big-green-man

I don't care about amplification. I don't buy that silence wrongthink bs. Something is true or it's not. Use your brain to determine if it is true. I used mine, I don't think it's true. I'm not going to refrain from discussing and referencing ideas because some people are afraid to talk about them. It isn't enough for you that I don't think that way, you want me to not even talk about what someone else said. Fuck that. To be candid, you can take your "you shouldn't be allowed to say that" crap and stuff it up your ass.

Is that a question?

It's alright for people to like what they like. It's alright for me to point out that they're mentally captured by a propaganda corporation.

They don't share ownership of anything.

The owners do whatever they want, then lip service the fandom after the fact, and the fandom takes it because they can't cut loose from their attachment. A die hard fan that won't drop something the minute it begins to be destroyed is a sucker for abuse, and their willingness to look past it afterwards is why the owners get away with it. And they'll do it again.

But they don't stop watching it, their identities are invested in it. There's sunk cost fallacy going on there. They don't want it to suck, they want it to keep getting better. And it doesn't. And they complain. But they keep watching anyway. I know a guy that watched every episode of discovery, complained how bad it was, then watched the next one. It didn't matter that it sucked, you can't miss knowing the canon!

They're entirely captured by the corporations that produce this stuff. Their minds are trapped arguing over the validity of literal nonsense because it's profitable to some company for that to be the case.

Imagine caring about this at this point. Some corporation dictates to you what lore youre allowed to remember. "Canon." I will never understand fandom.

I used to love star trek. I have a good friend whos a hardcore trekky. He would talk like this, and I just thought, the mental hoops people jump through to give corporations money, like they're so invested in a story that they'll justify anything. He would talk about how much he hates discovery, and then watch the next episode.

I just turned it off. I gave up on star trek entirely. Who cares? They've destroyed an entertainment staple. They can backtrack if they want. They'll do this again in a few years. These things aren't made to last forever. They call them "properties" for a reason. Novel stories will be way more interesting if anyone wants to try to create some.

Again, I don't agree with it. I replied to this comment already. I'm just clearing up a lie, that this material is sourced from a white supremacist website. It's not. It's sourced from an Indian guy who makes his living understanding India for clients who wish to operate there.

I have actually lived in India. I experienced a lot of what the author talks about with regard to corruption, the culture of corruption, the dirtiness and how the cities are jam packed beyond imagination, there's a culture of degradation of those viewed as lesser than you. But in my experience it's not an honorless society devoid of all virtue and all that like the speaker said. Many people do have a sense of real justice there and do want those aspects of the society to be changed, I could tell you stories that would make you weep with joy. I think the speaker is overly cynical about the state of India socially.

The original source for this article and that article you're referencing is this video https://youtube.com/watch?v=-1Mg4nXJ21Y

I didn't post anything, the video I linked to is in the article in the OP. I'm just clearing up the claim that this is sourced from some white supremacist website. It is not true. I don't claim to agree with anything in the video.

While I don't agree with the sentiments expressed here, it's an excerpt from this speech https://youtube.com/watch?v=-1Mg4nXJ21Y and not original to the website that published it.

Actually, the source is this speech https://youtube.com/watch?v=-1Mg4nXJ21Y

There's a link to the speech this excerpt is from. The guy speaking is very clearly Indian. The source of this is not from a white supremacist organization, of course they'd salivate at finding it and publish it but that's not where it comes from.

You just blew my mind. I'm taking a dive on this.

This probably occurred at the behest of the German government. Germany has a real personal drive not to have pro Israel sentiment associated with terrorism and mass murder.

I just use qutebrowser and this

https://codeberg.org/mister_monster/tab-manager/

Also an extension called onetab on chrome or Firefox. Mobile, I use Firefox (or rather iceraven) and I just export from time to time and import to the above extension using a custom script.

I don't want a black box organizing information for me. I have a mind for that. I don't want automatic related whatever added to my information, that's a surefire way to fill it with noise.

Well, that feeling of wanting to have kids isn't really universal. It's not really primal, like needing to eat or something. The desire for sex pretty much is.

Is it evolved? I guess everything is evolved. Some people have the desire to abuse their children. That's evolved too some how some way, I wouldn't call that an evolutionary drive though.

I don't know if female dogs crave sex or crave puppies. If they're anything like us, the majority of the time it's the former craving that leads to puppies. That's all I know.

