This government spent more debt than every government of canada in history combined. Yet basic shit looks worse than when we had a balanced budget.
Easier to take school kids lunch money than trying to get adults to pay for porn on the internet.
Base Linux on my pinephone wasnt workable as a daily driver, but neither was android. How is it on the librem?
I aint sayin' nothin', but there's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas probably Tennessee that says: fool me once, shame on... Shame on you........ you fool me I can't get fooled again.
I did some calculations a while back, and while nobody can deny nuclear war would be the worst thing to ever occur, it wouldn't be the end of he world. Thankfully, there's a lot fewer nuclear weapons today than at its peak by a massive margin.
Hopefully if the powers that be press the shiny candy-like button someone will eventually have the presence of mind to take it away from them.
Hopefully if the powers that be press the shiny candy-like button someone will eventually have the presence of mind to take it away from them.
Not to mention the secular cycle described by people like Peter Turchin warning us of massive civil unrest.
It'll mean changes and in many ways that could be very positive when it's all done, but eras like the French Revolution were tragic and horrible times even if they were triggered for the right reasons.
It'll mean changes and in many ways that could be very positive when it's all done, but eras like the French Revolution were tragic and horrible times even if they were triggered for the right reasons.
Allegorically it does make some sense though. The Minoans were so evil that everyone remotely associated with the civilization fled and erased everything about the civilization during the bronze age collapse, so all we had left was an ancient myth of the Greeks about an evil civilization and now some ruins.
If the anthropological evidence that the Minoans practiced human sacrifice and dominated the region and demanded people be given up as sacrifices from other people living under their thumbs, that's universally considered evil enough that that sort of civilization tends to get ganged up on by other civilization, and the people of that civilization didn't carry the tenets of the civilization either. Contrast with the Indian civilization which despite being conquered or subjugated by other peoples many times over the millennia, have such a strong culture that ultimately the region's culture has survived.
Another example from ancient history would be the Assyrians, who were so brutal everyone in the region ganged up on them and erased the civilization.
A more contemporary example would be fascism and national socialism, both of which were wiped out because the rest of the world wasn't comfortable with their antisocial ideologies and actions.
It's similar in one respect to the old testament "sins of the father" stuff. People say "That's so unfair! Why should children be punished for the sins of their parents!" but we can show that it's empirically true today. The impact your parents have on you is so powerful it can predict certain outcomes with a 90% certainty. Whether it's fair or not, the behavior of parents defines the children.
Life isn't fair. If we assume that religions are descriptive first and foremost, then they must include parts that are unfair because of that. Otherwise you quickly end up with the paradox from Christianity where "if we have an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why does He let evil exist?" and people twist themselves into knots explaining it, but there's a reason Christianity still contains the old testament -- both sets of lessons can be true at the same time, where the universe will wipe you out if you're sinful, but the universe is beautiful and is miraculously set up for humanity to succeed and we need to engage in positive practices like forgiveness to survive as people and as a culture.
(SJ, is there any morning you can put together a post that isn't a wall of text about shit nobody asked about?)
If the anthropological evidence that the Minoans practiced human sacrifice and dominated the region and demanded people be given up as sacrifices from other people living under their thumbs, that's universally considered evil enough that that sort of civilization tends to get ganged up on by other civilization, and the people of that civilization didn't carry the tenets of the civilization either. Contrast with the Indian civilization which despite being conquered or subjugated by other peoples many times over the millennia, have such a strong culture that ultimately the region's culture has survived.
Another example from ancient history would be the Assyrians, who were so brutal everyone in the region ganged up on them and erased the civilization.
A more contemporary example would be fascism and national socialism, both of which were wiped out because the rest of the world wasn't comfortable with their antisocial ideologies and actions.
It's similar in one respect to the old testament "sins of the father" stuff. People say "That's so unfair! Why should children be punished for the sins of their parents!" but we can show that it's empirically true today. The impact your parents have on you is so powerful it can predict certain outcomes with a 90% certainty. Whether it's fair or not, the behavior of parents defines the children.
Life isn't fair. If we assume that religions are descriptive first and foremost, then they must include parts that are unfair because of that. Otherwise you quickly end up with the paradox from Christianity where "if we have an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, why does He let evil exist?" and people twist themselves into knots explaining it, but there's a reason Christianity still contains the old testament -- both sets of lessons can be true at the same time, where the universe will wipe you out if you're sinful, but the universe is beautiful and is miraculously set up for humanity to succeed and we need to engage in positive practices like forgiveness to survive as people and as a culture.
(SJ, is there any morning you can put together a post that isn't a wall of text about shit nobody asked about?)
