I feel like one of these things is not like the other.
It's the mild-mannered college professor who openly weeps for the state of the youth while getting called a pussy by lots of people for doing so.
It's the mild-mannered college professor who openly weeps for the state of the youth while getting called a pussy by lots of people for doing so.
The N64 has two things going for it:
1. Perspective correct 3d compared to shitty jagged PS1 graphics
2. Bilinear filtering to hide the horribly pixelated textures.
1. Perspective correct 3d compared to shitty jagged PS1 graphics
2. Bilinear filtering to hide the horribly pixelated textures.
Telling the stories later is the key. "Oh yah, and then we saw beautiful women but we were like 'get back, bitch' because we're so cool and strong but they had magic but we used our cunning to escape the terrible gorgeous women"
It seems to me like a really complicated situation, to be honest. I think that you can feel for both sides of the conflict and also blame both sides of the conflict. Hamas -- assuming that the reports of what they did were true -- committed unspeakable atrocities and expected... What? That they could just go "just kidding!" and go back to the way the things were a year ago? On the other hand, the way Israel is waging war reminds me an awful lot of the war in iraq, and the way that the US waged the war in Iraq it was disgusting to me -- the news was bragging about how the Americans had blown up some building because they thought Saddam Hussein was inside, and then it turns out he wasn't inside and all they did was kill a bunch of innocent people.
Another thing that for the complicates things is the fact that we are looking at a clash between two quite different civilizations. Well certainly imperfect, Israel represents western civilization and at least to some degree hold those ideals. By contrast, Islamic civilization is extremely at odds with the ideals of Western Civilization. To give just one example, Western Civilization has largely abhorred slavery and even in the short time that it engaged in the African slave trade it knew that it was doing something against its values which was one reason why it eventually ended. By contrast, the Muslim world doesn't see a problem with slavery as long as it is of non-muslims. It is a historical fact that the Muslim world has been a primary consumer of slaves historically and there are open slave markets in the Muslim world today, such those which can be found online.
So it's just an unspeakably complicated situation and it seems to me that going all in on picking a side is sort of absurd. For me, I'd like to give Good vibes to all the good people who are unjustly facing bad things, and I don't think that any group has a monopoly on that right now. And contrasting the good vibes to the good people facing injustice, there are multiple groups pushing the conflict, and groups that don't care about innocents that get hurt, and I certainly don't harbor any Goodwill towards them.
It definitely seems to me though that there is enough good on each side and enough evil on each side that going all in on either just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I don't think that you can have parades and marches of people chanting "it's complicated"
Another thing that for the complicates things is the fact that we are looking at a clash between two quite different civilizations. Well certainly imperfect, Israel represents western civilization and at least to some degree hold those ideals. By contrast, Islamic civilization is extremely at odds with the ideals of Western Civilization. To give just one example, Western Civilization has largely abhorred slavery and even in the short time that it engaged in the African slave trade it knew that it was doing something against its values which was one reason why it eventually ended. By contrast, the Muslim world doesn't see a problem with slavery as long as it is of non-muslims. It is a historical fact that the Muslim world has been a primary consumer of slaves historically and there are open slave markets in the Muslim world today, such those which can be found online.
So it's just an unspeakably complicated situation and it seems to me that going all in on picking a side is sort of absurd. For me, I'd like to give Good vibes to all the good people who are unjustly facing bad things, and I don't think that any group has a monopoly on that right now. And contrasting the good vibes to the good people facing injustice, there are multiple groups pushing the conflict, and groups that don't care about innocents that get hurt, and I certainly don't harbor any Goodwill towards them.
It definitely seems to me though that there is enough good on each side and enough evil on each side that going all in on either just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I don't think that you can have parades and marches of people chanting "it's complicated"
A lot of people think that media is trying to tear down western values, but I'd argue I've seen them trying to tear down other value systems as well. I've seen several movies now that have a core message questioning filial piety, a core eastern value particularly in cultures with Confucian influence.
Recently I wrote (I think?) that the postmodern ideal is at its core rejection of all values as arbitrary and meaningless, and from this perspective it's obvious that once western values are torn down, it wouldn't start building new values but instead would just find new values to tear down. Once those values are torn down, like grey goo digesting a planet it'll just find something else to tear down.
Societal values exist for a reason. Virtually every set of ideas has been tried, but only a few lead to a cohesive society that could stand up to internal and external forces. An ideology that's dedicated to just tearing down everything is ultimately going to leave us with nothing but rubble.
Recently I wrote (I think?) that the postmodern ideal is at its core rejection of all values as arbitrary and meaningless, and from this perspective it's obvious that once western values are torn down, it wouldn't start building new values but instead would just find new values to tear down. Once those values are torn down, like grey goo digesting a planet it'll just find something else to tear down.
Societal values exist for a reason. Virtually every set of ideas has been tried, but only a few lead to a cohesive society that could stand up to internal and external forces. An ideology that's dedicated to just tearing down everything is ultimately going to leave us with nothing but rubble.
