Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.
Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.
100% agree. I want to know whether I’m increasing, decreasing, or maintaining my heat threshold.
Ooh… capsaicin-powered hot take!
If you let your cat outside in the Americas (or anywhere cats haven’t lived for thousands of years) unsupervised I’m going to assume one of the following is true: you don’t care if your cat dies, and/or you don’t care about wildlife. Even if you live in a place with zero predators, why the hell are you trusting a CAT with road safety?
Saying this as someone who grew up with parents that let our cats live (and die, a lot) that way. And as someone who has seen two friends lose cats to coyotes in the past year. And also interrupted an attack on someone’s pet by a coyote. It’s been a bad fucking year here for coyotes.
In Australia I can’t tell you how frustrating this is. People are so fucking selfish.
I feel like this is slowly changing (based on no real evidence).
At least some councils are CATching up.
The new suburbs where I am are cat containment areas so that’s something. But I’m in an older suburb. Where all the wildlife is quite established. And I keep finding lizards and parrots ripped apart. My home cameras pick up the cats that visit all night.
My cats were born an outdoor cat and I’d rather they touched some grass and lived an actual life rather than be stuck inside all day even if they die earlier. I’m sure they would too.
Wildlife argument is valid though. They kill some good (rats, mice), but I can’t justify them killing birds and lizards.
Plus, my (indoor) cat can’t help but have a loud, boisterous conversation with any cat that wanders through my yard. Usually at 2am while I’m trying to sleep.
Thank you for pointing out that this is only an issue for places where wild cats have been non-native.
Parents’ jobs aren’t to protect their kids. It’s to make sure that their kids are sufficiently prepared for the world when the kids grow up.
There seems to be this rising trend of parents being overprotective of their children, even to the point of having parental controls enabled for children even as old as the late teens. My impression has always been that these children are too sheltered for their age.
I grew up in the “age of internet anarchism,” where goatse was just considered a harmless prank to share with your friends and liveleaks was openly shared. Probably not the best way of growing up, to be fair, but I think we’ve swung so hard into the opposite direction that a lot of these children, I feel, are living in their own little bubbles.
To some degree, it honestly makes sense to me why the younger generation nowadays is so willing to post their lives on the internet. When that’s the only thing you can do on the internet, that’s what you’ll do
I have recently learned that the new helicopter parent type is the snowplow parent - these are the ones that not only shield their kids from the world, but also fully manage their lives for them. I work for the University of California and seeing how absolutely helpless these kids are is scary.
I’m in the UC system as well. It’s both concerning and amusing how much college students nowadays go to their parents for permission on minor things. I get it, to some degree. Respect for your parents and all that. But some degree of autonomy would be helpful at that age
If you’ve spent any amount of time among people who went to / are in college in their early 20s, and people who were working in their late teens and early twenties, it becomes clear that college arranges for the students to have a managed-for-them life to a degree that I actually think is severely harmful to them. It’s basically a big day care. Education is fuckin fantastic, I’m not saying it’s not, but the nature of the way your life is organized within it to me I think is very bad for people.
Like yes you know integrals, very good, but e.g. I spoke to a guy who had not paid his phone bill for months, who somehow still had phone service but was genuinely very confused about how the bills he was getting now could have gotten as high as they were. No matter how many times I tried to explain to him, I couldn’t get it across. I finally just gave up the endeavor.
Part of the issue with the value of college isn’t that it educated, but that it acted like an ordeal to overcome and filtered out people who didn’t have the makings of being a leader. Not all of that is due to educational ability.
Parents jobs arent to protect their kids
I get you don’t mean this so broadly but you lose all nuance with this statement.
Protect them from every minor mistake or risk that could ever possibly happen, and smothering them? Sure.
Someone about to stab your kid? Protect them from predators? Protect them from various risks and hazards in life which every parent should be teaching them?
- dont get into strangers cars
- dont let strangers into the house
- look both ways when crossing the road
Hard to prepare a kid for adulthood when they’re dead I suppose
What is dead may never die
It wasn’t the comment that lacked nuance; just your reading.
All the stuff you added went without saying.
Parents jobs arent to protect their kids.
What the fuck else does that mean? If you want to believe you can read minds and assume what a person is talking about, whatever.
But if someone makes a statement, maybe take it at face value rather than “ah yes they must mean something else”
fucking idiot
I’m pretty autistic, so you’re not allowed to write this off as “people using magic communication I can’t understand because I’m smart” or whatever your model of the current situation is.
