Probably the wrong metaphor.
For me, I know I share the fediverse with people who disagree with me and who are also dangerous if they realize it. I don't need to put myself in front of them and yell at them that they're wrong, I can just enjoy all the other parts of the fediverse including people I disagree with who are nonetheless in fact tolerant of other viewpoints.
For me, I know I share the fediverse with people who disagree with me and who are also dangerous if they realize it. I don't need to put myself in front of them and yell at them that they're wrong, I can just enjoy all the other parts of the fediverse including people I disagree with who are nonetheless in fact tolerant of other viewpoints.
That's true too. Someone can say something to you, but you don't need to say anything back. Moreover, often you can avoid putting yourself in a situation where someone would interact with you in the first place. Sure, you don't get to thumb your nose at someone you don't like if you quietly move to another room, but it's highly effective.
The Internet will always have jerks.
Some people want to change the universe and make jerks disappear, but that's impossible.
The only world you have full control over is your internal world. Thus, the only one who can let others words hurt you is yourself.
Some people want to change the universe and make jerks disappear, but that's impossible.
The only world you have full control over is your internal world. Thus, the only one who can let others words hurt you is yourself.
If these people want non enumerated rights protected maybe they should be more concerned about enumerated rights first. If enumerated rights aren't protected, why would any others be?
Gets it totally backwards.
Parents should be raising children. We shouldn't be taxing parents so we can give them money back if and only if they let someone else raise their kids. We should be helping the middle class and helping the middle class grow.
Parents should be raising children. We shouldn't be taxing parents so we can give them money back if and only if they let someone else raise their kids. We should be helping the middle class and helping the middle class grow.
There's a problem with inheritance: It either isolates wealth or it divides wealth.
In one method, you end up where the family patriarch has overwhelming power and passes that to the first son, and the other sons are forced to live under the yoke of the first son or leave and build something from scratch. Eventually the family patriarch becomes overwhelmingly rich and powerful but that's about it.
In another method, if you're one of 6 then you end up with everyone splitting a lifetime of wealth and they get virtually nothing. Any accumulated wealth goes away through a death of a thousand cuts.
The idea of the "self-made man" probably comes from the anglo-saxons. Children are expected to move away and make their own way in the world, and if they happen to inherit something all the better but it's arbitrarily up to the parents how to mete out inheritance. It forces people to go out and expand, and to interact with others. It probably comes from the nature of an island nation that relies on trade and travel for success, and the English previously being highly meritocratic and believing that those who succeed likely deserved it meaning that there would be a focus on building oneself up.
Here's a video from one of my favorite youtubers on a related topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFFwhbVqeU
The big thing is remembering that the world is much bigger than our front lawn. There's all kinds of different ways of being right now in the world, and we can see what the results are of each.
In one method, you end up where the family patriarch has overwhelming power and passes that to the first son, and the other sons are forced to live under the yoke of the first son or leave and build something from scratch. Eventually the family patriarch becomes overwhelmingly rich and powerful but that's about it.
In another method, if you're one of 6 then you end up with everyone splitting a lifetime of wealth and they get virtually nothing. Any accumulated wealth goes away through a death of a thousand cuts.
The idea of the "self-made man" probably comes from the anglo-saxons. Children are expected to move away and make their own way in the world, and if they happen to inherit something all the better but it's arbitrarily up to the parents how to mete out inheritance. It forces people to go out and expand, and to interact with others. It probably comes from the nature of an island nation that relies on trade and travel for success, and the English previously being highly meritocratic and believing that those who succeed likely deserved it meaning that there would be a focus on building oneself up.
Here's a video from one of my favorite youtubers on a related topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFFwhbVqeU
The big thing is remembering that the world is much bigger than our front lawn. There's all kinds of different ways of being right now in the world, and we can see what the results are of each.
The USA already spends as much taxpayer money on healthcare as most single payer nations, per Capita.
They don't need more money, they need to use the money they have correctly. If they can't, they shouldn't get anything.
They don't need more money, they need to use the money they have correctly. If they can't, they shouldn't get anything.
As I recall, prior to 230 jurisprudence was that the key to whether you were liable for content was whether you were claiming to moderate it. If you didn't moderate it (or at least didn't claim to) then the person who posted it was liable, whereas if you did moderate it and claimed to then you took all the responsibility for everything that made it through.
Also remember that the internet exists around the world and 230 only exists in one country.
Also remember that the internet exists around the world and 230 only exists in one country.
This is how far they needed to go in order to find something everyone could disagree with.
Sad.
Sad.
Another thing that totally changed my instance's cpu utilization is routinely scheduling a pg_repack. Might not even be a good idea (almost certainly not a good idea for a site like poast), I don't know, but for me it took my postgresql from being high CPU utilization to being trivial.
That's interesting! I'm watching the video right now.
It's terrifying to think about how organizations that want to own you completely try to hack the religious circuits in the brain, whether it be workplaces or political movements. The people use calm voices and nice sounding words to hide the terrifying indoctrination.
On the other hand, it also sort of makes me realize the way that these massive organizations also dominate a lot of ideas that are bigger than they are. They talk a lot in the video about "work", and it's true that your life's work can become the meaning of your life; The problem is when you have this organization taking up a monopoly of the concept of work, like if you're not working in a position they created then you're not really doing work.