One thing that I've really come to realize is that AI is not particularly creative. It's an extremely conservative force in some ways, because it will never come up with an idea that hasn't been come up with before, because it doesn't understand things like concepts, it just knows how to sling words together in order to get a top score in the verisimilitude game.
It's not necessarily so optimistic. You end up destroying a company that was actually making a thing that people enjoyed and that service ends up getting taken over by a technology company that doesn't really give a crap about whether it's putting out anything of value.
If we're being totally honest, the same can be said of most media.
A book like the graysonian ethic will never be a huge seller because it is the heartfelt lessons of father is trying to pass down to his son, whereas a thousand other books will be trying to press people's buttons in order to get them to read all about the latest crisis in whatever.
And people might mistakenly say that it's about capitalism, but in reality it's just about human nature. I'm sure that everyone who writes a story for fastcompany or the conversation hopes that they end up writing an incredibly popular article that lots of people read, not because they're going to get any more ad revenue out of it but because they want to be an influential author who wrote an important article. And the way to do that is to follow the trends, which at the moment tends towards the inflammatory.
A book like the graysonian ethic will never be a huge seller because it is the heartfelt lessons of father is trying to pass down to his son, whereas a thousand other books will be trying to press people's buttons in order to get them to read all about the latest crisis in whatever.
And people might mistakenly say that it's about capitalism, but in reality it's just about human nature. I'm sure that everyone who writes a story for fastcompany or the conversation hopes that they end up writing an incredibly popular article that lots of people read, not because they're going to get any more ad revenue out of it but because they want to be an influential author who wrote an important article. And the way to do that is to follow the trends, which at the moment tends towards the inflammatory.
The double standard in treatment of j6 and the summer of love is really frustrating.
If they cared about an attack on the capitol they didn't show it the 9 months it was happening the year before. In fact they were actively helping.
Aluminum was once the most expensive precious metal. This ended up being because aluminum is highly reactive and is extremely rare in its pure form. Eventually, it was discovered that you could use electrolysis to extract pure aluminum, and the price dropped so much that we use it for soft drinks today. Some companies may have taken advantage of this technology at first but there was only a short period of time before it was just a valueless common metal.
I feel like a lot of companies migrating to using AI may be facing the same thing. AI can completely replace a company doing something as trivial as mtg, especially if they start using AI art which cannot be copyrighted. Essentially they're using the same technology that will ultimately doom them, and I think doing so has risks they don't yet realize.
I feel like a lot of companies migrating to using AI may be facing the same thing. AI can completely replace a company doing something as trivial as mtg, especially if they start using AI art which cannot be copyrighted. Essentially they're using the same technology that will ultimately doom them, and I think doing so has risks they don't yet realize.
The scariest part of the new AI stuff is the idea that corporate censors will be controlling many of them, so there'll be lots of people using them to develop stuff that they agree with, but fewer using them to create anything they don't like.
I'm no big city doctor, but It seems to me like if you're really having that much trouble, you could just add another access point with your original access point name so your old stuff could connect to it.
You mentioned it and it got me to thinking that the Internet and therefore bitcoin is a product of the pax americana. Once the era of relative global peace ends, it's likely that the Internet as we know it will also end, and so something like bitcoin may not really be practical.
Look at the effects of the great firewall of china, and imagine if every country or bloc of countries had their own similar firewall to keep their data inside their country or bloc. Or if there was a lot more war, and the limitations where communication would be one of the first things cut thus limiting data travelling physically.
The fediverse would survive I think, but it too would be cut along national or bloc lines.
Look at the effects of the great firewall of china, and imagine if every country or bloc of countries had their own similar firewall to keep their data inside their country or bloc. Or if there was a lot more war, and the limitations where communication would be one of the first things cut thus limiting data travelling physically.
The fediverse would survive I think, but it too would be cut along national or bloc lines.
Turns out I'm not by any stretch the first to consider this problem. Look at this FEP from gnusocial:
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2100/fep-2100.md
Essentially defines the first option I spoke of, a sort of curated decentralization.
https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2100/fep-2100.md
Essentially defines the first option I spoke of, a sort of curated decentralization.
It's like how you're told exactly how to be a homogenous grey sludge as a person so you don't offend anyone, but something or someone nobody hates is also something or someone nobody loves either.
You can't actually win.
Because being quiet might be more socially acceptable, but it's also a weakness and you can really lose out if you don't know how to speak up.
One of the things I had to learn as an adult was how to speak so people would hear me and listen to me. That meant speaking from my diaphragm and being loud like an actor on stage because that's what people listen to.
Because being quiet might be more socially acceptable, but it's also a weakness and you can really lose out if you don't know how to speak up.
One of the things I had to learn as an adult was how to speak so people would hear me and listen to me. That meant speaking from my diaphragm and being loud like an actor on stage because that's what people listen to.
