Ideological homogeneity leads to a lack of perspective...
OTOH imagine being a boomer with a TV someone might change the channel to a news station on in 2022.
OTOH imagine being a boomer with a TV someone might change the channel to a news station on in 2022.
I think I've hit my gaming golden years. Not as in we're in a golden age, but in that all the games I played in 2023 are old as shit.
Terminal Velocity: Boosted edition
Hardwar
Tinker Racers
UT2004
UT
UCIV
Civilization 1
Minetest
Chronotrigger +
FF7 on mobile
Death Rally (There's a windows port, and a mobile port for chinese handhelds?)
Blake Stone
Nehrim At Fate's Edge
Daggerfall Unity
Rock and roll Racing GBA
super Mario 64 plus
Doom Infinite
Project Brutality
Cybermage: Darklight Awakening
RVGL (seriously cool source port)
Final Fantasy Resurgance (Surprised it hasn't been shut down yet tbh)
Wolf 3d using ECWolf
Airplane mechanic simulator
Considering 365 days have passed I'm a little surprised how little I played, but when I look back and realize I spent the time mostly IRL I'm pretty ok with this outcome.
Terminal Velocity: Boosted edition
Hardwar
Tinker Racers
UT2004
UT
UCIV
Civilization 1
Minetest
Chronotrigger +
FF7 on mobile
Death Rally (There's a windows port, and a mobile port for chinese handhelds?)
Blake Stone
Nehrim At Fate's Edge
Daggerfall Unity
Rock and roll Racing GBA
super Mario 64 plus
Doom Infinite
Project Brutality
Cybermage: Darklight Awakening
RVGL (seriously cool source port)
Final Fantasy Resurgance (Surprised it hasn't been shut down yet tbh)
Wolf 3d using ECWolf
Airplane mechanic simulator
Considering 365 days have passed I'm a little surprised how little I played, but when I look back and realize I spent the time mostly IRL I'm pretty ok with this outcome.
I tested with rss.app, rssguard, quiterss, nextcloud news, feeder, Read You, spaRSS DecSync, and Nunti.
Only Read You showed the same error message, but some of the feeders were better with the feed than others for sure. RSS guard portable failed entirely on a "protocol error" whatever that means.
Only Read You showed the same error message, but some of the feeders were better with the feed than others for sure. RSS guard portable failed entirely on a "protocol error" whatever that means.
The issue may not be with soapbox/rebased but with your rss reader. I just loaded my rss feed into nextcloud news and it loaded up. (It could be in part due to the really long titles) I'll try a couple other rss readers.
I think emotion and it's expression is a lot like good fun. There's a time and a place for it, and there's a time and a place it must be set aside.
It's normal and healthy to express a whole range of emotions and if you try to fully ignore them you're going to be ultimately harming yourself. Emotions come in a wide range, some of them feel more like vice, some of them might feel more virtuous, but they are all part of you.
In the same way that our nerve endings deliver messages to our brain to let us know about the status of our body, whether that be in good ways or in bad ways, our emotions are delivering messages to our consciousness to let us know about the status of our psyche, whether that being good ways or in bad ways.
In western civilization we've come to rely heavily on antidepressants, which as far as I can tell are basically just a volume control for your emotions. If you take enough antidepressants you won't feel anything at all. However, in the same way that you didn't take enough opium that you can't feel your broken leg but the damage has still been done to your leg and if you try to walk on it you're going to permanently damage it, if you take enough antidepressants not to feel any emotions and you have a broken psyche, you can still apply pressure to it but you're going to permanently damage it.
It's also very important for the relationships with people around you that you express your emotions. A child who grows up never seeing their father express love will be broken. A marriage where anger or discontent is never expressed me look good on the surface but will ultimately snap because fights that needed to happen will never happen.
On the other hand, there are many times in our lives where we need to set aside our emotions, just as there are times where we have to set aside physical discomfort.