When a person says it is not a parent’s job to protect their kids, you already know what it means. It’s right there in your three bullet point.
- dont get into strangers cars
- dont let strangers into the house
- look both ways when crossing the road
If a parent’s job were protecting their kids, these would read:
- Don’t let your kids near roads or cars
- Don’t give your kids control over the door
- Don’t let your kids cross roads
Like, if I was given care of a dog for a week while their owners went on vacation, and my job were to “protect the dog”, I wouldn’t be putting the dog in any of the situations where its own choices were the source of its safety.
Are you ready to stop pretending that you don’t see?
The first line of my reply literally says I dont think this is what you mean, BUT …. I very clearly stated I assume that isnt exactly what the commenter meant. The rest of my comment is to clarify what the poster defined as “protection”.
If someone came up to me and asked protect something, contextually yes obviously I understand that.
That isnt the situation here. The comment chain is someone with a “hot take” on what “parents protecting children” means. It being a hot take I feel it is completely valid to put aside any assumption that the commenter is talking about “well obviously I mean protect them from x y z”. Because its a potentially unpopular hot take. It’s not a common idea in society.
Unless you can read minds it is very possible this commenter meant it literally. IE how kids are raised in the film 300. “Heres a stick. go fight a wolf kid”.
Im not writing it off. I assumed what they meant but followed up for clarification. Did you just expect replies to be “agree” or “disagree” with zero further discussion?
Oh you’re right. It is a hot take, so it is likely that they mean the thing one wouldn’t expect.
I thought you’d be talking about letting kids climb up high into trees, going into the city on their own, let them hang out at the skatepark without supervision, stuff like that.
But no, it’s about computers and kids not being able to see goatse. Lol. That’s lemmy i guess.
It’s tule 10. Don’t mess with kids when they’re gazing at Goatse
On the other hand I owe my career in IT to learning how to bypass the parental controls my parents set up and cover my tracks. That got me started in computers really early.
If your political opinion begins with “why don’t we just…” then its a bad political opinion.
If we could just, we would have already just. If you think you’re the only one with the capacity to see a simple answer - newsflash, you’re not a political genius. Its you who doesn’t understand the complexity of the problem.
My partner lacked political engagement until his 30s for reasons so he occasionally has these hot takes. But he expresses them to me and I do feel bad because he’s not coming at it from an arrogant perspective. It’s ignorance, some naivete and also exasperation at a whole lot of shit things.
I have to gently explain to him why XYZ isn’t that simple or black and white, or why his idea doesn’t work - and the answer to that, 9 times out of 10, is ‘because money/rich people/greed/lobbyists/nimbyism’.
I’m just slowly chipping away at his innocence and it feels bad.
Its great that you’re helping to inform him! I have found the people who know the most about politics and global issues tend to talk less and listen more.
My responses to him are always prefaced with a big sigh. Because whatever I’m about to tell him is negative. And he often concludes with ‘so how can you care about this/why do you give a shit if it’s pointless’ and I’m finding it harder and harder to answer that question.
Ignorance truly is bliss
Adam Savage had a bit where he pointed out there is practically zero times when to you should start a sentence with “why don’t you just”. My first instinct is to patiently listen & respond but I’m slowly turning into “why don’t you just stop, think & rephrase that”
I’ve always interpreted “why don’t we just X?” as a shorter way of expressing “I think I would like X. Is this a good idea? If not, why? If yes, what are the barriers to making it happen?”
My hot take: You shouldn’t downvote comments you disagree with in a thread asking for hot takes.
I have always upvoted comments I disagree with if they are using good arguments. I save downvotes for hate and bad faith.
Ok now you’re just asking for it
It’s a shame that this needs to be a “hot take”, I was hoping we’d be leaving that shit behind on Reddit.
I really like that you can view who upvoted/downvoted a post on Lemmy. Makes for some interesting analysis on some posts.
I think this should apply in general, not just in this thread. Down votes are reserved for comments that do not positively contribute to the conversation.
Suburban homeowners are the real “welfare queens.”
ice cold
No one authentically hates the word moist. There’s no evidence then anyone disliked the word before Friends made an episode about it. Everyone since that has either been parroting that episode or someone who, in turn, parroted the episode.
Either these people saw it and decided it was an interesting facet to add to their personality, or it was the first time they’ve ever consciously thought about how a word feels and sounds and that shattered their ignorance and spoiled a perfectly good word.
There was a Friends episode about it?