I mean, do you feel sad for photographers, painters, digital artists that every stock photo used on every website in the world comes from a stock photo website and wasn't hand made by an artisan? Is it some slight against Duke Ellington that he wasn't selected to write and record the hold music you hear when you call your doctors office? Feel bad for musicians why? They still get their royalties when someone plays their song. It's just they're not getting selected by an algorithm for random background music as often. How is that some wrongdoing against them?

If you walk into a steakhouse and order the porterhouse and you get taco bell Beefy™ meat, that's one thing. If you pay the restaurant a monthly retainer to feed you steak whenever you feel like wandering in and you get such treatment, you weren't really ripped off.

Someone tells Spotify "I want to listen to the latest Lil yachty album" and it plays, expectations were met. Someone says "play whatever I just need background noise", expectations were also met. You can't ask for elevator music and be upset that that's what you get. The fact that you can still pay a flat monthly rate and get access to almost any music you'd want to hear, that's like still getting the porterhouse every day for a monthly fee. That's amazing and fantastic. Don't expect it to last much longer. And don't ask for the soup of the day if you want something fresh.

I'm not a Spotify user, but I've got to go against the grain here and say "who cares?"

Have you ever bought a CD in the days of CDs because you heard a song or two from the album on the radio and found that only those that you'd already heard were any good? Hair metal was particularly rife with this. Flower power stuff from the 60s stands out, mostly utter hot garbage, you can find entire mixes of the low quality knockoff crap getting sold at night on PBS. There are people that have every motley crue album (and not just the first 2 like more cultured people such as myself), and listen to them regularly. There has always been a massive market for low quality garbage.

Radio stations used to get paid to put crap in rotation. Anyone remember Limp Bizkit? They got famous by buying slots on Seattle radio stations. Who didn't grow out of that garbage? A lot of people, unfortunately.

You've got playlists, played by lazy people that don't care about anything but the mood or vibe, that they didn't curate, going on in the background while they ride the elevator and youre surprised that it's elevator music? How often do you hear billboard top 100 hits while on hold with the cable company? Complain when someone tries to play one of those tracks and a cover band plays instead, that's when someone is getting screwed over.

Subscription services have always been and will always be a race to the bottom. Quality art has always had to be manually curated by the enjoyer. The best stuff has always been hidden behind the stuff people were trying to sell you. People looking to squeeze out an extra buck were always willing to sell lower quality to those who would tolerate it. So if you don't want low quality crap in your life, take the time to pick what's in your life and pay fairly for it. There was never going to be a miracle cure to the downfall of the music industry for the low low price of ten dollars a month.

Well, you're not exactly primally driven to reproduce. You're primally driven to engage in some behavior, and experience hedonistic pleasure from it, with the side effect of reproduction. Reproduction is expensive, so evolution created a dirty trick. This is why birth control is so damn popular. You're driven to fuck, not to reproduce. I have no idea what the experience is for an amoeba, but I would guess it feels more like ejaculation than tears of joy to them.

For a lot of people though, the desire for children is there, strong, and comes from somewhere else, almost like it comes from somewhere deeper like a soul or something. I know that's true for me. My goal with my relationship, and well before that when I was shopping, was about family for most of my adult life. It seems this is out of fashion these days and people figure it out late. Hedonistic pleasure is fleeting, creating amazing people can go on literally forever if done correctly, it is an ambition and achievement unto itself, and is rewarding in a way science doesn't yet understand, to be a little facetious.

What you're describing is polygamy, and I've considered it for myself. It is corrosive if it is adopted as a social institution in a culture, but if a free rider here or there (such as myself) pulls it off, better for them. I have talked to my wife about it, she doesn't like the idea, although she does like women and it wouldn't be a just me getting the benefit type deal. I think she's probably right, the dynamic can get too messy, and I think youre right, it took me my whole life to find her, finding another one that's perfect for me as well as perfect for her would probably take a decade. Not really a reasonable timeline.

Also, she wants the children she raises to be hers, the shared responsibility thing doesn't appeal to her, and the potential rivalries between women and their respective children just aren't conducive to raising healthy people, which is ultimately the goal of all of this. Maybe she will change her mind one day. Maybe it could be made to work. I'm not dead set on it and am happy with the status quo.

I think people who like ideas like polyamory have misconstrued notions about what monogamy is, which is a general cultural problem in western societies these days.

I don't own my partner and she doesn't own me. I give myself freely to her and she does the same. It's not about expectation, but commitment. I promise her she's the only one for me, despite my very human desires, and she promises me the same thing. This is healthier than the pervasive "ownership" mental model, because we both very much are aware that we have human and animal desire, and understand that the commitment is freely given. We don't get mad at each other for being attracted to other people, and feel no jealousy, we would feel betrayed if the other broke the commitment, because we were promised something by the other.

