Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.
ALL information, except what you can hold in your brain, should be 100% public, with no limits on use.
An unimaginable concept right now, but I think it is essential if we hope to ever trust each other and achieve global peace.
There is no need for you to know my browsing history or my medical history.
I’ll take your RSA encryption keys, thanks
That is redundant. Everything would be public.
Then artists could not create anything as a job.
Art doesn’t need to be a job.
They certainly could. Authenticity and originality become what is valued. Everything being public means you will know who is the original.
No, because if the information is public domain, then anyone can freely copy and redistribute it. Nobody could incent anything, because as soon as you do, its public, and anyone can copy it. Nobody could create unique software, because anyone could copy it.
If an artist or creator has a unique original idea, then in your system, it is automatically public, and free for anyone to copy and redistribute.
Nobody will give a shit who the original is, if they can get the exact same thing for cheap or for free.
In the 90s, everyone knew who the original artists for music was. They still all downloaded it for free, because they could, and it was not even legal.
So, i’m afraid you’re living in a fantasy world with this idea.
Intellectual property is important. But, I think it is too highly enforced in some cases and not enough in others. For example, I believe it should be the law that anyone could make an operating system fully compatible with windows, and that windows should be force to provide all information to allow that, as otherwise they have an unjust monopoly.
There are other cases like that, like, I believe every nation should make it mandatory that all social media algorithms are publicly declared, able to be copied, and able to be tested to make sure the declared algorithm is correct. This way they cant be biased to brainwash people.
But your idea goes too far, as it completely.destroys anybody’s ability to make profit off ideas.
The result will be that people keep ideas to themselves.
deleted by creator
I promise my journal really isn’t that interesting
I think Bernie was an idealist and I don’t buy in to a lot of his ideas while appreciating his work to create real change. Don’t crucify me for this.
I wholeheartedly believe there is an alternate timeline where Bernie won the 2016 democratic nomination and won the presidency and we avoided all this shit.
you are willing to die on this hill, but not through crucifixion?
Give them a break. They’re not Jesus.
I think I agree, but I really don’t think it matters. What, are Trump’s ideas coherent or something? What I trust is Bernie’s overall intent. He’s kind of unique in this way because of his decades of consistent political sctivism. Had Bernie been elected in 2016 somehow and we got 8 years of Bernie, the US would still be a capitalist society. It just might be slightly better one.
I think a great example of naive ideas that have dominated political discussion on the left is student loan forgiveness. Like I’m not opposed - if PPP loan forgiveness is acceptable then student loan forgiveness is infinitely more acceptable. No brainer. But the complete lack of discussion about structural reform to the college tuition situation that causes people to need such huge student loans in the first place makes me think that the whole issue was to some extent controlled opposition.
You could have gotten 100 percent student loan forgiveness - the whole thing passed and done and student loans would immediately start to pile up again the next day. Probably even higher tuition too.
The Cowboy Bebop remake by Netflix was mostly good. It failed because Netflix didn’t advertise “normies” correctly.
Hey, thanks! I had been avoiding that. Does it end well enough?
That depends what you want in the ending. If you want something more like the anime, no.
To me the biggest weakness of the show is the Vicious/Julia storyline. Any episode where the crew is chasing bounties is top notch though so it balances out.
Weird, I actually liked the Vicious/Julia story line. And the actors are top notch. Massive Javier Bardem vibes for Vicious.
I loved it! It’s not as good as the anime but it has this beautiful vibe to it. Like 3 college students made it as their passion project and just so happened to have a stoned uncle who does top notch CG work. I also liked that Faye wasn’t slut coded. All in all, it’s just good.
Keep right except to pass. The passing lane is for passing.
When I was driving in Mexico, I learned this is possible! They’re very consistent with this.
California (not sure about other US states) on the other hand … people will purposely drive in the left lane, block traffic, and then get mad at you when you pass them on the right.
anything i know to be absolutely correct i will either not insert my opinion or i will take a shit on top of the hill so that nobody else tries to climb it
Fuck AI.
To secure your stuff. Hacking and social engineering are both easier than you think and identity theft is devastating. I know most people here already know that, but having worked in tech support, it’s unbelievably common to skip even the basics, not to mention my grandparents who think I’m just paranoid.
