This post contains misinformation, but I'm conflicted about removing it. Doing so would also eliminate the valuable conversation that follows. Keeping it up allows for critical discourse and sharing of more reputable sources on the subject. The community's commentary effectively highlights how the infographic greatly misrepresents global healthcare waits, and I fully support the community members' contributions to this discussion.

Example: The recent post that discusses taping your mouth to decrease snoring with a "linked study".

I personally think that is not a safe practice despite what the article says. Moreover, looking at the amount/percent of down votes and reading through all replies, I don't see the value in a fact checking bot as the community members apply their own knowledge, critical thinking and personal opinions to the discussion, thus helping other community members form their own ideas of the "factfulness" of the initial post.

How would a bot fact check this?

As a mod, I am not completely opposed to a fact-checking bot but I do not have experience managing one, nor do I likely have the technical expertise to incorporate one (would very likely need assistance in the event the population within this community wants one).

I would like to hear more input on ideas (pros vs cons) from community members and if anyone has suggestions for incorporating one if that is the popular opinion.

Personally, I prefer to have community members freely discuss health issues, sharing facts and opinions on commentary. Health can be viewed so many ways. While scientific research is the golden standard to support facts, one must consider other aspects of life that influences health such as history, culture, and individual experiences.

Ideally, I would prefer not to have a bot but would like to hear what the other mods and community members say. Thank you for sharing this suggestion.

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I understand that the comment is not based on science and speaks of neurodivergence in a negative manner. By removing the initial comment, I believe it would take away the effectiveness of the commenters below. People vote with the down button and the user can see how unpopular his/her comment is. I don't wish to overly moderate a community if there is no active harm, especially when others have meaningful sub-comments that can help other casual readers understand the different aspects of what gender affirming care entails, hopefully enlightening others to see it is more than just for trans persons. I respect everyone's thoughts on the matter, even the ones telling me I am wrong for not removing it. I am still sticking with this decision. Thank you for everyone's input.

I agree with this analysis of the reported comment, and chose to leave it as it has provoked a constructive conversation. It does not appear to be malicious in nature. I will keep an eye on this post to make sure things remain civil. Thank you.

I actually like it as much, if not better than last season. I agree with the commentary on the fact that I wish the episodes that are based upon older trends/events would have been better if released more concurrently with those events.

I am less fond of the Bender-heavy storylines.

Though many of the jokes are a bit predictable, it still tickles me. I don't seem to find as many quotable lines, but maybe I have overly and repeatedly watched the other seasons so much they are stuck in my brain.

In any case, I still think the pizza analogy holds up. May be bad, good, or somewhere in between, but it is still pizza and I will eat it every time with some semblance of enjoyment.

Didn't get to watch it until after work. As far as the episode went, I enjoyed it. So far IMO better than the previous season. I do agree with your analysis on the subject matter but still got some laughs out of those moments that are in the background or random elements of humor (Zoidberg's main moment in this episode). Sorry trying not to be too vague while keeping from giving away spoilers.

For anything health related - !health@lemmy.world

Under the seat.

According to that post's comments, our community/lemmy also comes up early in searches on Yahoo, Bing, and Duckduckgo! Wooooo!

Was that the Star Trek Wars or the Star Wars Trek?

After reading over https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Intellect_devourer I think you very well could be onto something.

Highlights from that site that follow this notion:

• They were capable of magically consuming a humanoid creature's mind and memories from a distance of up to 10 feet (3 meters), provided that creature had a brain and succumbed to its psychic assault. If so, the victim's mentality was deteriorated. In the worst case, the victim's intellectual capacity was completely erased, leaving them dazed or stunned and ultimately incapacitated.

  • What happened to Earth beings except for Fry

• To aid in hunting, an intellect devourer could detect the minds of sentient creatures up to a distance of 300 feet (91 meters), determining both presence and position. -In the infosphere they were not able to detect Fry's brainwaves due to his "nasty in the past-y" affecting his brain.

• Despite their exposed brains, an intellect devourer was protected by a crusty covering or clear membrane and was resistant to physical harm.

  • Fry was only able to hurt them by thinking

While they are supposed to have legs and claws, there is a illithid talent that they could fly.

Otherwise, the rest of the lore seems exclusive from the Futurama brains.

Knowing the intellect and geekiness of the writers, I agree that there is possible connection between the two. For the sake of creative licencing, I am sure if it was their intention to make them intellect devourers, they made the changes they did for the show. Thanks for sharing 😊.