Pretty sad that providing a better life for children than we had is apparently a controversial opinion.

I take great joy in providing my son a life free of the home life experiences that made my youth hell. It still remains to be seen how well he’ll avoid the pitfalls of social interaction I suffered through, but I do feel like I’m preparing him far better than I ever was.

Posting ragebait articles about a platform because you know users will engage.

Lol irony.

There are posts and threads where people say that they can see images when they close their eyes.

I honestly don’t know if that’s just people not being specific with their words. I mean, “I can see images when I close my eyes” is still an accurate statement for me, even if the images don’t appear unprompted. The idea of unprompted images forming every time I close my eyes is frankly rather terrifying. Closing my eyes is part of my strategy for dealing with over stimulation; if I didn’t have calming dark when I closed my eyes, I think I’d freak the hell out.

For what its worth, I definitely do not have aphantasia, but that first description of closing your eyes and non seeing vivid imagery is nonsense. If I close my eyes, I don’t just randomly start seeing things. I only “see” mental images if I think about what things look like. Unless there’s music playing (that I enjoy). If I close my eyes while listening to good music I frequently get all sorts of mental images. However, they don’t start as what I’d call vivid. Instead, they’re faint at first, but get stronger the longer I keep my eyes closed and the music keeps playing.

As a side note, I have prosopagnosia (face blindness), so even though I can visual a tree, or an apple, or even a person, I almost never can visual a face. Like right now, I cannot picture my wife’s face, or my son’s. Sometimes I can, but I’d say that its rare, and I have no idea why sometimes it works and other times it doesn’t.

So yeah, those are terrible descriptions of aphantasia (and to be clear, I’m agreeing with your overall point).

Ironic, considering I’m still waiting to hear who determined mail to be right.

I’m confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.

We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.

“People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences” is a garbage take on “freedom of speech”. Even if you clarify it as “people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations”, it is still a garbage take.

a “platform” like mail which has been determined to be a right.

When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?

I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

Instead of treating huge corporations that actively suppress competition like they’re a de facto form of government, we should instead… prevent them from getting to the point where their size and market share grants them power over the lives of citizens comparable to that of the government.

“Freedom of speech” doesn’t mean “I should be able to say what I want without any consequences”.

Do you understand how much effort you’re putting into being “right” rather than having an actual discussion?

For context, you started with “EV is bad because it uses coal”, implying that it is worse than ICE vehicles (somehow).

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because it uses non-renewable energy.”

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because it uses non-renewable energy and renewable energy, but not really much renewable energy.”

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because outside of California, which doesn’t count (for some reason), it uses non-renewable energy and renewable energy, but not really much renewable energy.”

Now that someone is pointing out that other places besides California use significant amounts of renewable energy, your argument has become “I only will accept arguments that provide citations, even though my own various, shifting arguments, have provided none.”

This is in no way a good look for you.

There’s a pretty significant difference between “I don’t trust neurotypicals” and “I don’t trust a specific neurotypical person who diagnoses without extensive hands-on experience in the relevant target population, particularly when the population in question tends to intentionally learn to hide their defining characteristics as they get older.”

The population numbers sort of… even out later in the books.

Your right about them not necessarily relying on the spice melange, but they do rely on the juice of the sapho root to accelerate their thoughts and increase their processing speed. So yeah, they’re still on drugs :)

That’s how defense of this stuff always works. They subtly change the meaning of commonly accepted words and terms. “Service available to the public” becomes “public service” and “Nazis are good” becomes “an opinion” instead of hate speech.

The real problem here is that Twitter/X user’s data can be easily revealed by organizations.

The publicly posted data being easily revealed by organizations is a problem?

Don’t let the cover art discourage you.

Nah, wombats just lure you into sticking your head in the hole they’re hiding in, and then crush your skull with their muscly ass. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/wombats

The ergonomic keyboards I’ve seen still had offset keyboard rows, rather than the ortholinear setup shown in the tweet linked above. It’s the uniform spacing and grid layout that I’ve never seen before (not to say that means its new; just new to me!).