I thought for a bit that camus was a bit based but then I read about his very French views on that and it's like "oh no. Not based"
There's a case from a few years ago where a monkey took a photograph and the person who set it up so the monkey would do somwas trying to get a copyright. It was ultimately found that the monkey presses the button and monkeys can't hold copyright so the photo had no copyright. I tend to think this is similar.
The millennials are the boomers kids through and through. Anyone who thinks they'll be substantially different in charge hasn't been paying attention (other than they're significantly less talented)
Choose 20 games that have had a big impact on you. One game per day, for 20 days. No explanations, no ratings, no particular order. #GameChallenge (18/20)
Stunts
Stunts
It sure seemed like the acid was a bigger problem but while doing my quick bit of research to make sure I wasn't talking out my ass I couldn't find that exact fact. But it's definitely overall a thing humans didn't eat for most of history.
Little known fact: CANOLA oil didn't exist not that long ago. CANOLA (Derived from Canada Oil) is a form of rapeseed that is low in a certain acid that was engineered to get rid of the off taste so it could be used as a foodstuff. Canola was only invented in the early 1970s, so prior to that it was not widely used as a foodstuff. It was attempted to put rapeseed on the market as a food ingredient in the late 1950s, but in its form at the time it was fairly unpalatable.
I had an account pretty early, probably around 2008 (maybe later, I don't remember it was a long time ago). I'll admit, I was probably part of the cancer back then, but I was doing my best. It slowly morphed into something quite different over time. By around 2015 it was insufferable in many ways but still had pockets of excellence. By then though, I'd seen the writing on the wall and left. Nothing I've heard since makes me think I made a mistake.
Reminds me of the story of the Akkadians and the Nazis. I know it seems "what's the same between them... and how does it apply to this situation?" but the two groups shared an incredibly powerful ingroup preference and a violent hatred of outgroups, which I think is applicable to the postmodern woke left. This led to an inability to form any sort of alliances with most of their neighbors, leading to getting trampled by everyone else when war broke out for real. The Akkadians bragged in impressions that survive to this day about forcing their enemies to grind the bones of their wives and children. Everyone put aside their grievances to fight them.
Reading this twitter thread of a guy going "Maybe we shouldn't hate on straight young men quite so much" just reminds me of that. As the number of groups on the "hated" list grow, the forced alliance between everyone but the one group will also grow, and eventually even the mighty Akkadian empire fell, and the German war machine saw Berlin fall.
The clock ticks, and the ideology of the left kicks someone else out of their camp. The Jews are no longer considered part of the left after October 7th. East Asians do too well in school to stay in the camp. Indians are already half a foot out the door. Blacks who are just black are on their way out. Many Latinos are on their way out. Feminists who believe women exist in objective biological reality are out. Tick tock, soon there won't be many people left.
Reading this twitter thread of a guy going "Maybe we shouldn't hate on straight young men quite so much" just reminds me of that. As the number of groups on the "hated" list grow, the forced alliance between everyone but the one group will also grow, and eventually even the mighty Akkadian empire fell, and the German war machine saw Berlin fall.
The clock ticks, and the ideology of the left kicks someone else out of their camp. The Jews are no longer considered part of the left after October 7th. East Asians do too well in school to stay in the camp. Indians are already half a foot out the door. Blacks who are just black are on their way out. Many Latinos are on their way out. Feminists who believe women exist in objective biological reality are out. Tick tock, soon there won't be many people left.
To be fair, not all radiation is the same. For example, you can see visible light (which is itself a form of electromagnetic radiation), but you can't see alpha, beta, or gamma rays or neutron radiation. Gamma rays will set off a radiation survey meter, but infrared radiation will not. Radio waves of all kinds are less potent than light, and light only becomes really dangerous at the higher parts of UV.
Now does this mean that there's no way cell phone radiation can cause cancer or other illnesses? Of course not, this universe is wide and broad and deep, and we should never assume we know everything about it. But on the other hand, it does mean you should be careful comparing things just because they're called the same thing. Most people wouldn't be scared of cancer from the light from a light bulb just because x-rays cause cancer.
Now does this mean that there's no way cell phone radiation can cause cancer or other illnesses? Of course not, this universe is wide and broad and deep, and we should never assume we know everything about it. But on the other hand, it does mean you should be careful comparing things just because they're called the same thing. Most people wouldn't be scared of cancer from the light from a light bulb just because x-rays cause cancer.
Unfortunately, "They lacked due care" will be written on the tombstone of the Internet Archive. Not sure it makes it to 2026 at this rate.
She said "They're not gonna stop [...] and they should not"
As far as I'm concerned, that should be disqualifying but apparently not wanting my city burned to ashes by a bunch of white crackheads pretending they care about black people makes me racist against black people.
As far as I'm concerned, that should be disqualifying but apparently not wanting my city burned to ashes by a bunch of white crackheads pretending they care about black people makes me racist against black people.
There are a few things about evil that make it easier to have thrive than good.
Foremost among them that to do good usually requires wanting to do the right thing and making sacrifices to that end, whereas to do evil requires nothing more than acting in your own self-interest. Not all acting in your own self-interest is evil, of course, and not all evil is even self-interested, but the fact is, good requires people to not do things they might want to do and to do the things they might not otherwise want to do -- to choose to do the right thing, whereas evil allows people to do what they want to do and not do what they don't want to do regardless of the consequences. Without the check valve that is conscience, it is inevitable that evil is easier because you don't have to force yourself to do something you don't want to do or not do something you do want to do.
