HR isn’t the employees friend, ever.

But that’s where you start the paper trail. It’s really the safest bet

There’s a couple of ways to approach this idea. Literal and figurative.

Within the myth itself, the oldest version has the theft occurring after Zeus banned humanity from having access to fire because of fuckery with sacrifices (that was instigated by Prometheus). So, if taken is the myth is taken literally, it isn’t about whether or not humans could pick up fire that Zeus created via lightning, or other methods, it was about them not being allowed to. By Prometheus giving them fire, he gave them the means to make it themselves rather than it being something the gods owned exclusively.

While that still has the hole that it was basically trying to play games to bypass the command of Zeus rather than giving something humans could have tried to steal on their own, and ignores that fire is a phenomenon of physics and chemistry rather than only being granted by a divine force; it’s still the gist of that original myth as it existed when Hesiod set it down in writing.

Now, I think we all know that the myths weren’t literal at all. There was no Zeus, and lightning wasn’t the only source of fire for humans at all. There’s not much in the way of hard evidence of how humans first harnessed fire, whether it was from external sources like lightning, or lava; or if it was discovered as part of the flint knapping process (little sparks can fly under the right circumstances), or other options.

And it isn’t like the Greeks necessarily held every myth to be literal truth. They did have a degree of awareness of myth as symbolism.

And that’s where the figurative comes in.

If your interpret the myth as fire being symbolic of technology, of thought and philosophy, of shifting from hunter-gatherer culture to a more stable location that allows for development of technology faster, then what Prometheus stole wasn’t fire, it was the essence of divinity, the spark that made the gods other than human.

In that respect, you have to understand that Prometheus wasn’t just some rebellious underling. He was a Titan, descended from the oldest gods, just as Zeus was. He was a god of fire, and in some myths was the one that made humans, shaping us from clay. Which is obviously not unique to Greek mythology, but it sets up Prometheus as not only our creator, but our champion among the gods and titans.

Indeed, he’s credited in myth with bringing us more than fire. Art and science were credited to him as well.

Taken as a story about our place in the world, and how we exist as thinking beings, Prometheus is our drive to understand the world around us, and fire is our harnessing even the most primal of forces to our wit and will. It becomes a story of humanity being more than reactive, animalistic creatures; of us seeking to understand the world around us in a way that no other animal has been seen to attempt.

That fire is the fire of creation, of science, of poetry and dance and song.

And, it’s also possible to interpret the myth in other ways, but there’s a limit to how much is readable on a screen before the eyes and brain nope out, so I’ll leave it at that.

I will add that most libraries will have a copy of Bulfinch’s mythology. It isn’t necessarily a perfect source on Greek myths, but it does a good job at being as complete as possible at the time it was written, and doing so in accessible terms. With it being the default text for a very long time, it’s also ubiquitous. Even if your library doesn’t have a copy, there’s project Gutenberg, and you can find torrents or other file sharing sources for it, for free. Amazon usually has free versions of it available too, though I haven’t looked in a while.

Yeah, it’s now a term that people request they be referred to as by others, not just in group.

How do you determine when to call for proof or not?

It could have “during a discussion” at the end, with or without “online” as further clarification

I kinda assumed that it was either a language/translation issue, or trying to find the best way to express it due to some other difficulty.

Not that it matters really, but it does mean that it’s difficult to be certain we’re answering the right question

Sugar free, but are they artificially sweetened?

Pfft, everyone knows pee is stored in the scrotum

Can we be real for a minute though?

It’s still better than not having it as an option.

By telegram existing, it diversifies the non private messaging landscape. It’s obviously not better than actually secure and/or private services, but the more options that are out there, the less centralization there is, which is a net positive.

You just have to be aware of its limitations and don’t use it for anything significant. In that regard it’s no worse than something like discord.

You already covered the warnings about not trusting it for privacy or security, so that’s really the beat you can do in informing people. Once you’ve done your due diligence for the people you care about, you gotta let them do what they’re gonna do. It’s either that or go hard and refuse to communicate on anything other than the services you deem best for your preferences and hope for the best

Millions.

And what’s hilarious is that I know so many people that also enjoy the band that it would be losing very little.

That title is word salad, but if I’m reading everything in the text right, it looks like you’re asking when proof is expected to be provided when asked for.

It could be you’re asking when we would ask for proof before considering the other person to be acting in good faith.

It doesn’t matter much which one it is, since the answer from my end is essentially the same thing, but if it isn’t one of those, my response might be different, and thus make this comment off topic unintentionally.

For me, the tipping point is more about a combination of claims and import. The less important it is, the more unbelievable the claims can be before I call shenanigans and want proof if I’m going to continue interacting with someone.

The inverse is true as well. A very important subject, and the less incredible the claims can be before I nope out without proof.