Even if you are paranoid it can happen to you
Sadly, paying attention isn’t always enough…
Right, it could happen to anyone, but it’s still possible to lower the chance of that happening, or at least limit the damage when it does happen.
Yup
I want to share my photos of our trip with you, but I don’t want you to upload them to Google, or apple, or amazon, or meta, or any social media.
If it’s a pic of you, fine, do whatever you want. But please don’t take my whole album and store it in your google photos.
That seems logical.
Seems a bit creepy doing that…
Maybe more of an online/fandom type of nobody rather than IRL, but I LOVE Sonic The Hedgehog ( Sonic '06 ) so much despite all the glitches because I think the glitches add so much to the game. Cannot convince me that bug riddled mess isn’t a very beautiful sight to behold.
LED headlights can fuck right off, and if you defend them then you are either an asshole or a dumbass who couldn’t think about it for twenty seconds and see the impact.
You can buy night glasses to help with this bullshit. They don’t reduce the shine so much but they stop you from being blinded after being hit in the face with what is bright even for high beams.
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.
You are right. I didn’t specify in my original comment but I am more referencing the polarization in the US specifically.
But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.
The debate will probably go somewhere if people took a moment to think about why murder is bad and why choice is important, then consider why that would or wouldn’t apply to this specific scenario.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
Pro choice is about choice
Pro life isn’t about life as they’ve never cared about any of that shit. That baby is born? Toss it in a dumpster as far as they care.
Pro life is about control and power, I’m willing to.doe on that hill a hundred times
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.
I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
If withholding lifesaving care is murder, everyone who hasn’t donated a kidney is a murderer. Everyone who didn’t donate blood this month is a murderer. Everyone who isn’t an organ donor is a murderer.
No one getting an abortion is a murderer, they’re just not agreeing to share all of their organs with another person for almost a year.
So yeah, I just don’t understand their position. They don’t call withholding medical care by sharing organs murder in any other context.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
Most pro-lifers aren’t even personally in it for the power, they’re just brainwashed by people who are.
Just force women to have abortions. Now you are undermining their bodily autonomy AND killing babies for satan (or whatever) Both sides happy.
/joke
there is literally no possible usecase for Generative AI, it is modern day snake oil. nothing could possibly justify adding yet another “technology” to the list of existing tech that is already scorching our earth and enslaving people. it was created by the CIA to bolster the surveillance state and i have considerably less respect for someone when i find out that they use it for any reason at all.
there is literally no possible usecase for Generative AI
Demonstrably false: GenCast, a Diffusion model (and thus GenAI), is freely available here as source code to train it yourself if you so wish. ERA5 data is free to download.
It’s cheaper and more accurate in both result and resolution to run a classic Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model.
I will fully agree that all the slop that’s being generated is shite and a waste of time though.
French cuisine is extremely overrated
Sacré Bleu!!!
Neil Postman was right.
Our educational models and methods are changing for the worse.
TV and the internet are terrible mediums for public or political discourse and this has exacerbated many of our existing issues.
Our culture has become more shallow and has started to lack something profound because of how we utilize technology for education, business, and entertainment.
Things will not improve until we change our relationship with these technologies.
EDIT: several words.
I will not install your shitty app
If someone is trying to sell me on a cafe or restaurant by saying, ‘Yeah, it’s kind of expensive, but there are great deals on the app…’ it’s no dice from me.
So real.
If I hear “I’m sure meta is a good company that will treat your data respectfully.” one more time!
The worst are the sites that just redirect you to the play/app store when visiting on mobile.
I’m surely NOT installing your fucking app after you give me a bad experience (by not showing me the content I’ve received a link to) while I’m a “guest visitor” to your site.I have my main phone browser set to automatically request the desktop version of whatever I visit, so I haven’t run into this. Does it happen a lot?
One example I know is Instagram, here’s an example. Can’t click anywhere without being redirected to the play store.
I don’t use it, it’s just the first that came to my mind, but in the rare cases someone sends me a link to it I can’t really view what they sent me because of this. And I surely won’t make an account just to see a meme or some shit.This is a setting in your browser.
I have opening apps automatically disabled for places where I have multiple accounts.
It’s disabled on mine too, that’s why it asks first whether I want to open it in the store.
It still goes to the play store (website) when I refuse to open it in the play store (app), as can be seen in the video.
