If that were the case then the other statements within bullet 1 are completely irrelevant, and the relevant information has been omitted. That would be a far greater assumption than taking the statements at face value and connecting the information we have into coherent logic

TBH that’s a logic fail on your part.

In bullet point (1) we have two important statements

Statement A: “I can’t make the food”

Followed immediately by the explanation…

Statement B: “I am dealing with an illness that makes me unable to eat solid foods and extremely sensitive to smells”

The only way Statements A and B can be related is via the smell. Being unable to EAT solid foods wouldn’t prevent OP from MAKING the food. The only possible explanation is that the sensitivity to smell is what makes them unable.

That’s, like, really basic reading comprehension skills. 🤷

Oh boy, let’s take this piece by piece…

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE

First: let’s talk about the difference between copyright, patents, and trademark

A patent protects a method of doing something - like a novel piece of code, or a newly invented drug formula - from being duplicated and used or sold without your consent.

Copyright protects creative works - like art, books, and computer software - from being mimiced. It literally deals with the rights to copy something

Trademark protects brands - like a logo or company name - from being used by other people for profit. It usually deals with marketplace confusion, as when someone creates a competing product with a similar logo to try to benefit from the logo’s recognition and popularity.

So, with that said, what are YOU dealing with?

Well, since you’re not selling software or utilizing anything from the WatchDogs game universe, you’re pretty much free and clear on both patent and copyright.

What about trademark?

Well, on the one hand, you are not competing with Ubisoft in any way, nor are you attempting to represent yourself as related to WatchDogs. So, by the letter of the law (in the US), they don’t have a valid complaint.

However, trademark under US law has this funny feature where an entity that holds a trademark is required to vigorously defend it when they become aware of potential infringement. This is to prevent the selective application of trademark. That is, if I know John is using my trademark and I don’t go after him, then Steve uses my trademark too, I can’t suddenly claim to have an interest in defending it when I didn’t care before. Steve can point at the fact that I didn’t go after John and say “you already gave up your trademark by failing to enforce it”.

So how does this impact you? Well, unfortunately, even if you are technically allowed to use “dedsec” under US law, if Ubisoft has a trademark on the term “dedsec” specifically, AND if someone at Ubisoft became aware of your use of their trademark, they would likely come after you for trademark infringement just to cover their ass. You might even win in court, but it would cost a whole lot of money that you would likely never be able to recover.

The good news is that the very first step in a trademark dispute is a cease and desist letter. They’ll demand you stop using their trademark. At that point you can either comply, refuse, or offer to settle the matter by selling them the domain.

What you do with this information is up to you.

I’m an effort to get you an answer that isn’t dismissive:

1. Youth indoctrination, social conformity, and cultural isolation. If your parents, friends, and most of your community tells you something is true, you are unlikely to challenge it for a variety of reasons including trust (most of what they’ve taught you works for your daily life), tribal identity, etc

2. People naturally fear death, and one coping strategy for the existential fear of death is to convince yourself that the death of your body is not the end of your existence. Science does not provide a pathway to this coping strategy so people will accept or create belief systems that quell that fear, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Relieving the pressure of that fear is a strong motivator.

3. Release of responsibility. When there is no higher power to dictate moral absolutes, we are left feeling responsible for the complex decisions around what is or isn’t the appropriate course of action. And that shit is complicated and often anxiety inducing. Many people find comfort in offloading that work to a third party.

That it would be viewed as awkward and unwelcome by the other participants. Consent is key, yo

I go for the hug when I see friends I haven’t seen in a long time, or when I’m parting ways with someone I know I won’t see for a while. But it’s definitely not a regular occurrence

No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were. I don’t know if I’d go for full on snuggling but I come from a physically affectionate family and in general wish people were more comfortable with that kind of thing

Sorry, this was pushing back on the person I replied to, not you. I generally agree with your take

Hmmm. I want to push back on this a bit…

We can all recognize deeply, egregiously unhealthy parasocial relationships, so I’m not going to bother talking about those.

But there are plenty of what I would call parasocial relationships the track back quite a long time in human history that I think are completely normal.

Take, for example, the famous athlete. If you find a particular athlete to be your favorite, and you watch their interviews whenever they’re available, and you get excited when they get paid a bunch of money in a trade, that’s a low-key parasocial relationship. Maybe you even send them regular fan mail, cheering them on when they do well or consoling them when they do poorly. You are invested in their life without reciprocity, and find joy and value in simply observing their existence.

There are lots of actors and actress that we love to love, where many people have formed a parasocial relationship: Tom Hanks and Keanu Reeves are two that come to mind.

These are situations that go beyond “yeah I’m a fan” and into feeling some level of investment in their success. It doesn’t have to be extreme.

I think, as with many things, there are healthy ways to engage in parasocial relationships in moderation. It becomes a problem when it becomes detrimental to your daily life, especially if it begins to replace other forms of human interaction. If it’s just a thing you enjoy on top of other, more typical relationships, them IMO there’s nothing wrong with that.