The key is that it’s about the time I’m willing to spend entertaining a discussion.

If I’m confident enough that the person is full of shit, I’m not engaging at all, unless what they’re saying could fuck up someone else’s life in some way. If that’s the case, I don’t engage, but I’ll provide whatever information I have and nope out.

In your example, the claim to be from a low population location is so low importance that IDGAF. The only time that would matter to me is if they’re making claims of authority because of it. Even then, as long as what they’re claiming is consistent with fact that can be looked up, I ain’t got the time to try and pry them out of their story.

There’s also a limit to what kind of proof is acceptable to ask for. Which doesn’t apply to your example, what with them claiming a specific location, but in general, nobody has to dox themselves to satisfy me, so I’ll disengage if I really believe they’re full of shit rather than go there.

I’ll never ask someone for a picture of themselves or any identifying features. It just isn’t acceptable to ask for.

See, there’s a bit of leeway necessary for a semi-anonymous forum to function. You assume the best until something stops that possibility. In the example you gave, one of you brought up “els syndrome” (which isn’t something I’m aware of, and it didn’t come up with a description or other information on a quick search)

If someone is making claims to have a medical condition, and the conversation doesn’t veer into claims of medical fact, I’m perfectly willing to accept their experiences as lived and not care if that matches with other people’s lived experiences. It just doesn’t matter on a partially anonymous forum. It’s the same kind of suspension of disbelief that’s necessary to take anyone’s story at face value. Until and unless their personal experience reaches something known to be false, it isn’t something that matters for having a nice conversation.

If they start claiming that drinking apple cider vinegar cured their AIDS, we got a problem. That’s where things start getting dangerous to others that nighty come along later.

Are those examples enough to get my viewpoint? I don’t wanna belabor the point if it’s clear enough.

Why does it matter at all? Well, there has to be a balance between healthy skepticism and giving people room to express themselves. We should all, always carry a kernel of doubt with us regarding any claims. But we also should always “remember the human”. None of it will achieve both of those perfectly, but that’s the goal.

If the other person is lying out their ass, does it matter? Does the interaction lose value because they’re making things up? I say it doesn’t inherently do so. If I interact with this post of yours, but it turns out you made it all up, it doesn’t devalue the interaction for either of us.

So the balance of this thread is about people expressing something that’s largely internal. If you felt the need to fake the posted conversation snippets, it still expressed something true in you, regardless of objective reality. We, as people, can still have valuable interaction over fiction. You making it up would not have any impact on the value I have/get in my response.

Your examples don’t meet the criteria for proof in my mind. You had what looks to be an interesting conversation with someone. That’s the primary thing, imo. Was the human interaction worth the time put in?

I will as soon as gooses stop invading the lower 48.

Meese are the armored division of the Canadian invasion. The gooses and meese are a menace

The animal with the most correct plural forms on earth!

Octopuses, octopi, octopodes, octopus.

Vastly superior to that lowly beast that doesn’t even have a plural form, the moose.

Overall? Dogs.

They’re the most perfect animal for companions. They’ve evolved and been bred to work with us, read us, and be as close to part of human life as possible. Nothing else on this planet is as in sync with us, to the degree that you have to go out of your way to make a dog hate you. Anyone wanting to whine about why they don’t like dogs, or be snide, expect to be ridiculed and insulted. Just a warning.

But that’s not the answer you likely want.

Tigers. Tigers are majestic as fuck. Beautiful, interesting, alien, massive animals. They’re what you would expect to see in the dictionary beside “predator”.

You ever play any of those games where a bunch of idiots are sitting around asking increasingly dumb “what if” questions until someone passes out? One that always seems to come up is “what animal would you fuck if you had to?”

My answer is always “tigers”. And it’s plural. Why plural? Because once you do it once and survive, why would you stop?

Why tigers? Tigers are majestic as fuck. Beautiful, interesting, alien, massive animals. They’re what you would expect to see in the dictionary beside “predator”.

We have a tautology here.

I’m also absurdly fond of chickens now.

I do not, and would not, fuck a chicken.

However, they are endlessly entertaining, and you can eat some of the things that come out of them. That alone is worth some affection.

But then they make noises. Trills and bawks and growls and clucks and little content beak clacks while they nestle into your side as they get ready to nap

They will also rip food not only from your hands, but your mouth if you aren’t careful.

They are dinosaurs you can give offerings to. And you must bring offerings to our dino-chicken overlords, lest they deem you unworthy. Biscuits are preferred, but they will accept almost anything until they find a favorite. Once they find a favorite, you will be scolded if you offer anything else. They will still eat the less preferred offerings, but they will do it with contempt.

Also, no touch. No touch, only look. Touch gets pecks. No touch, only biscuits.