It's terrifying to think about how organizations that want to own you completely try to hack the religious circuits in the brain, whether it be workplaces or political movements. The people use calm voices and nice sounding words to hide the terrifying indoctrination.
On the other hand, it also sort of makes me realize the way that these massive organizations also dominate a lot of ideas that are bigger than they are. They talk a lot in the video about "work", and it's true that your life's work can become the meaning of your life; The problem is when you have this organization taking up a monopoly of the concept of work, like if you're not working in a position they created then you're not really doing work.
We could have an entire ecosystem of electric city cars almost immediately with one easy step nobody wants to do: Completely deregulate electric city cars on roads whose speed limit is less than 60km/h.
It would mean a lot of risk. People could get hurt or die. People might drive cars that aren't very good. All kinds of crazy things would happen, and a lot of them wouldn't be good.
But in just a few years, something interesting would happen. We have the technology to create a cost-effective electric city car. Not cost effective compared to a luxury car, but cost effective compared to a monthly bus pass over a few years -- something the working poor could afford.
All kinds of people who don't have any transportation would have personal transportation, and all kinds of people on the borderline who drive old, unmaintained fossil fuel vehicles who don't really need them would likely get rid of them and switch to electric city cars.
Other people who can afford an ICE car may also decide it makes more sense to convert to a city car as well.
Unsurprisingly, it isn't even within the realm of possibility to do something like this because everything else is more important.
Since we're not willing to compromise at all, electric cars need to be everything everyone wants in a car or else you're asking people to pay a lot of money for a thing that doesn't even do as much as the thing they'd be giving up. "Oh, just live with it" seems like a "Let them eat cake" statement.
It would mean a lot of risk. People could get hurt or die. People might drive cars that aren't very good. All kinds of crazy things would happen, and a lot of them wouldn't be good.
But in just a few years, something interesting would happen. We have the technology to create a cost-effective electric city car. Not cost effective compared to a luxury car, but cost effective compared to a monthly bus pass over a few years -- something the working poor could afford.
All kinds of people who don't have any transportation would have personal transportation, and all kinds of people on the borderline who drive old, unmaintained fossil fuel vehicles who don't really need them would likely get rid of them and switch to electric city cars.
Other people who can afford an ICE car may also decide it makes more sense to convert to a city car as well.
Unsurprisingly, it isn't even within the realm of possibility to do something like this because everything else is more important.
Since we're not willing to compromise at all, electric cars need to be everything everyone wants in a car or else you're asking people to pay a lot of money for a thing that doesn't even do as much as the thing they'd be giving up. "Oh, just live with it" seems like a "Let them eat cake" statement.
Imagine that conversation with your doctor though.
"So, I get sick in VR and I don't like it."
"Oh, do you have any other symptoms?"
"No, I just don't like VR. I'm fine at all other times."
"Do you have to use VR for work or something?"
"No, but I want to finish Half Life: Alyx!"
"So, I get sick in VR and I don't like it."
"Oh, do you have any other symptoms?"
"No, I just don't like VR. I'm fine at all other times."
"Do you have to use VR for work or something?"
"No, but I want to finish Half Life: Alyx!"
When you force virtually all productivity to stop and you slam a bunch of money into the system, the outcome is going to be that the limited resources that are limited by reality will go up in price. The producers of those limited resources will make more money. That's the consequence of the policy. Normally more production would come online as prices rise, but with productivity being universally shut down by government fiat the money had no choice but to raise prices for whatever was left to buy.
If the producers don't raise prices, then there will be shortages, and scalpers will buy the limited supply and resell at the actual market price. We saw this in the past few years with graphics cards and automobiles (and even with hand sanitizer and toilet paper at one point). Instead of the money going to people who actually produce the thing, it goes to parasites.
In reality, every political party around the world marched us into this situation.
That's not a Democrat or Republican position; Everyone did it, and not just in the US. Conservative parties did it. Liberal parties did it. Mainstream parties did it. A lot of fringe parties did it. New candidates were elected to do things differently, and they did the exact same thing.
The consequences were predictable and predicted.
If the producers don't raise prices, then there will be shortages, and scalpers will buy the limited supply and resell at the actual market price. We saw this in the past few years with graphics cards and automobiles (and even with hand sanitizer and toilet paper at one point). Instead of the money going to people who actually produce the thing, it goes to parasites.
In reality, every political party around the world marched us into this situation.
That's not a Democrat or Republican position; Everyone did it, and not just in the US. Conservative parties did it. Liberal parties did it. Mainstream parties did it. A lot of fringe parties did it. New candidates were elected to do things differently, and they did the exact same thing.
The consequences were predictable and predicted.
Thoughts to you guys. It's sad that certain people want to take something good and destroy it for no good reason. ✊
I pointed out that VR is a self-innoculating technology where it's sort of uncomfortable to wear and makes you feel sick, and someone suggested I go see a doctor.
It sort of blew me away, the idea that I would go see a doctor for no other reason than a technology known for making people feel sick made me feel sick.
It sort of blew me away, the idea that I would go see a doctor for no other reason than a technology known for making people feel sick made me feel sick.