Anyone who needs to go out and clear the driveway after a snowstorm knows that it is extremely unpleasant being outside in the cold blowing snow, but if you wait until it's warm out you'll never be able to use your driveway again.
There are a lot of times where you're feeling anxious, scared, angry, hateful, and those dark feelings can cripple you. A lot of those cases though, you have to set that aside because there's work to be done. Someday your parents are going to die, and there's a good chance you will have to step up and arrange their funeral. You cannot just sleep forever, the body needs to be laid to rest whether you're sad or not. Sometimes it is an emergency, and somebody needs to do something or things are going to get way worse and you can't just sit there wallowing in your negative emotions. Still other times, you are just in a time or place or both where things are not perfect and there's nothing you can do about it but make it through the other side. There's just no point in wallowing in it. And sometimes the pain is overwhelming, and you just need to figure out how to make it a little while until it wanes a little.
You can be overwhelmed by positive emotions as well, and while it's a lot more pleasant, life still goes on and you need to make sure you keep your head when it's time to get to work.
All of this in my view is similar to having fun and playing. Without having fun and playing and doing things you enjoy now and again life is empty and painful, but sometimes it's time to buckle down and just get some work done, and people who can't handle doing both at appropriate times are going to be worse off by far than people who can do both at appropriate times.
It's normal and healthy to express a whole range of emotions and if you try to fully ignore them you're going to be ultimately harming yourself. Emotions come in a wide range, some of them feel more like vice, some of them might feel more virtuous, but they are all part of you.
In the same way that our nerve endings deliver messages to our brain to let us know about the status of our body, whether that be in good ways or in bad ways, our emotions are delivering messages to our consciousness to let us know about the status of our psyche, whether that being good ways or in bad ways.
In western civilization we've come to rely heavily on antidepressants, which as far as I can tell are basically just a volume control for your emotions. If you take enough antidepressants you won't feel anything at all. However, in the same way that you didn't take enough opium that you can't feel your broken leg but the damage has still been done to your leg and if you try to walk on it you're going to permanently damage it, if you take enough antidepressants not to feel any emotions and you have a broken psyche, you can still apply pressure to it but you're going to permanently damage it.
It's also very important for the relationships with people around you that you express your emotions. A child who grows up never seeing their father express love will be broken. A marriage where anger or discontent is never expressed me look good on the surface but will ultimately snap because fights that needed to happen will never happen.
On the other hand, there are many times in our lives where we need to set aside our emotions, just as there are times where we have to set aside physical discomfort.
Anyone who needs to go out and clear the driveway after a snowstorm knows that it is extremely unpleasant being outside in the cold blowing snow, but if you wait until it's warm out you'll never be able to use your driveway again.
There are a lot of times where you're feeling anxious, scared, angry, hateful, and those dark feelings can cripple you. A lot of those cases though, you have to set that aside because there's work to be done. Someday your parents are going to die, and there's a good chance you will have to step up and arrange their funeral. You cannot just sleep forever, the body needs to be laid to rest whether you're sad or not. Sometimes it is an emergency, and somebody needs to do something or things are going to get way worse and you can't just sit there wallowing in your negative emotions. Still other times, you are just in a time or place or both where things are not perfect and there's nothing you can do about it but make it through the other side. There's just no point in wallowing in it. And sometimes the pain is overwhelming, and you just need to figure out how to make it a little while until it wanes a little.
You can be overwhelmed by positive emotions as well, and while it's a lot more pleasant, life still goes on and you need to make sure you keep your head when it's time to get to work.
All of this in my view is similar to having fun and playing. Without having fun and playing and doing things you enjoy now and again life is empty and painful, but sometimes it's time to buckle down and just get some work done, and people who can't handle doing both at appropriate times are going to be worse off by far than people who can do both at appropriate times.
(Me playing around with ideas ahead, not angrily wall of texting you! Tl;Dr: I think there are a lot of ways we can do things that would make people's lives better and use less carbon)
I don't remember who, but one person that I was listening to ask the question challenging our empirical/materialist view of reality. The question was "is God real?", and essentially, although that is a question you can ask it's the wrong question to ask. The real question should be, whether or not God is real, should we be behaving as if God is real?
