Persuasion itself goes from neutral to negative, depending on your moral standards. (They’re partially individual, partially cultural.) Because at the end of the day it boils down to “I want you to believe in this, because I benefit from your belief.”

And you definitively see some backslash against this aspect of advertisement; same deal with personal communication, a person being excessively rhetoric for their own benefit is immediately labelled distrustful.

Then over that propaganda adds further layers of nastiness, like:

• Often, the one doing propaganda is supposed to defend your interests. Not their/its own.
• You’ll usually need to omit and lie far more for propaganda than for other things. Because it’s usually a complex matter that involves society as a whole, not just your personal decision.
• Since the political landscape changes, the discourse being propagated may flip 180°.

Finally, some actual argumentation. Enough to convince me, at least - specially the first paragraph.

Do tell me more of how Old People are not the target of discrimination¹, yout’².

You’re 1) distorting what I said, and 2) being an assumer.

Discrimination can happen against any group. However, it’s considerably worse when it’s geared towards marginalised groups, as they have less ways to deal with it. That makes your analogy with a racial group (black people) a lot flawed.

Note, I do not think that insults against old people are “cool”. However they’re considerably less worse than insults towards black people.

The links that you’ve posted - that you clearly didn’t even bother to read yourself - are evidence of discrimination in a very specific environment (workplace). They are not evidence of marginalisation.

Just because the bigotry is aimed at old People doesn’t make it cool.

I get your point and I partially agree with it, but note that there’s a big difference between old people and people from racial groups in USA (based on your references): the later are marginalised groups.

…for keeping the rhyme, perhaps “Doom-like shoot and boom”? Lots of exploding enemies in Doom, but no boomer reference.

Soap and water do wonders for 90% of the restroom cleaning.

The problem is that the other 10% are important too.

Yup, that’s the stuff. It’s mostly a finishing touch, to get rid of bacteria.

At the very least, I’d recommend you:

• gloves - because you’ll get really close to that gross shit. You don’t want to touch it.
• a sponge - it doesn’t need to be new; your old kitchen sponge is enough, just don’t use it again in the kitchen. Use the yellow side to spread the cleaning agent, and the green side to remove obnoxious grime stuck to something. (Do it gently, and only with a really old sponge, to avoid scratching the surface.)
• a bucket - mostly to mix some soap and water.
• a dry rag - mostly for finishing/drying. A cringey old shirt that you won’t be using again is usually enough.
• toilet brush - don’t use the sponge to clean inside the toilet bowl; you’ll be spreading the bacteria from your shit and piss to the rest of the restroom.

Everyone has the cleaning agents that they swear upon, so look for something that works for you. For me it’s

• alcohol vinegar - to get rid of that brown crust in the sink (water in my city is hard as a brick) and around the shower drain. I usually apply it, wait a few minutes, then use the sponge to scrub it a bit. Then I remove the vinegar with the rag.
• bleach - exclusively used inside the toilet bowl. I squish some bleach there, then scrub it with the toilet brush, then flush it off, making sure that there’s no bleach behind.
• disinfecting agent - I squish a bit of that inside the toilet bowl and just leave it there. It smells good, and it gets rid of the bacteria.
• an ammonium-based cleaning agent - I squish it on obvious grime on the walls (except the above), then scrub it with the sponge.
• soap and water - to “wash” the walls with the sponge.
• plain water with some disinfecting agent - to rinse it. Then I just remove the excess water with the rag and let the restroom to dry naturally (with closed doors otherwise my cats will step on the bathroom, step outside, and now I got to clean the bathroom again plus the corridor and furniture).

Important detail: do not mix any two of the cleaning agents that I’ve mentioned. Specially not ammonium and bleach.

For reference, the disinfecting agent that I use is called “pinho sol”, but I have no idea if it’s sold outside Brazil. You probably have some similar product wherever you live.

[Note: this is my personal take, not Chomsky’s]

We can recognise colours and things even without properly labelling them. (Colour example: I have no clue on how to call the colour of my cat’s fur, but I’m fairly certain to remember thus recognise it.) However, it’s hard to handle them logically this way.

• if you are outside and it is raining, then you get wet
• if you get wet, you might get sick
• so if you are outside and it is raining, you might get sick

And at least for me this is the main role of the internal monologue. It isn’t just about repeating the state of the things, it’s about connecting pieces of info together, as if I was explaining the link to another person.

Perhaps those without verbal internal monologue/dialogue have a more persistent innate language, that is not overwritten by common external language?

Possible; I don’t know, really. It’s also possible that the “innate language” doesn’t really exist, only the innate ability to learn a language; but that ability is already enough to structure simple reasoning.

Got someone in my family with diabetes type I, and we’ve been hearing about the “magical” solution coming “soon” since she was diagnosed with it, in her childhood, around 30 years ago.