Next is the fact that it becomes incrementally harder to do good where you've already done what you can, but you can often add to the evil in the world without assistance. I've started picking up litter on the way to the park. Even if I care a lot and pick up all the litter, all I can pick up is the litter that exists. Someone who doesn't care about the state of the community can come right after me and make things worse than they ever were just by throwing some trash out the window of their car. It's infinitely easier to do great harm than to do increasing good.
As well, there's the fact that someone's good works can be turned easily to evil. As an example, many donations intended to help starving Africans get food end up in the coffers of warlords who are directly responsible for those people starving. Someone who wants to do good has to be careful about how they apply their good works. For example, let's say you find a man dying in a gutter, and so you lift him out, heal him up, feed and clothe him, and he goes on to be Pol Pot. You can say you were trying to do good, but the outcome is obviously evil. This appears to be a hypothetical that would never happen, and moreover it appears to be something outside of your control because how could you possibly have known. The selfish nature of evil means that when you offer help, the selfish are much quicker to grab for help than the selfless, and so many of the hands reaching out are just people who don't care and want free stuff, or even people who want to actively do harm and want you to pay to have them do it.
One final attribute of evil that makes it easier than good is often evil can paint itself in the imagery of good to trick people. Whereas good wants to be honest, evil has no qualms about being dishonest, and so can appear good. Rather than talk about modern politics, let's look at the classic movie "American Psycho" where the main character is a psycho, and we learn he is truly psychopathic and evil, but he pays lip service to the highest moral talking points of the day (In the movie, it's intended to be a reflection of the 1980s)
So why can good exist when evil is so much easier? The simple fact is, good is generally constructive or preservative on a long time horizon, and evil is generally destructive on a long time horizon. So while it is easier to to be evil than good in the moment, if you are consistently good you will find yourself with more then if you were consistently evil, and that's a pact and promise you make to the universe and uphold faithfully, because in the short term good wins out because it has built something and maintained things, while evil wins in the short term but tears apart everything it sees.
That being said, it must be said that we have the capacity for both good and evil because we require both to survive. We can't be purely good in this world. We can't be purely evil either. We need to find a balance that's hopefully more on the preservative and constructive side of things than the destructive and short-term side of things, but we must always remember the light can't exist without the dark.
Foremost among them that to do good usually requires wanting to do the right thing and making sacrifices to that end, whereas to do evil requires nothing more than acting in your own self-interest. Not all acting in your own self-interest is evil, of course, and not all evil is even self-interested, but the fact is, good requires people to not do things they might want to do and to do the things they might not otherwise want to do -- to choose to do the right thing, whereas evil allows people to do what they want to do and not do what they don't want to do regardless of the consequences. Without the check valve that is conscience, it is inevitable that evil is easier because you don't have to force yourself to do something you don't want to do or not do something you do want to do.
Next is the fact that it becomes incrementally harder to do good where you've already done what you can, but you can often add to the evil in the world without assistance. I've started picking up litter on the way to the park. Even if I care a lot and pick up all the litter, all I can pick up is the litter that exists. Someone who doesn't care about the state of the community can come right after me and make things worse than they ever were just by throwing some trash out the window of their car. It's infinitely easier to do great harm than to do increasing good.
As well, there's the fact that someone's good works can be turned easily to evil. As an example, many donations intended to help starving Africans get food end up in the coffers of warlords who are directly responsible for those people starving. Someone who wants to do good has to be careful about how they apply their good works. For example, let's say you find a man dying in a gutter, and so you lift him out, heal him up, feed and clothe him, and he goes on to be Pol Pot. You can say you were trying to do good, but the outcome is obviously evil. This appears to be a hypothetical that would never happen, and moreover it appears to be something outside of your control because how could you possibly have known. The selfish nature of evil means that when you offer help, the selfish are much quicker to grab for help than the selfless, and so many of the hands reaching out are just people who don't care and want free stuff, or even people who want to actively do harm and want you to pay to have them do it.
One final attribute of evil that makes it easier than good is often evil can paint itself in the imagery of good to trick people. Whereas good wants to be honest, evil has no qualms about being dishonest, and so can appear good. Rather than talk about modern politics, let's look at the classic movie "American Psycho" where the main character is a psycho, and we learn he is truly psychopathic and evil, but he pays lip service to the highest moral talking points of the day (In the movie, it's intended to be a reflection of the 1980s)
So why can good exist when evil is so much easier? The simple fact is, good is generally constructive or preservative on a long time horizon, and evil is generally destructive on a long time horizon. So while it is easier to to be evil than good in the moment, if you are consistently good you will find yourself with more then if you were consistently evil, and that's a pact and promise you make to the universe and uphold faithfully, because in the short term good wins out because it has built something and maintained things, while evil wins in the short term but tears apart everything it sees.
That being said, it must be said that we have the capacity for both good and evil because we require both to survive. We can't be purely good in this world. We can't be purely evil either. We need to find a balance that's hopefully more on the preservative and constructive side of things than the destructive and short-term side of things, but we must always remember the light can't exist without the dark.
"I still remember it.... Every day he'd say 'I'm going to be rescued... I'm The Mainguy', and those were actually his last words!"
The first generation to be raised online
....
Is still living in Mom's basement.
Which is really pathetic at 40. Like... Your parents could die of old age at any time. Get out there!
....
Is still living in Mom's basement.
Which is really pathetic at 40. Like... Your parents could die of old age at any time. Get out there!
Civ 2 was for windows 3.1, so I haven't really played it. I think I have the files for it on my PC right now.