I don’t remember a friends episode about this either. I do remember it being on how I met your mother though so possibly the person you’re replying to was thinking of that.
Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant. I didn’t watch either of them.
Slurp is an infinitely worse word than moist.
Personally I dislike squelch, mulch, ask, just a ton of words, but I dislike them because they way they fell in my mouth. Either they’re hard to pronounce or they don’t feel nice in my mouth.
Turns out liquids of unusual viscosity is an excellent heuristic for things you shouldn’t put in your mouth.
The vast majority of people whining about the current political landscape have done absolutely nothing IRL to remedy this (tangibly supporting good candidates, running for office themselves, etc.)
supporting good candidates
Oh yes! Good candidates!.. Who are those, again?
Case in point
Answer the question settler
America is a lost cause
Humanity is a lost cause. Still worth fighting for.
Humanity is a rebel without a cause. Fighting is just what we do~
Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.
It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don’t swear or talk dirty, etc.
I agree with schools teaching kids “about” religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.
Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:
Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you’re an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.
If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they’re developing, not after.
And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people
Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!
If I can’t vote until I’m 25 then I don’t want to be paying tax until I’m 25.
No taxation without representation.
Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.
If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.
Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.
provide free transportation
I’m totally on board with this.
If only our public transportation infrastructure didn’t look like a great big duffel bag of shit
Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.
Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.
Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.
The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.
However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.
I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.
As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.
I agree, the sooner the better.
Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.
But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?
My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.
Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.
For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…
The post topic is “hot takes”, so my “always curtail driving” position is technically on-topic for the larger thread. ;]
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk
lmfao
Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…
Ok, in that case I totally agree. But going into detail about actual sex doesn’t seem like a great idea that early.
There’s more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.
We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.
Only because you think sex is dirty, because you were stigmatized against talking about it at that age.
Of course I don’t think that, it’s one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there’s things they definitely DON’T need to know yet.
Who said this is what sex ed is about?
I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.
Don’t speak for me, thanks.
My position is “let kids be kids” or maybe more like “let students be students”. We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it’s a requirement let’s, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.
Now THIS is a hot take
That was the assignment!
Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?
We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?
Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?
I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.
I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.
I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.
You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.
I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.
Uhhh.
Driving shouldn’t be at 25, nor marriage.
Any higher on marriage would be antinatalist, but I’m willing to go higher on driving for sure.
hot take about the hot take: it’s about marriage, not about having babies.
That would just screw over young people
Same for all laws requiring X age.
Lemmy is left leaning but downvotes anything that suggests poll numbers are slipping for Biden, or if people are unsatisfied with his performance. It’s news! Are y’all just downvoting it because you don’t like it?
Don’t you know, the downvote button is the dislike button, on pretty much every platform. Also, upvote is agree button. They have nothing to do with whether a comment is relevant to the topic or not.
I just hit upvote and then thought I agree ;)
Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.
“Pulling for Biden” is most certainly not ‘leaning left’, lmfao. Precisely two and a half instances actually lean left; the rest are typically as bad as if not worse than Reddit libbery on geopolitical takes.
Every human is an egoist. You too.
Everything you’ve ever done was for your own purpose. Everything we do, we do it cause it makes or will make US happy. Even if a person is kind to others, they are because it makes THEM happy. Even ascetics do what they do, because in their mind it will grand THEM happiness in the future.
So realize that you and everyone around you do what they do, because it makes THEM happy and live you life so it will make YOU happy
The philosopher of choice for mediocre self-entitled pricks with delusions of grandeur everywhere.
Nah, being happy that others are happy isn’t egotism, it’s being a functional social creature. Making a charitable decision at your own expense is a good thing, and feeling good about the decision or being congratulated by someone else does not negate that.
Don’t think they’re saying it negates the non-selfish part of the act.
I guess, but this just kind of redefines how most people think of egoism/selfishness/altruism etc. Where does it lead? If making people happy is selfish, and making people happy is ‘good’, does that mean any selfish act is ‘good’? Does it really take away from ‘good’ acts if the performer derives happiness from them?
Children should not be exposed to advertising at a young age (below 11/12 years old)
Just say 11 months damn
that wouldnt account for leap days tho :/
How about: (334/365 … 335/366) years
There’s no ethical way to kill someone that’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die, and that’s not just for humans.
I guess we could say “humane”, or “as quick and painless as possible”?
Bullshit. You wouldn’t call it ethical to kill a 5 year old you see in the street just because it is done quick and painless.
Murder doesn’t become ethical just because it’s not also torture.
Did I say “ethical”?