As such I’ll keep what I see as a healthy amount of scepticism towards this piece of news.

Chomsky’s concept of UG (universal grammar) is able to handle this. Since there would be a chunk of language that is innate (universal), that feral child would share it. So, as a conclusion from that, even if the feral child isn’t expressing it through vocalisation, since they lack an “application” of the UG (like Nahuatl, Mandarin, Quechua, English, Kikongo etc.), they’d still have some rather simple internal monologue.

…that said I think that Chomsky’s UG is full of shit. I do agree with him that the faculty of language might have developed first to structure thought; but my reasoning resembles a bit more yours, the role of language would be to formalise thought. Thinking without language is possible in the same way as moving across a village without roads - it’s doable but clunky, and you’ll likely take far more effort than with proper roads/ a language.

Not to challenge Chomsky on his own turf

Don’t worry. Everyone and their dog challenges him. Including himself, he’s often contradicting his own earlier statements.

Got it - mostly politics, then. That explains a lot why you guys are seeing far more toxicity than I do, I don’t generally join political discussions. (And when I do, since I’m myself communist, perhaps I don’t even notice it.)

That hints me that what people here is calling “toxic” is politics-related, since I’m a lemmy.ml user and I certainly would not say that my experience here is overall “toxic”.

And, funnily enough, most of the issues that I had were with users from either lemmy.world or sh.itjust.works; sometimes lemm.ee.

It depends a lot on what you consider “toxic”.

If it’s just about intrusive off-topic political discussion, then I fully agree with you: it’s far more common in Lemmy than in Reddit, and sometimes it reaches a point that even people who’d otherwise enjoy discussing politics roll their eyes and say “not this shit again”.

However, if “toxic” includes other forms of undesirable behaviour, then Lemmy is probably less toxic than Reddit. For example: while sometimes you do see here disingenuous and deliberate stupidity, “waah TL;DR!!”, the “I don’t understand” conveying disagreement, or passive aggressiveness, in Reddit they pop up all the time.

So, what do you consider toxic? Depending on that, the other users’ experiences might be really similar or really different from yours.

Chomsky would say that the original purpose of language is to structure thought, with communication being solely secondary. (Or something like this, I don’t recall it word-by-word.)

If that’s correct, then internal monologues are simply a result of your brain processing your thoughts.

I like it better. Sometimes you do see users being irrational, entitled/whiny or disingenuous, but it’s still way less than you’d see in Twitter or Reddit. And I’ve seen users chewing others for engaging in those three things, frankly that’s fucking great.

However I do think that there’s lots of room to improve. I’ll mention some sore points:

• On disagreement, some users immediately assuming that the others are stupid (lacking reasoning) or ignorant (lacking a piece of info), instead of asking themselves “am I missing something?”.
• While witch hunters are not as bad here as in Reddit, they’re still bad. If you want to denounce people, basic reading comprehension is obligatory.
• Excessive focus on the words being used to convey something instead of what is being conveyed.
• “WAAAHHH TL;DR!@!@!1” is becoming more and more frequent. If it’s too long to read, it’s also too long to whine about its length.

It is kind of the same suffix but the story is a mess.

That -ario and all words using it are reborrowed* from Latin. And originally it was two related suffixes, fulfilling two purposes:

• masculine -arius, feminine -aria: transform noun into adjective. Like “a be ce de” (ABCD) into “abecedarius” (alphabetic).
• neuter -arium: noun denoting a place for another noun. Like “dictio” (saying) into “dictionarium” (dictionary, or “where you store sayings”)

Except that Latin allowed you to use an adjective as if it was a noun (Spanish still does it), so that “abecedarius” ended as a substantive again. And Spanish merged Latin masculine and neuter, further conflating both versions of the suffix.

*the inherited doublet is the -ero in llavero (place for keys) and herrero (related to iron - professions took the suffix and systematised the re-substantivisation).

Coincidence. The word backtracks to Greek ᾰ̓́βᾰξ / ábax “board, slab”, it doesn’t have to do with ABC.

Pretty much. English borrowed it from Latin because it’s posh. And Latin borrowed it from Greek because it’s posh. But at the end of the day it’s in the same spirit as “the ABC”, or Latin “abecedarius”.

Since krellor answered the main question:

I feel like it would be useful to know exactly how much alcohol is in a can or a bottle.

• By volume: multiply ABV by the volume of the drink.
• By weight: do the maths above, and then multiply the result by 0.789 g/ml.

RL example: the beer in my fridge is 350ml, 4.7% ABV. Doing the maths this is roughly 16.5ml of alcohol, or 13.0g.

Found a link that confirms it for coke. More specifically 1.042g/ml