It seems like drug companies have been selling a non-factual theory of depression.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/20/scientists-question-widespread-use-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
In my experience, the drugs are like morphine on a bad injury. It numbs the pain, but you don't cure a broken leg with morphine, you cure a broken leg by treating it so it'll set properly. If you just take morphine and keep walking on it you're going to lose your leg. Likewise, it seems to me that antidepressants should be a temporary measure to be implemented during treatment and ended as soon as possible over the course of treatment.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/20/scientists-question-widespread-use-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
In my experience, the drugs are like morphine on a bad injury. It numbs the pain, but you don't cure a broken leg with morphine, you cure a broken leg by treating it so it'll set properly. If you just take morphine and keep walking on it you're going to lose your leg. Likewise, it seems to me that antidepressants should be a temporary measure to be implemented during treatment and ended as soon as possible over the course of treatment.
I've got a serious problem with the mainstream. Once the establishment finds out that a thing exists, they're going to start breaking it for their own ends. I often agree with or disagree with people on the fediverse, but at least I know the people I'm talking to are authentically talking to me. Once the establishment starts breaking in, I fully expect to see astroturfed users, astroturfed likes and reacts, and that's where it becomes sludge -- people getting paid to pretend to care full-time.
The fastest macro object we've ever created (I'm sure there's tiny things we've made and then gotten going really fast with a particle accelerator) can only go 0.058% of the speed of light. There's this speed limit of the universe at c, but it's so fast we can't even hit 0.1% of that speed limit.
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
That gets me to thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I wonder if other species might exist but never underwent a cognitive revolution the same way humans did. After all, there's all kinds of life on planet earth, but of all of them only humans ended up with the level of abstract thinking we have.
I've often thought about a gaseous lifeform that relies on photosynthesis. Such a lifeform would have a completely different view of the universe than we do. Things we consider normal such as being social animals might be completely different. I mean, what are the odds that some ape ends up becoming the most advanced intelligence on the planet and not one of the many other forms of life out there?
Imagine if something like hydras continued to grow and evolve down the route of intelligence and so you had this biologically immortal being. What a difference that would make! I wonder if an intelligent hydra would develop taboos against reproduction altogether? Basically you'd build up the safe population and only have a new hydra born if one dies from predation, disease, or accidents.
There's also as far as I know essentially 2 forms of multicellular life, and each relies on a symbiote to survive. The animals with mitochondria, and the plants with chloroplasts. Some microscopic creatures don't have mitochondria because they evolved a method to do the same thing independently, and others stopped symbiosis and absorbed the DNA that does the things mitochondria do, but complex multicellular life almost always required one of the two symbiotes to thrive. Does this mean that such symbiosis is a critical node on the path to what we might consider intelligent life?
There's a youtuber named chibi reviews. He looks like a little wierdo, but he does a good job of pointing out good shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTJvSx3ObWI
Canada is an unusual place in one regard: You think that small towns have less crime? Not in Canada. The small towns can be scary.
Most Canadians have no clue, because most Canadians never leave the biggest cities. I actually find it pretty annoying, because Canada is a big place and most people don't know fuck all about what it's like, even people who "live in Canada".
Canada is an unusual place in one regard: You think that small towns have less crime? Not in Canada. The small towns can be scary.
Most Canadians have no clue, because most Canadians never leave the biggest cities. I actually find it pretty annoying, because Canada is a big place and most people don't know fuck all about what it's like, even people who "live in Canada".
Dear Japan,
Please stop putting so many bangers on each season.
I'm an old man now, and so I can't watch all these shows on account of having a life now.
Let's keep it to like 2-3 really good shows a season so I can pretend like I'm missing shows because I'm so cultured and such and not because I just can't sit down long enough to watch them all.
Best regards,
Old man SJ
Please stop putting so many bangers on each season.
I'm an old man now, and so I can't watch all these shows on account of having a life now.
Let's keep it to like 2-3 really good shows a season so I can pretend like I'm missing shows because I'm so cultured and such and not because I just can't sit down long enough to watch them all.
Best regards,
Old man SJ
Yeah, or people who end up with pets as a surrogate for what they really want to do in life.
Often, people start to worry about ecological damage when they start to feel stress about their ability to thrive. Historically speaking this makes sense -- if the prey animals start to go away, if the plants we harvest aren't producing food, and as a result we don't feel comfortable breeding, then worrying about the planet is a rational thing to do, so much that it's possible this connection is built into us on a genetic level, having been hunter gatherers for a million years.
This likely continues to today, we feel ecological anxiety when we're feeling stressed about our ability to thrive, but like many of our biological responses, that's somewhat out of date. Today young people are worried about a place to live, they don't know if they'll be able to feed themselves, but paradoxically our local environments are in some of the best shape they've been in a long time due to the environmental movements of the past century forcing bad actors to shape up. As a result, the ecological anxiety needs to go somewhere so instead of worrying about our local environments which are fine we start worrying about an invisible crisis in our global ecology.