It's completely different view of the world. In that case, instead of asking about the minutiae of whether you can prove using physics that something metaphysical exists, it becomes a question about the utility of the teachings being backed up by the existence of that thing. If you stop looking at religion as purely a commandment passed down from the heavens and look at it as a successful ideology that guided Western Civilization for well over a thousand years, it starts to look like a different thing, and the original question almost isn't terribly relevant.
So in the same way, if the question is "is climate change real, and is it being created by humans?" I almost think that it almost doesn't matter in the same way. The real questions should be, should we be behaving as if climate change is real and created by humans, and if we are going to, what exactly should that look like?
There are reasons that we should be looking to limit the use of fossil fuels completely separated from climate change. There is a limited amount of fossil fuels on earth. Most of the coal created was only created in a short period of time called the carboniferous period which was after trees were evolved, but before microorganisms learned how to digest cellulose. At that time in history, massive forests grew up and individual plants lived and died and just kind of sat there because there was nothing that could do anything with all of that biomass. Eventually, over geological time frames, those massive forests ended up turning into the coal that we can find today. Make no mistake, there's a lot there, but eventually there won't be any that left and if we haven't weaned ourselves off of that then it's going to be massively painful. So if we don't need to stop for one reason, we will eventually need to be stopping for another reason.
The second question, is what exactly should that look like? The powers that be have put out a vision of less. They put out a vision where we need to suffer when we want to heat our homes, where we won't be able to use personal transportation, where our food prices are going to be through the roof. It's a world where most people are suffering except for the super rich. Myself, I have a bunch of different worldview. I think that the way that you succeed at illuminating carbon is by making alternatives that work.
I've spoken at length about my massive support for hydroelectric. In jurisdictions where hydroelectric is heavily used, energy is inexpensive for everyone. When electricity is inexpensive for everyone, that means people use electricity. When people use electricity, they aren't using other forms of energy including fossil fuels. In Quebec and Norway, both places with extremely cold winters, 70% of home heating is done using electric because it is the least expensive way to heat your home. Companies that would use fossil fuels for industrial processes also begin to replace their fossil fuel use with electric. They don't do this because somebody is sitting there with a cudgel trying to force them to do it, they do it because it makes the most sense. People have also talked about nuclear, which is also a proven method to produce electricity at scale.
There are a lot of articles talking about how completely useless battery electric buses are in a lot of places. There are jurisdictions that have bought into this technology, and essentially they have to shut down their bus lines for good chunks of the year because it isn't practical. On the other hand, there have been forms of electric transport within cities for over 100 years. Electric trolleys, trackless trolleys, technologies like this use overhead lines and have operated in many cities that are cold a good chunk of the year.
I was just speaking about electric vehicles today, and between regulators and car companies, they want to replace your $20,000 car with a $60,000 car. It's a great deal for them, but the reality is that first of all, a lot of people can't afford to replace their car so they will go from having transportation to no transportation. Second of all, there are still many big questions about the viability of large scale EV deployments. I haven't really seen a whole lot of people talking about the experience of using an EV under circumstances that people routinely use their cars such as places that hit 40 below. The solution that I propose is the opposite, instead of trying to reproduce a big bulky internal combustion engine car, I think we could deregulate the Auto industry for evs, and create a new style of small light vehicle that is better suited to the nature of battery electric vehicles. Unfortunately, it seems like the only option that's allowed is the one that keeps the stranglehold on people, and makes people's lives harder.