Chickens are apex predators too small to be the apex of anything but a yard. But within that yard, they are as gods!

Unless you have a weedeater, in which case, they will wait in the shrubbery, thank you very much. Weedeaters are straight out.

Absolutely deadly and beautiful creatures, chickens.

As a chronic vegan troll, if you troll vegans in their own colleges communities, expect bans.

You are most definitely the asshole.

Not only for doing something stupid, but then posting a whiny complaint about it in a community that isn’t for this kind of whining.

My dude, if you can’t be bothered to fuck with people inside the rules of the C/ you’re on, just don’t do it at all.

Knives.

About as low tech as it gets, even for modern knives that are pretty high tech in how they’re made.

But it’s entirely possible for a person to make a knife with nothing but tools they can make by hand, with no need for anything other than rocks as tools. I’ve done it, and it isn’t like I’m some kind of super genius.

You can make slightly more high tech tools if you want, and make metal knives. The caveat to that is that you have to know how to identify sources for the metal in the first place, unlike stone tools where you can figure it out by banging rocks together until you find some that make sharp edges. But making an oven that can turn out low-grade materials is realistic for a single person to do.

But a knife, in its essence is just an inclined plane done to a very fine degree. Doesn’t get any more low tech than that. Mind you, there’s plenty of complexity involved in all of the basic machines like inclined planes, but that’s more about understanding them than using them or making them.

Knives are mankind’s most important tool. They were among our first tools, and it can be argued that they were our first manufactured tools. And we still use them regularly. Some of us use them every day, multiple times a day.

That’s a lasting technology in every degree of refinement.

Nah, if you can mod an app in the first place, it wouldn’t take you long to bypass this.

Well, unless you convert everyone else to proton or similar services, you’re kinda screwed on the privacy end of things already. I mean, it’s better than nothing, I guess, but it’s you’re sending to addresses that aren’t privacy friendly, it’s still exposed on the recipient’s end.

Not worth arguing about on that level.

Now, if the account is actually going to be the kid’s some day, that’s different. You can make the point of making sure that their first account with an “all in one” provider be with a service that’s a better “business neighbor” for all the associated services. Keep the Google account for the very few things that can’t be avoided, but shift primary usage of email, password management, etc to the less obnoxious service provider because they’re a better service rather than arguing about practically non existent privacy in email.

Well, let’s be real, pizza isn’t some kind of holy thing that is only Italian.

It’s not like they’re the only people to ever put things on flat dough and bake it.

But ignoring that, food is a living thing, just like most languages, like music, like fashion and art. You can try to stick a pin in it, but you kill the thing by doing so.

It reaches a point where it’s ludicrous to try and claim a thing is possessed in its entirety by the place that first named something.

Once a cultural idea spreads far enough, you can only specify one type of the thing. It’s why we have champagne, and sparkling wine. It’s a way of putting a pin in something but recognizing that there’s still living versions out there.

Or, look at it like the difference between formal and colloquial language.

Pizza may have started in Italy as a term, but it’s like kleenex and qtips. Pizza is now the generic term for stuff cooked on flat dough. It can even be applied to stuff being placed on flat bread, and then cooked, though I don’t know why you’d not call it one of the other words for that idea other than being unaware of those words.

Put whatever you want on your dough, call it pizza, and enjoy ;)

deleted by creator

However, you get very different responses from people if you use a hammer on them.

Hey! A YouTube guy I’ve actually heard of!

Remember please, this is opinion, and was asked for.

I ain’t mad, but I wish he/they wouldn’t. I’m not even a fan of tv based invasive encounters with wildlife. Even Steve Irwin often pushed past what I consider acceptable interference for education, but I’m on the strict end of things with that.

Here’s why.

Cameras. It was extremely rare for Irwin to show us something that couldn’t have been achieved with a good camera from a reasonable distance that not only got good images, but showed more natural behaviors. I still love Irwin, and think his enthusiasm and love of animals balances things out in terms of benefits.

We’re at a point with camera technologies that direct interaction with wildlife is unnecessary. We can use any number of tools to see the glory of nature without putting our thumbs up their butt to see what happens (not that he ever did, but I love that episode of South Park lol, and it fits how I view that kind of thing).

We have zoos, we have education centers, we have captive bred examples, so we don’t need multiple people out there repeating the same thing over and over. I get the desire, I get the interest in such filming, and as long as the wildlife isn’t harmed, I don’t care enough to raise any hell. I just wish we would collectively stop. Film from a distance or use tools to get close, use old footage of invasive interactions instead of new ones.

Peterson is no worse than anyone else, and better than most. I dig his enthusiasm. It just isn’t necessary, and its value for education is lower than it should be, in order to be acceptable to me.

But, again, I ain’t mad. No hate, no call to arms, I just wish he’d stop and do other things instead.