Stating obvious shit like it was some hidden piece of wisdom? Inability to handle subtleties like “lying” vs. “saying an incorrect statement”? Voting system? People repeating the same shit over and over, without reading the others’ comments?

EDIT: I’m highlighting that this YT comment section shows a lot of things to hate in Reddit. In some aspects they’re behaving exactly like redditors; in some they’re actually doing it better, even if YT is a cesspool of idiocy.

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.

It’s less complicated than it looks like. The text is just a poorly written mess, full of options (Fedora vs. Ubuntu, repo vs. no repo, stable vs. beta), and they’re explaining how to do this through the terminal alone because the interface that you have might be different from what they expect. And because copy-pasting commands is faster.

Can’t I just download a file and install it? I’m on Ubuntu.

Yes, you can! In fact, the instructions include this option; it’s under “Installing the app without the Mullvad repository”. It’s a bad idea though; then you don’t get automatic updates.

A better way to do this is to tell your system “I want software from this repository”, so each time that they make a new version of the program, yours get updated.

but I have no idea what I’m doing here.

I’ll copy-paste their commands to do so, and explain what each does.

sudo curl -fsSLo /usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/mullvad-keyring.asc
echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc arch=$( dpkg --print-architecture )] https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/stable $(lsb_release -cs) main" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mullvad.list
sudo apt update
sudo apt install mullvad-vpn

The first command boils down to “download this keyring from the internet”. The keyring is a necessary file to know if you’re actually getting your software from Mullvad instead of PoopySoxHaxxor69. If you wanted, you could do it manually, and then move to the /usr/share/keyrings directory, but… it’s more work, come on.

The second command tells your system that you want software from repository.mullvad.net. I don’t use Ubuntu but there’s probably some GUI to do it for you.

The third command boils down to “hey, Ubuntu, update the list of packages for me”.

The fourth one installs the software.

In response to such critiques [concerning the decline of quality], Reddit spokesperson Rathschmidt said he did not “know of an industry benchmark for scoring content quality”.

My sides went into orbit. It’s a Reddit spokesperson acting like the worst of the Reddit userbase: being passive aggressive and using appeal to ignorance, at the same time.

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

The post is clear. That is what matters. If some assumer starts making shit up based on the title alone, the assumer is at fault, not the poster.

I won’t address everything because it’s a lot of text, OK? (I did read it though.)

I think that it’s more accurate to say that reasoning is a “tool” that you use to handle knowledge. And sure, without knowledge you aren’t able to use reasoning, but sometimes even with knowledge you aren’t able to do it either - we brainfart, fall for fallacies, etc.

Another detail is that ignorance is far more specific - a person isn’t just “ignorant”, but “ignorant on a certain matter”. For example it’s perfectly possible to be ignorant on quantum mechanics while being informed on knitting, or vice versa. In the meantime intelligence - and thus stupidity - is split into only a handful of categories (verbal, abstract, social, etc.).

To someone who knows more than us, they’d consider us stupid.

They’d consider us ignorant. At least if following the distinction that I’m emphasising.

When we talk about people being stupid or smart, we’re just reducing that complexity so we can make simplistic insults that make us feel better about ourselves, but ultimately aren’t saying anything meaningful about the human condition.

Not necessarily reducing it but I get your point, given that I think that it’s simply easier to talk about ignorance and stupidity as behaviour than as something inside our “minds” (whatever “mind” means). And in both cases it’s behaviour that we all engage; some more than others, but we all do.

It depends on the context. In some cases the person might be taunting you to defend your position, or simply trying to avoid some subject.

But let’s say that the person says this out of the blue, and is proselytising this view that human rights should be opposed. In this situation I believe that the person thinks that they benefit from denying human rights to other people; it’s mostly selfish. (And worse, stupid - the person will be likely in the short end of the stick.)

Yeah, I think that this is part of the deal.

When someone says “people are stupid”, they usually are not conveying “the average person has a lower-than-average intelligence”. And I don’t think that they’re even comparing people with some point of reference (the average, or themself, or someone else); in the context they’re usually criticising some behaviour that they see as stupid. For you this behaviour would be “living below their potential”, for me it’s “showing blatant lack of reasoning”, for @_danny@lemmy.world’s (from another comment) “lack of curiosity, drive to learn and critical thinking”.

Frankly, that is just a big pile of babble.

but “people” is defined [SIC] around the average person

There’s no “definition” here. The closest to what you said that would make some sense would be “but “people” implies a generalisation around the average person”, but it doesn’t work in your argument because it does not contradict what BananaTrifleViolin said. Nor it justifies your assumption that

by saying “stupid” is not defined around average intelligence, you’re really criticizing the phrase “people are stupid”…

I genuinely think that you did not understand what the other poster said, so I’ll repeat it under different words.

The comic has an implicit definition of stupidity as “lower than average intelligence” (see panel 2).

BananaTrifleViolin is highlighting that this is not the definition that people use for “stupid” when they say “people are stupid”. And that leads to a fallacy called “straw man”, where you misrepresent a position to beat it. Munroe (the cartoonist) is doing this, either by accident or on purpose. (It is not the first time he does this; his comic about free speech also shows the same irrationality.)

know

Wine is wine, bread is bread. Let us not conflate lack of reasoning (stupidity) with lack of knowledge (ignorance).

More like 90% of human actions are stupid, as I’m not sure if there’s an even split of “the stupid” and “the smart”, and plenty people mix both. (E.g. being oddly competent at something specific, only to vomit assumptions on something else.)

In special I feel like four types of stupidity became a bit too common, too harmful, too egregious. They’re the failure to handle:

• uncertainty - or, “how your belief might be wrong, and you’ll need to handle the case that it is wrong”
• complexity - or, “how small details have a profound impact on everything”
• undesirable possibilities - or, “how nature gives no fucks about your fee fees, and things don’t become true because you roll in wishful belief”
• context - or, “how things are never isolated, and you need to look outside the thing to understand the thing”

They’re intertwined, I think. And perhaps there’s something more important than those, but those four are the ones that I notice the most.

What you’re really saying is “other people aren’t as smart as me.”

I like xkcd but I feel like Munroe is being assumptive here, assuming “your expectations are based on you”. Are they?

Now you’re really straining.

You do realise that this reads a lot like an implicit acknowledgement that you’re a failure to counter any argument contradicting your claim… right? “Run to the hills!”

It’s true but keep in mind that the other user is ignorant on the difference between “ignorance” and “dumbness”, as this comment shows. So he’ll likely distort what you said into “you think that people in the past were dumb?” like he did there.

Then you are strawmanning.

That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you’re imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.

You are however cherry picking.

Appeal to popularity and/or authority carry a good deal of weight, actually.

Fourth fallacy / irrationality: argumentum ad nauseam. Repeating it won’t “magically” make it truer.

If a smart guy sees it, and you don’t, it’s fair to conclude that the error is yours.

In this situation, you wouldn’t be concluding, only assuming.

But this is obvious.

Nope.

You are merely straining to refute me.

Here’s a great example of why assumptions are not reliable - you’re assuming why I’m uttering something, even if you have no way to know it. And it happens to be false. [I don’t care enough about you to “refute you”. I simply enjoy this topic.]

The sensible conclusion is that we really do see things differently these days. That we have gained and lost.

We see things differently, but “we gained and lost” is yet another fallacy: moving the goalposts.

Also, it’s rather “curious” how you skipped what I said about the Romans, even if it throws a bucket of cold water over your easy-to-contest “smart people in the past believed it!”.