Find some simple recipes, and follow them to the letter. If it says to add something “to taste”, just add a small amount of it and assume it’s fine. As long as you aren’t trying to invent your own dishes, or improvise somehow, you should be fine.

Really depends on the object. If it’s a collectible item with a value that’s open to interpretation, I sometimes do, especially if I’m considering buying multiple things. (For example, CCG cards priced at $20, I might offer $70 for a playset of 4.) Those things don’t have firm market value (or that value fluctuates frequently) and there’s usually an easy way to look up a price range quickly to get a sense for what’s a fair or reasonable offer.

If it’s something someone made and is selling, it feels rude to me to haggle. The item has no real market value because it’s something they made; the price is what they’re willing to sell it for. I’ll either buy it for that price, or not buy it at all. I guess the exception would be if they’ve got a sign inviting haggling, which I’ve seen at convention spaces on rare occasion.

Is Beehaw doing something different from the rest of lemmy? You can log into any instance with any of the apps.

Sure is. You might check !lemmyapps@lemmy.world for some suggestions, but there’s many.

(Refer to the pinned megathread.)

Edit: You know what, nevermind. I don’t think I actually want to debate this today. It’s been an alright day so far and I don’t want to fuck it up like I’m sure this argument would.

Wouldn’t you be least likely to die if you were, say, in a coma, under 24/7 medical surveillance in a hospital, or some other similar circumstance? Being out in public at all raises the probability of dying, so how would you ever go out? You wouldn’t be able to use a knife, or even scissors. You’d never be able to interact with anyone online - there’s a non-zero chance that someone takes such offense with what you say that they find where you live and come hunt you down, so it’s safer - infinitesimally so, but safer - to just not go online at all.

What I’m getting at is, the scenario you’ve laid out with the bounds you’ve set just means you’d have the worst life imaginable. At least you’d be alive, though?

Really impossible to say because, to reiterate the point the post you’re replying to made, the media is not covering protests like it was in 2017. There have been multiple protests in all 50 states, some very large, but the word just isn’t getting out about them.

Depends on the puzzle; it’s certainly possible to design Sudoku puzzles that necessitate guessing, but most do not. It’s possible you’re just not familiar with some of the more complex ways to make deductions.

Maybe check this list - it could be that your puzzle requires some of the more advanced techniques that you aren’t using.

When referring to him in the capacity of a president, using last name is pretty much the standard. It wasn’t “Joe”, it was “Biden”. It wasn’t “Barack”, it was “Obama”. It’d be weird to call him Donald.

That said, I’m sure it would rankle him greatly and I fully support it on those grounds alone.

As an American, I hope Canada just tells Trump to get fucked and gives him nothing. Make us suffer. Leave absolutely no room for argument that Trump’s tariffs are in any way beneficial. Come back to the table when we have a reasonable president and negotiate then.

Thing about Nessy is that it is localized. It started in an area in Scotland. Assuming Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon where sightings are found more than a couple of times a month, it’d be different.

Nessy is purported to be a single creature living in a single Loch in Scotland; why would there be sightings elsewhere in the world? That’s like saying “The Eiffel Tower is only ever sighted in Paris, isn’t that suspicious?”

Given the relatively small number of visitors to Loch Ness vs. the number of people in the world with cameras who could presumably document aliens or ghosts, I’d argue that the sightings per visitor are at a significantly higher rate than UFO or ghost sightings.

You’re horribly mis-using statistics and making claims that are not the logical conclusion.

We know that intelligent life exists, and that one specific, if very rare, set of circumstances can definitively bring it about. We know there are other planets that are similarly capable of supporting life. We have evidence - irrefutable, hard evidence - that such planets can, and do exist, because we live on one.

You have far worse evidence of ghosts or aliens. Having photographic proof of either is a highly sought after thing, that comes with notoriety and in some cases fame or money. Statistically, wouldn’t you say it’s more likely that, given the incentive to do so, the people claiming to produce such evidence are lying to reap the benefits? If not, again, why don’t we have actual, clear, indisputable pictures? Are you telling me that these phenomenon have been occurring throughout recorded history, but there’s not one single high quality picture? How could that be? Surely if you have enough people taking pictures, one of them by sheer chance should come out clear.

Similarly, how is it that modern astronomical or surveillance equipment hasn’t captured evidence of them? Why are we relying on shaky polaroids taken by random people? You’re cherry picking evidence that you feel has the highest likelihood of being true while discounting all of the evidence against it being true.

The point they’re making is that you’re basing your claim that 99% of sightings are false on nothing. It’s a hunch, nothing more. When you start with that assumption, the conclusion is already made. Which 1% are not false? Surely you should be able to point us to some examples? Or are you just making the claim that 1 in 100 must be true out of nowhere?

I will also point out that the first recorded sighting of aliens that I can find is from 1947, and the Loch Ness Monster was “first brought to world-wide attention” in 1933, so your claim of historical evidence falls apart.

In fact, isn’t it perhaps suspicious that sightings of alien spacecraft didn’t start happening until semi-modern technology existed? Why aren’t there cave paintings from neanderthals of flying saucers? Why isn’t there evidence from ancient Egypt or Rome? It’s almost as though modern science fiction bringing such things to mind was the catalyst for these sightings.

A lot of things have been inscribed into historical texts. The problem with your claim is that it can’t be disproven - you can’t prove a negative, so saying “Well, you can’t disprove all of these photos!” isn’t a scientifically sound hypothesis.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe aliens exist, but not the sort that people claim to be taking pictures of. I thought based on your title that your argument was going to amount to “There’s an incredible number of planets out there, so the chance that we’re the only one that supports life and evolved intelligent life is astronomically slim”, and I was ready to agree with you, but this is just a weak argument.

Let me ask you this: If plentiful pictures are evidence, why are there no clear, indisputable pictures? Surely, if these things are as real as you believe, there should be at least one super clear picture that doesn’t leave room for doubt. Unless, of course, the people taking those pictures were intentionally trying to deceive, and didn’t want them to be too clear.

There’s an uncountable number of pictures claiming the Loch Ness Monster is real; do you believe in it, too? What about all of the other cryptids? If your logic is sound, it should be able to be applied to everything else that fits the same criteria. If not, why do you apply a lower burdon of proof to aliens and ghosts than to everything else?

If Musk had a brain aneurysm tonight, it would be a net positive for the human race.

I’m glad you thought of this, because I was very confused by this post. I thought the question was asking which group of countries you’d want to be allowed to visit.

I legitimately love this collection.

You could break the handle on one of the Engagement Mugs and have two perfectly usable mugs. Similarly, the Uncomfortable Mug works just fine as long as you just hold it like you would a cup.

The champagne glasses could technically be used if you only filled one side of it, and only enough that it didn’t tip over. Alternately, break the stems off and just don’t set them down.

The fork on the other hand doesn’t seem to have any practical use. I’d nix that.