The idea that monogamy is the default in relationships outside of marriage is a very new thing in US culture. There was a time, not so long ago, when the point at which monogamy began was marriage, or for some, engagement. Needing to define being single in over convoluted terms like "polyamory" is a bit ridiculous.

I've always been very casual about these things with partners. Some can't handle it, they're jealous by nature or something. Usually, being clear "we aren't committed until we talk about that and commit" is a pretty easy to digest thing for people, even if they default to the opposite usually.

On a less personal note, it's no coincidence I think that the most successful cultures in the world were and are monogamous by social expectation. Polyamorous social structures are not conducive to responsibility with regard to rearing children, and are more often than not to leave women in a difficult position. As such, women expect commitment from men where there are few options to prevent pregnancy. That's not to say anything about the spread of disease. Jealousy is still a problem, and leads to conflict. Polygamous social structures, the second most successful of the reproduction/sex oriented social structures, lead to swathes of unmarried men, and you get rejections from the tribe, hostile takeovers, warlike cultures designed to dispose of the men who will not hope to reproduce. Monogamy is the stable arrangement and it shows. Other more exotic complex social arrangements tend to be very niche, small tribal groups relegated to basically Africa, and don't scale well.

I think if young people want to have fun, do it, be clear, if someone doesn't like it that's their decision to not participate. But slapping labels on it like it's some revolution in sexual dynamics is silly. Be prepared to outgrow your exploration, read the allegory of Chesterton's fence to understand why.

Imagine simping for a spook agency while calling yourself a journalist.

I told my son this when he was 3. His mother was livid. I don't see the benefit to lying to children. And these kids were 11, I promise hes not the first person to tell them, at least one classmate has informed them of this.

Do you bring home a salary/are you profitable? If you make just above the IRS reporting threshold you can get a free or almost free plan from the marketplace (deadline is tomorrow), and if you don't make much it can be pretty cheap. Net worth doesn't factor in here, only income.

I've got some ideas:

1) make the "switch" dialog when you open a new tab a button, instead of just one part of it being a button. Same with the undo on closed tab.

2) reloads on open sometimes open closed tabs or pages that were just before the one opened.

3) the more recent update has trouble randomly with opening web apps in private tabs.

I think their facetious point was "windows does nothing more for the user than Linux" which I tend to agree with, care to share some examples of what windows does better than Linux besides forcing you to update, forcing you to use edge browser and showing ads on your start menu?

Windows has market share because they got a contract in the late 90s and 2000s with the department of education to put it on school computers when school computers were just becoming a thing. That is the only reason.

The first 3 points are basically the same point: not all Linux systems use the same desktop software. There's a part about adobe that really belongs in point 5.

On the 4th point, everything has a learning curve. When you want to use something new, you've got to learn how to use it. I've used different systems over the years and unix-like systems are by far the easiest to use once you get the hang of things.

On the 5th point, it basically comes down to network effects. This can be a real practical "right now" problem for people, but if you want to use something you think is better this point aside, you should so as to negate it. It takes people needing things for other people to decide to do them.

I was really ready to agree with the article as it got started. But it took a turn for the usual. I was hoping it would go into how Americans cheered people like Bonnie and Clyde, how america has always had a soft spot for "justified" lawlessness, a disdain for the corrupt upper echelon that has a disdain for them, that sort of stuff. Instead I got what I probably would've expected had I not been born an optimist. I guess tomorrow is a new day.

This is being framed as a bad thing, but it is a good thing.

Something going on in the country as the status quo, and someone wants to take it to the supreme court. Without discretion, the court has to take up the case. That means they have to set precedent. Precedent is something you don't want to overturn often, because it erodes legitimacy pf the court to do so. And courts make mistakes. You want as few of those mistakes to either become rock solid precedent or get overturned later. So, they have discretion to take up cases, if something's not that consequential in the moment, why shake up the rules we govern ourselves by and change it, or set it in stone? Wait until it is consequential. And the court can only do that if it can use discretion on raking the case in the first place.

Yes, that's how it works. Radiation hits a body, it glows at a temperature at which it radiates the same amount of energy hitting it and that's the steady state. This applies to every body in the universe, radiation hitting the earth will undergo entropy and escape.

When you "heat" the earth as in global warming heating, what you're doing is making that radiation get trapped for slightly longer. This necessarily means slightly less glow than before. Then, the glow climbs back up and it reaches a new steady state, where the radiation hitting equals the radiation emanating, and in that state the temperature in the interim between getting hit and re radiating may be a little higher.