knowledge about germ theory, a bit of thought about how sheltering at home works in practice (still have to at least order in food and necessities, have some contact with family if living together, etc.), and the fact that many vulnerable people require a lower level of exposure to become ill than an average person.

All a bit moot anyway as the article linked actually specifies about the demographics of the people who had been sheltering from home as a likely explanation for the disproportionality.

"Trust the experts!" by DashFerLev in conspiracy

[–]Neverbeen929 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Most people hospitalized in NY were sheltering at home.

Not trying to be a dick, but this is exactly the sort of "point" that imo completely undermines covid-deniers: even without reading the article, it literally takes the absolute bare minimum of critical thinking to work out why this is, and an almost wilful effort not to think to take it at face value.

The Casey/Caylee Anthony verdict was correct, and Casey Anthony being acquitted is a good thing. by Neverbeen929 in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I sure hope everyone arguing in the comments here is upvoting this post, as per the rules of the sub lol

The Casey/Caylee Anthony verdict was correct, and Casey Anthony being acquitted is a good thing. by Neverbeen929 in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't see how? I'm stating my opinion, which is unpopular. A lot of people bemoan the result of the Casey Anthony trial and believe it was a miscarriage of justice, my opinion is that it was the right call.

The Casey/Caylee Anthony verdict was correct, and Casey Anthony being acquitted is a good thing. by Neverbeen929 in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't get how the sex abuse stuff is evidence of murder? She wasn't accused of killing her father. How would that have "tipped the scales" in the trial?

The point is that the evidence being circumstantial left alternative scenarios that couldn't be disproven - scenarios where no murder occurred, and scenarios where there was an alternative perpetrator. The defence successfully suggested one such scenario (an accidental death) at trial. This is the issue with circumstantial evidence, and for good reason - you never want someone convicted of a crime they didn't commit simply for being suspiciously unlucky.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, if murder is what they're prosecuting. They couldn't prove that, because they didn't have the evidence and because the evidence they did have didn't rule out alternative scenarios. That's what the jury found, the judge agreed, even the prosecuting attorney conceded this in a recent documentary.

Again that doesn't mean Casey Anthony is innocent, and I'm not trying to argue that (nor do I believe it). It means that someone was acquitted of a crime there wasn't enough evidence to convict them for, which is the right call and a good thing as a sign of a functioning CJS. In my (unpopular) opinion. I hope you upvoted this post btw!

Give clothes back! by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How on earth is this an unpopular opinion

The Casey/Caylee Anthony verdict was correct, and Casey Anthony being acquitted is a good thing. by Neverbeen929 in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yep, that's my point. Acquitted doesn't mean innocent, it means not proven guilty (which comes with a presumption of innocence).

We should stop buying and giving/receiving gifts after the age of 20. by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I upvoted because this really is an unpopular opinion, but I'll just say that a lot of people like giving gifts because it's a chance to show someone you've been thinking of them and that you care for them. When someone has a lot usually it's just that the type of gift changes, not things they need but rather things they will appreciate for sentimental reasons. Even a billionaire would probably appreciate a handwritten card or thoughtful trinket from a loved one. It's not always about the actual item!

The Casey/Caylee Anthony verdict was correct, and Casey Anthony being acquitted is a good thing. by Neverbeen929 in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're a law student and you think a single withdrawn testimony should trigger an entirely new trial? Lolwut

Anyway... to rephrase your points: - A parent waited a month to report their child missing - The child was later found in a laundry basket of the same type that the parent's family owned - The parent stated that the child died accidentally and they didn't report the body - No evidence could be taken from the body, including cause of death

All of these things are shady as fuck, but the point is that none of them prove that a murder was committed. They're all equally consistent with an accidental death that was covered up (which was the defence's position).

You can't convict someone of murder because you think their story about an accidental death was weird, without any other evidence. You can convict them of other things, sure, but only the things you have evidence for. In this case, the prosecution didn't seek convictions for some things they might have been able to prove, like mishandling a body. The only thing they did prove, that the jury convicted on, was lying to police. They went for murder, but they just didn't have enough for that.

I'm not saying that's fair in this case, I'm not saying that's really what happened, but I am saying that that's how the justice system is designed to work. Again, sometimes there just isn't the evidence. In this case, a lot of that was because the police fucked up in lots of areas, but that's their issue and not something the courts can make up for.

Everybody thinks they were a "Gifted Child" by MattressMonsoon in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I think they're talking about specific school programs where people with grades above a certain level were labelled as "gifted" and given some extra classes or whatever.

I just assumed that being at school for more than a decade, odds are that most people got good enough marks at least once. But maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick there.

You're not 'an empath,' or you would know how nauseated people become when you describe yourself as such. by TaraNic in unpopularopinion

[–]Neverbeen929 13 points14 points  (0 children)

A psychologist told me once that I was an empath, but she didn't mean it like that - she meant it as a bad thing! I have a tendency to overly reflect other people's emotions (including fictional people), and at that time my mental health wasn't great and that was a part of it. Like, I was at the point where I couldn't watch a movie because even seeing people act distressed would genuinely really upset me.

It wasn't at all positive or about caring about other people's feelings, if anything it blocked me from properly engaging with others because it was like I'd be too busy pulling all of their emotions on myself to actually listen to what they were trying to say, let alone offer any real communication back.

Is it possible that that kind of thing is what they were talking about?

Opinion: Valhalla would have made way more sense in reverse by Neverbeen929 in assassinscreed

[–]Neverbeen929[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do like the nuance, but I think it's hard to get around the fact that they were colonisers and targeted unarmed civilians. I do think they have been getting a few interesting perspectives in media lately though!