andrewclunn

Wait, isn't Steam OS Arch based now?

Still can't believe we once had an operating system named OS X Panther. The puns...

Kids are hard. People are selfish. Birth control works. The dating market is torture. Divorce is rampant. We're constantly bombarded with environmental destruction predictions. Most wealthy nations have leaders that seem content to replace the existing populous with poor immigrants. Even the poor nations that these immigrants are coming from are now seeing their birth rates collapse. Culture and laws requiring constant child supervision and care make parenting a full time job (for at least a few years). The prices of basic living expenses keep rising. But don't worry, free child care will save us!

Only the super wealthy and those with no money at all are reproducing above replacement levels, and I'm here to watch as the urban "economic growth at the expense of everything else" culture consumes itself into non-existence in a generation or two.

Get rid of the federal guarantee for homes that are deemed too risky for private insurance. Stop privatizing gains with publicly backed safety nets and people will engage in less risky behavior. But get ready to be labelled as heartless if you back or even suggest such.

$$$

Simplest approach is to make two categories blended and pure. With contestants only being allowed to enter one. This would incentivize otherwise would be cheaters yo enter the category they can legit compete in, reducing the amount pf testing required to only those in the pure category, which would keep costs down.

Wait wait wait. Did I read that right? Dog were removed... to prevent them from breeding with the seals?

The indicator of what is charged and what is not are not reliably updating.

"Hey, I like that table, I'm going to commission somebody to build one for myself!"

Totally legal. No loss to first individual. The fact is that intellectual property IS treated differently, and was justified as being required to incentivize invention and creation NOT because there was any natural right to the product of one's thoughts to not be copied or expanded upon. Now that it arguably gets in the way of innovation and creation, what justification is there for these ADDITIONAL legal restrictions.

Newspapers filled this role once, and they're privately owned. You have two choices: privately owned or government run. I'll take the private ownership route. Better than prior, now users can openly write back outside of "letters to the editor" and without paying money. People used to complain about Twitter censorship, now they complain about its ownership. One is about free expression. The other is about political tribalism.

What I always find interesting is how Democrats insist their failure is due to a lack of sound strategy. That is of course a strategy in and of itself to NEVER admit that it might be a refutation of their policies or (gasp) their values. Telling yourself you just lost because you didn't "play the game" is a cope. It serves its purpose though, as it allows ardent followers to avoid actual self reflection.

Sometimes (with older games) I force proton installation instead of the native port because it runs better.

They just could not resist the pun... and I'm here for it.

Dang those dinosaurs were really good jumpers back when they lived 6,000 years ago...

Likely Unpopular Opinion Alert:

Ever see a minimum required purchase for using a credit card? Same kind of deal. You might not be able to make sales below a certain threshold on their own and remain profitable. Is that eBay's fault or yours?

Considering the failure of particle physics to make substantive gains, even with the massive expenditures made, I cam think of a number of far more enticing uses of the funds and lunar real estate.

Did they count their liabilities? If I "owned" a million dollar home that I own more than a million dollars on, I'd be a millionaire too otherwise.

I'd explain how to give advice better, but you wouldn't listen.

The goals of colonization and exploration of the red planet are not always aligned. I for one am not concerned regarding contamination, but I understand why others might have different priorities.

Dev Cards Roll Robber / Pirate (if applies) Dev Cards 2 Trading Building / Buying Dev Cards 3

In Conflict alway let the priority player go first. ON 7 move the priority indicator and new priority player moves robber / priate.

That will likely require full decompilation. This is akin to wrapping the emulator up with the rom, with a few common functions (found via decompilation) being updated to support more modern rendering approaches. This isn't so much "native" as it is a patched container in an executable form.

EDIT - But hey, you can always just add another layer of emulation via Proton to run it in Linux.

If it’s segmented and opt in then there’s no issue here.

Religion is useful / Religion is a virus, are both utilitarian arguments because some people care more about what is useful than true AND because some people's standards for what is true is based on judging its utility.

To focus on Christianity (since you brought it up), religion not being useful would be a blow to the "Loving God" claim, as a God who (like a bad parent) gave lousy advice that harmed us wouldn't seem very loving. Similarly, if a utilitarian secular philosophy continuously failed to be useful based on its own utilitarian standards, it's self defeating.

Certainly faiths that don't assert a loving God, and secular philosophies that don't include utilitarian moral and ethical frameworks aren't effected. The usefulness of religion compared to secular philosophies doesn't PROVE one is correct, but if you can DISPROVE one or some of your largest competitors for mindshare, I get why the argument is so stressed.

Step one would be to acknowledge that many of the criticisms of religion are merely criticisms of human nature itself, as secular ideologies and individuals fail in the same sorts of ways by the professed moral standards of most secular individuals. The next would be for for secular thinkers to admit that (from an anthropological perspective) their atheistic philosophies are more or less proto-religions and admit to taking certain value judgements and stances about reality on faith.

The issue is, almost no secular thinker comes away from admitting those two honestly and then stays within the purely secular realm for very long.

It was very possible to be an intelligent introspective atheist when the consequences of that stance were not on display so readily. The "forward thinkers" who might have been capable of forming secular religions are instead embracing established faiths. Perhaps it's an issue like attempting to create life from scratch again. Hard to do when existing life just crowds it out. It would take dedicated committed atheists, admitting that they are intentionally attempting to establish a secular religion as a sort of memetic symbiote to fill the same space as religion, but when you're biggest rallying cry for converts is, "People don't need religion!" it's neigh impossible to do.

People keep waiting for this new concept / institution that can replace religion for community building, moral cohesion, and cross generational culture to emerge... but at this point I'm fairly certain it aint coming. I consider this hope the optimism of mid-wits who believe in emergence and evolution, but can't grasp why ideologies that co-evolved with humanity for a few thousand years might be better at filling those roles and needs than their fad secular prophet's intelligently designed philosophies. The modern Nietzscheian free thinker of the day is rebelling against conventional wisdom and propaganda by saying maybe we DO need religion. Oh the irony.

Because otherwise why the hell would I work for them?

Late by like a decade. We’ve moved on from “how do we save / fix academia ?“ ro “how do we destroy academia?” Nobody thinks college even serves a role in protecting free speech anymore

She is typically a very "anti-establishment" accessible science educator. When she talks about climate change she puts the onus on herself to actually make the arguments rather than just "pushing the consensus." This is very important. As somebody who is anti-academia myself, I am so annoyed at being told I am anti-science as well for being as such. Hearing the evidence laid out by somebody also willing to call out academia, but who does believe in climate change is WAY more effective than one more bludgeoning tool from a boot licking sycophant.

Want to have your discussion regarding "What to do?" regarding climate change? You need to stop treating people who want to know your arguments and see your data with respect first. Sabine is a great ACTUAL science educator and not merely a grifter, and (I suspect) just a modest honest person. She legit deserves clicking that subscribe button.

So a sports magazine that has been renting out its brand for decades is now representative of "real journalism?" I'm not sure "real journalists" would appreciate that conflation. Unless of course the comparison is apt, in which case "real journalism" died long ago.