Kaiyou

Can we just take a moment to appreciate that a sites legitimacy is questioned because the site isn't crippled by ads to the point of being nearly unusable? That's a really unfortunate state of affairs. Especially since I don't think small sites trying to build an audience can afford to cripple themselves to the same degree with ads as bigger sites can.

One reason I can think of for increased Republican content is because of outrage economics. They tend to generate more clicks. It's also something that isn't catered to by the big news networks. Smaller sites I'm regularly visiting for over ten years have also shifted in this direction and those type of articles always generate more comments than other ones, so the tactic seemingly works.

How is it white nationalism to want to secure a future for white children? This seems highly illogical to me.

And how do you get from this quote to the context of genociding other people? That's a pretty big non-sequitur. The quote is about securing a future, not to "kill all infidels".

That's how you get stagnation. It's also rather unfair.

I don't think you can construct "It's okay to be white" as something wrong, because it's just inherently correct. It worries me, that you even try to find something wrong the the slogan.

That work sets you free is an unsubstantiated claim. I'm working and I don't think that this set me free. On the contrary, I think it's pretty shackling.

What would be a not naive understanding of the quote? I think it is reasonable to want a future for your own children. How are we living in a world where this is controversial?

I lived my entire live frugally. I enjoy that. Working 40h weeks on the other hand isn't all that fun, even though now I have thousands of dollars to blow every month. If I had the choice I'd live frugally and not work.

I'm eating the same thing everyday, like to stay at home and hate to buy things. I'm working because I know it's necessary.

I think it is very reasonable to think, that it is okay to be white. Don't you?

Post-scarcity doesn't solve the fundamental problem of earth being unable to sustain infinite humans. Even with infinite resources, there will still be finite space.

Historically, human populations that did grow beyond sustainable had to starve to death back to sustainable. If you prevent this by giving everyone free food, that's not really a good thing.

I do not think such a world is desirable. It would just distort markets. Everyone will charge more for everything, starting with rent.

If you cover the basic needs of "everyone", the number of everyone will just go up and up and up until you can't cover the basic needs anymore. Do you think earth can sustain infinite people? There has to be a mechanism preventing people to increase their number to unsustainable levels. The current world already does a really bad job at that, I don't think we have to make this worse.

I think the most desirable world is one with a build-in pruning process, where only the most adapted people survive, thus preventing the number of humans to reach unsustainable levels, while still progressing to greater heights. After all, if you just put a cap on the number of children people are allowed to have you're just going to stagnate. It's better to have a large pool to select the fittest and prune the rest, resulting in the same number at the end, only with much better quality. Historically, war was such a pruning process. But I don't think it was an especially good one.

Working 40h weeks for an extra $500 isn't a good deal. As long as I can sustain life without working, not working at all will always beat getting some scraps. If there aren't repercussions for not working, than why bother?

Money is a representation of wealth, if you print more of it, the money loses it's value to match the wealth. We call this inflation. You cannot give away wealth that you do not have.

If we truly had a free market, we'd have none of these issues, since wealth aggregation wouldn't be prevented through regulations.

For example, you can already get free education of mostly everything from the Internet, but without getting a piece of paper at the end with the stamp of some university. It's a form of regulation, since without that piece of paper you'll have a hard time selling your services. Similarly, you can get all the information you need to lead a healthy life style, making it less likely for you to even need health care. But still lots of people just eat till obesity ruining their own bodies. In Japan there's a system where your company does yearly health checks and if you gain weight, you have to pay more in taxes or some such scheme. Curiously nearly nobody in Japan is obese.

CLIs are like that. On the bright side, things rarely change. So the stuff you read in the manual 30 years ago still likely works. I prefer it over relearning GUIs with every update.

Of course, you might as well disregard the manual and discover things on your own as you need them. Nevertheless, it helps to go at this with a mindset of "this feature surely already exists" lest you're compelled to develop a worse version of the feature yourself.

Shift+click works for me.

There's an initialism for it, used by the people who know about the feature to describe the people who didn't: RTFM.

What do we have to do, then?

Toxoplasmosis is a hateful term invented by dog people to discredit people serving the cat master race.

Look up what toxoplasmosis is.

It's a cat, so it can do no wrong. If the cat is pleased by killing wildlife, the wildlife has to die.

Luddites were people that went out destroying the machines that replaced them in the workforce. Obviously their efforts were futile. Please explain how this applies to my thinking.

I'm not opposed to technology, I welcome technology. Isn't it very much like the Luddites to advocate for "scaling back" with our "pollution"? The motives are different, but the objective seems identical.

You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't.

And when they happen, developers decide they need to "further improve" it, destroying everything that was valuable about it in the first place.

If the cure is worse than the illness, why take the cure? Who are you going to save the planet for? I don't particularly mind humanity ending a few years after I've died of old age.

But how do you account for water level going up and down on it's own just over a single day?

> enough to raise the global watermark 1.5 millimetres

How is it even possible to measure increases this small? Isn't there an unavoidable error range of at least centimeters?

Combining the words "most" and "species" feels a little bit silly. Among all the millions of species on this planet only humans have displayed the intelligence necessary to contemplate any of this.

No, English isn't the weird one, French is. All languages except for French just adopt phrases from other languages. But for French they couldn't just use "computer" or "PC", like pretty much every other language out there. They had to invent their own word: l'ordinateur, if I remember correctly. And they do this with every foreign word.

What's the point in preserving failed cultures? What are the benefits we can gain from preserving them?

Progressives hate what they have, so they want to change things. Unfortunately, they never seem too concerned whether the changes improve the overall situation or not. Conservatives love what they have or had, so they want to keep things as they are or go back to the way things were. Unfortunately, they too aren't looking at the overall situation.

It seems both camps are emotionally attached to their positions not being capable of considering that they are wrong about something. To err is human and so it is to think to be always correct in the important matters, I guess.

Interestingly enough, while using the Internet, learning English came naturally, but I don't really see a point of learning other languages. I wonder why that is.

Maybe the benefits are just too deeply hidden or there aren't enough benefits. Possibly there is a bias in search engines that enables the hiding of resources in other languages. (While they are quite persistent to offer me results in the language of the country I'm residing in, despite doing all my searches in English.)

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. A good training exercise I can think of is to build complex Lego models according to the instructions. It's how I spend lots of my time in my early childhood, before I was allowed to play video games and watch TV. By touching the pieces and rotating them yourself you get good image training of how shapes look when you rotate them. Building things in a 3D space based on drawn instructions from only a single point of view should also help to build mental images.