Your choices are der fuhrer, der fuhrer's pomeranian lapdog, the guy everyone else is calling Hitler, the guy everyone else is calling double Hitler, The separatists, and the greens.
I miss Canadian politics being boring and ignorable...
I miss Canadian politics being boring and ignorable...
No kidding! Ugh, I ended up taking every painful step along the way. Herc monochrome, then CGA, then EGA (and btw not all EGA is EGA, there's a super EGA that'll not display on your EGA monitor and will show garbage), and finally VGA. Jumping right from CGA to VGA would be mind blowing.
That sounds about right!
Later on I got a 5MB hard drive that was so big and heavy you could use it as a weapon of war, and you had to manually calibrate the interleave to get the fastest performance out of it.
Later on I got a 5MB hard drive that was so big and heavy you could use it as a weapon of war, and you had to manually calibrate the interleave to get the fastest performance out of it.
heh, I still love BASIC, so much that my next book is going to be an introduction to FreeBASIC.
My first computer computer was a TRS-80 coco with the extended color basic. The extended basic was on a completely different level than for example c-64 basic, you could do graphics using the sort of commands that would later become the standard.
My first computer computer was a TRS-80 coco with the extended color basic. The extended basic was on a completely different level than for example c-64 basic, you could do graphics using the sort of commands that would later become the standard.
My first PC was an 8088 made of random parts we managed to scrounge together. After an 8088 with a herc monochrome screen, everything was an upgrade and these days I'm fully "you damn kids don't know how good you got it" when it comes to computers. :P
(I'm not even that old...Maybe a little...)
(I'm not even that old...Maybe a little...)
Unfortunately that's true. Can't possibly happen until another crisis forces their hand like what happened in the 1990s. Could happen mind you.
From where I'm standing, it doesn't matter what things that were called conspiracy theories get wrong if particularly lately they are also routinely getting things right.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.
That doesn't mean that you should believe everything that you see, but it's certainly does mean that just because something is called a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that you should dismiss it out of hand. Especially when the people telling you it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who stand to gain from you ignoring the thing they are doing.
Seems like the smartest thing is to use your brain like a human being. Both allowing information uncritically because you like the source or rejecting information uncritically because you don't like the source are fallacious.
Another fallacy that I see committed along the same lines is grouping different arguments together as if they are the same. You could make reasonable and unreasonable arguments as to why human beings without any additional technology cannot fly, the fact that there are unreasonable arguments does not change the fact that there are reasonable arguments, and in fact human beings cannot fly. Conversely, just because there are reasonable arguments for or against a thing does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are true. One might make extremely reasonable arguments that human beings generally walk on two legs, and one could also make extremely unreasonable arguments. Just because the thing is true, and just because there are reasonable arguments for the thing, does not mean that the unreasonable arguments are also true.
It's kind of a pain in the ass, we can end up with a bunch of extra work when we could just shut our brains off and believe whoever we like at the moment, but that's not going to help us find the truth.
Ultimately, we need the truth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what unreasonable arguments wanting to make, if our mental models of the universe are flawed and we will make incorrect decisions as a result of that incorrect mental model, and the people who have a better model of the universe are more likely to make better decisions and end up better off.
Next fediverse is just chain letters. N towers are a serious success in such a system, what with all the stamps.
All I know is that he posts more than I would if I had his kind of money, and I'd be posting a *lot* if I had his kind of money.
lol imagine on an instance limited to 500 characters!
[7 usernames being replied to] I tell you there’s something I have to say a(out of characters)
[7 usernames being replied to] I tell you there’s something I have to say a(out of characters)
ngl, sorta seems like it's a reverse trap. Looks like it's supposed to be against Trump trying to say he didn't really win, actually ends up being a way to ditch never trumpers after he wins.
Big daddy mountain man said it's good so everyone is piling in.
Hopped in, it exists, but it doesn't look that fun.
Hopped in, it exists, but it doesn't look that fun.
Depends. How much do you want to talk about bitcoin?
Because if you want to talk about stuff that isn't bitcoin, dark fedi. If you want to talk about bitcoin, nostr every hour of the day.
Because if you want to talk about stuff that isn't bitcoin, dark fedi. If you want to talk about bitcoin, nostr every hour of the day.
The Internet always should have been decentralized. The centralization we've seen has been a huge mistake. The good thing is how amazing the tools we have available to us are. Stepping away from social media, I've got a lot of great things to say about Nextcloud, and that can be self-hosted by any size organization.
ChatGPT is like a smart person who pretends to be smarter than they really are. Really great for getting information, but you have to double check everything because it doesn't give a crap if the information is true if it looks like a good answer.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
I notice this particularly in law, where it'll create entire laws out of whole cloth that don't exist.
Fully agreed that companies have way too much influence in politics in general where they should have none.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
The scariest thing is that it isn't just politicians they have influence over, it's people. Just a handful of companies own all the TV networks, and many of the most influential websites report back to establishment media masters. We see certain people getting signal boosted, but who did that? Oh, look at that it's our corporate overlords or their partners in government. It's a situation where entire world issues are the puppets of the same company yelling at each other.
That's the biggest thing to remember: They've got overwhelming money, they can pay entire rooms full of the smartest people in the world to just sit and figure out how to get you to agree to whatever they want. They don't even need to be honest about what they're doing, so they might pretend they're against a certain thing because that's the easiest way to get what they want.
In that sense, it might be good for the world to muzzle corporations entirely. They aren't people, they're legal constructs, and as legal constructs they shouldn't have a voice. if their owners want to have a political opinion, they can speak themselves.