Here’s what you’re missing:

A) it’s much less about whether the bear is a bigger threat and much more about how fucking awful men must treat women for the average woman to go “hmmm… Maybe the bear, tbh?” The fact that it’s even something women have to think about for more than a split second is a dramatic failure of our society. THAT is the point, and any discussion of “well you don’t know about bears then…” is reply-guy shit that misses the entire point and simply serves to further solidify how blind most men are to what goes on in the day to day life of women.

B) An aggressive bear is a known quantity. Is it a threat? Obviously. But it’s a threat that we understand extremely well. Like, a quick Google search will teach you everything you need to know about what to do if you see a bear. But a strange, unknown man? Who the fuck knows. They might seem perfectly pleasant and reasonable, act like your friend, and then flip the fuck out when the woman refuses to sleep with him that night in return for all that manly protection he provided during the day or whatever. THAT is why women pick the bear: a known problem is often preferable to uncertainty that could lead to being extremely vulnerable against a really smart attacker.

Remember, the question wasn’t “would you rather be in a locked room with a bear or a man?” It was “would you rather be stuck on an island with a strange bear or a strange man?”

And to your final question, why can’t we just respect other humans? Great fucking question, but the misogynists should be the ones facing that inquiry, not the people on the internet trying to point you towards them. It may be more uncomfortable and even dangerous to confront them, but don’t take the easy way out by asking victims and their allies to be “nicer” instead

Tl;Dr: a meme went around asking women if they’d rather be stuck on an isolated island with a strange man or a strange bear. Most women chose the bear, largely due to the bear being more predictable and easier to deal with than a man inclined to do them harm, which, based on the experience of most women, is a whole lot of men.

Fragile men took this as an attack on all men everywhere and were offended at being “called a predator”.

There’s a pretty good thread in my comment history where I try to address the issue with one such fellow male and their response is about what you’d expect, confirming all the reasons why women chose the strange bear over the strange man

Gonna disagree with you about the quality of Mando; it’s just an incredibly different type of show. I feel the exact opposite of you: I thought the first season was meh until the end, and the show has continued to get better from there (with some individual episodes that were crap).

For the record, Andor is by far my favorite piece of contemporary Star Wars media. It’s not even close.

What I’m saying is, not every show or movie has to be well received by every fan.

Hell, I even enjoyed Obi-Wan for what it was. A sad waste of potential? Totally. But some of the things it set out to do were done well (specifically, showing Obi-Wan’s state of mind during that time period)

I don’t expect Mando to press the same emotional buttons as Andor, and I don’t expect Andor to make me go “whoaaaaa awesome lightsaber duel!” the way Ahsoka did. Let them be different. We don’t have to tear down anything that doesn’t fit our image of the perfect star wars show

Oh hey, I recognize you. Genuinely and truly, thank you for your years of service. I run a mastodon community these days for the same reasons, and I can only imagine how frustrating and eventually heartbreaking it must have been for long-time reddit mods to slowly get screwed out of the homes they’d built for themselves and others.

Okay, Arin

IMO Google is like Joe Biden. Not good, but infinitely better than the shit show that is the alternative (in the context of advertisers specifically)

It’s weird that we’ve arrived at “Don’t let Google have a monopoly on personally identifying you for advertising purposes!”

Yeah, so, Google already has this data about you. What they’re doing here is trying to reduce the specificity of information given to advertisers about your behaviors, and simultaneously give you the ability to never inform specific third parties about your interest in the specific topics you choose

I see this as a good thing. They were literally already getting and using all of this data. In that case I’d much rather have some control over who knows which things about me, rather than leaving it entirely up to Google

I am now! Just edited

Ok this is a super fascinating intersection of American social history

So the first thing you have to always keep in mind when thinking about Americans and their behavior is that the country was founded by people so absurdly religious that the British kicked them out. Then, along with some wealthy land owners, they said “fuck off” right back to the crown, declared “no take-backs”, and went on about 100 years of aggressive westward expansion.

If you’re not familiar with the phrase “manifest destiny” it’s worth looking up. It’s fundamental to American society

Fast forward a bit to post-WWII and the economic boom of the time. “The American Dream” - and the promise to our returning soldiers - was owning your own house with a yard, wife, kids, dog, and a car. And given our history, and the return of thousands and thousands of young men from the war, that kinda became the measuring stick of basic success: moving out.

And of course since America is the land of opportunity, if you can’t do even that much, you’ve only got yourself to blame /s

We all know the meme of “striking out on your own” as a symbol of maturity. This is just what happens when “striking out on your own” becomes a cultural identity

Yes. That’s the point. It feels worse for you, but better for them. If you want to be kind, deal with the discomfort. Otherwise just admit it’s not about the money and you’re just looking after yourself :)