There is a crisis and everyone knows it. The only real question is "what crisis is it?" And I think the real answer is that young people are suffocating. They can't afford a place to live, they struggle to afford food to eat, they can't afford to become worthy of a mate, they can't afford to have kids, they have no friends and feel like there's no way to meet friends, they don't know how to meet the opposite sex even if they could afford to date, theyre struggling and they can feel it. The internet, video games, they're cold comfort when people can sense their extinction coming.
I think this is why people are also going along with obviously insane ideas about various things -- people, both men and women, feel like they're going to suffocate in their current societal role so they're desperately searching for a new role, whatever it is, that will let them not go extinct. I suspect that this too might be deeply held in our DNA, people desperately trying to switch roles to find something that'll help them thrive. It's like the last scene in terminator 2 where the T1000 is dying in the lava and changes to all the different forms he's taken throughout the movie hoping desperately that one of the might get him out of the situation. People are suffering with their traditional roles, so they're trying alternatives desperately hoping a new role might allow them to succeed while they're suffocating.
The world doesn't make any sense if you take it at face value, but it might make sense if you look a bit deeper. One commentator was laughing going "gen z is dealing with the total inability to get a place to live and they're most anxious about climate change!" But another commentator pointed out that people start to be concerned about the environment when they feel like there's nowhere to go and they're trapped in the environment they live in. I agree that ecological issues are important, but they aren't imminent threats, they're long term threats that will manifest as consequences a few generations from now. It's not a reason to be anxious, just a reason to make better choices for tomorrow. On the other hand, the fear of dying childless and struggling and metaphorically worrying about the environment makes a lot of sense.
When people feel like they can't do anything to fix themselves, they start to act as if they can change the entire world instead. I think it's a Defense mechanism because if you try to change your life and fail it's immediate and obvious, but if you try to change the world and fail the world is so big who's to say you actually failed? In that sense it's easier to try to save the world from an imminent threat that isn't actually imminent instead of dealing with the fact most people don't think they'll ever own a home.
Would young people feel so anxious about climate change if they were on track to owning a home in a nice neighborhood with a yard? If they could have one parent stay at home to watch the kids they could afford to feed and clothe? If they felt like they were part of a community they called home?
This likely continues to today, we feel ecological anxiety when we're feeling stressed about our ability to thrive, but like many of our biological responses, that's somewhat out of date. Today young people are worried about a place to live, they don't know if they'll be able to feed themselves, but paradoxically our local environments are in some of the best shape they've been in a long time due to the environmental movements of the past century forcing bad actors to shape up. As a result, the ecological anxiety needs to go somewhere so instead of worrying about our local environments which are fine we start worrying about an invisible crisis in our global ecology.
There is a crisis and everyone knows it. The only real question is "what crisis is it?" And I think the real answer is that young people are suffocating. They can't afford a place to live, they struggle to afford food to eat, they can't afford to become worthy of a mate, they can't afford to have kids, they have no friends and feel like there's no way to meet friends, they don't know how to meet the opposite sex even if they could afford to date, theyre struggling and they can feel it. The internet, video games, they're cold comfort when people can sense their extinction coming.
I think this is why people are also going along with obviously insane ideas about various things -- people, both men and women, feel like they're going to suffocate in their current societal role so they're desperately searching for a new role, whatever it is, that will let them not go extinct. I suspect that this too might be deeply held in our DNA, people desperately trying to switch roles to find something that'll help them thrive. It's like the last scene in terminator 2 where the T1000 is dying in the lava and changes to all the different forms he's taken throughout the movie hoping desperately that one of the might get him out of the situation. People are suffering with their traditional roles, so they're trying alternatives desperately hoping a new role might allow them to succeed while they're suffocating.
The world doesn't make any sense if you take it at face value, but it might make sense if you look a bit deeper. One commentator was laughing going "gen z is dealing with the total inability to get a place to live and they're most anxious about climate change!" But another commentator pointed out that people start to be concerned about the environment when they feel like there's nowhere to go and they're trapped in the environment they live in. I agree that ecological issues are important, but they aren't imminent threats, they're long term threats that will manifest as consequences a few generations from now. It's not a reason to be anxious, just a reason to make better choices for tomorrow. On the other hand, the fear of dying childless and struggling and metaphorically worrying about the environment makes a lot of sense.
When people feel like they can't do anything to fix themselves, they start to act as if they can change the entire world instead. I think it's a Defense mechanism because if you try to change your life and fail it's immediate and obvious, but if you try to change the world and fail the world is so big who's to say you actually failed? In that sense it's easier to try to save the world from an imminent threat that isn't actually imminent instead of dealing with the fact most people don't think they'll ever own a home.
Would young people feel so anxious about climate change if they were on track to owning a home in a nice neighborhood with a yard? If they could have one parent stay at home to watch the kids they could afford to feed and clothe? If they felt like they were part of a community they called home?