Another thing is that recycling is a scam, and it doesn't have to be. A few years back I was trying to get a hold of some recycled materials, and I followed the entire chain of companies and couldn't find anyone willing to sell me anything. Later on I discovered a massive scandal where entire boatloads of garbage were being sent overseas to basically get dumped in someone else's country. In my view, if the people are paying for a recycling program, they should get a recycling program. And anyone who needs recycled materials should be able to get them from the local recycling plant. It isn't actually that hard to for example grind up plastic and melt it back down into pellets, but even if it is, they should do it anyway, and make it available first to local manufacturers or hobbyists, reducing the footprint of materials that get used or reused. Bonus points the more renewable electricity such as hydroelectricity can be used in the process of converting the materials back into something that can be used.
Finally, (and it's not the final idea that it exists, it's just a final idea in my head because I'm just a dumb pleb) it's time to set the picture of Dorian Gray on fire. First world individuals end up suffering under a regime that demands we use renewables and follow many regulations, and then companies just shut down the plants and move them to China or India or Bangladesh where they burn as much cool as they want and it doesn't matter because it's not on our ledger. If companies operating in those jurisdictions can't follow the same rules as everyone else in the world, then they shouldn't be doing business with the rest of the world. What's happening right now is exactly what I said -- we are still engaging in the sin, but instead of it showing on our bodies, it's showing up on the painting. If we are going to engage in all this stuff, we need to make sure that other places have to follow the same rules or they don't participate in our markets. A lot of people have come back and said that these countries should be allowed to use fossil fuels in their development the same way that the West used fossil fuels in their development, and I can agree with that without moving on this: go ahead and use fossil fuels all you want for your development, but the moment that you're doing business with us we don't want anything to do with them. I think you'll find a lot of the companies that are calling for Net Zero magically have a different opinion somehow.
I don't remember who, but one person that I was listening to ask the question challenging our empirical/materialist view of reality. The question was "is God real?", and essentially, although that is a question you can ask it's the wrong question to ask. The real question should be, whether or not God is real, should we be behaving as if God is real?
It's completely different view of the world. In that case, instead of asking about the minutiae of whether you can prove using physics that something metaphysical exists, it becomes a question about the utility of the teachings being backed up by the existence of that thing. If you stop looking at religion as purely a commandment passed down from the heavens and look at it as a successful ideology that guided Western Civilization for well over a thousand years, it starts to look like a different thing, and the original question almost isn't terribly relevant.
So in the same way, if the question is "is climate change real, and is it being created by humans?" I almost think that it almost doesn't matter in the same way. The real questions should be, should we be behaving as if climate change is real and created by humans, and if we are going to, what exactly should that look like?
There are reasons that we should be looking to limit the use of fossil fuels completely separated from climate change. There is a limited amount of fossil fuels on earth. Most of the coal created was only created in a short period of time called the carboniferous period which was after trees were evolved, but before microorganisms learned how to digest cellulose. At that time in history, massive forests grew up and individual plants lived and died and just kind of sat there because there was nothing that could do anything with all of that biomass. Eventually, over geological time frames, those massive forests ended up turning into the coal that we can find today. Make no mistake, there's a lot there, but eventually there won't be any that left and if we haven't weaned ourselves off of that then it's going to be massively painful. So if we don't need to stop for one reason, we will eventually need to be stopping for another reason.
The second question, is what exactly should that look like? The powers that be have put out a vision of less. They put out a vision where we need to suffer when we want to heat our homes, where we won't be able to use personal transportation, where our food prices are going to be through the roof. It's a world where most people are suffering except for the super rich. Myself, I have a bunch of different worldview. I think that the way that you succeed at illuminating carbon is by making alternatives that work.
I've spoken at length about my massive support for hydroelectric. In jurisdictions where hydroelectric is heavily used, energy is inexpensive for everyone. When electricity is inexpensive for everyone, that means people use electricity. When people use electricity, they aren't using other forms of energy including fossil fuels. In Quebec and Norway, both places with extremely cold winters, 70% of home heating is done using electric because it is the least expensive way to heat your home. Companies that would use fossil fuels for industrial processes also begin to replace their fossil fuel use with electric. They don't do this because somebody is sitting there with a cudgel trying to force them to do it, they do it because it makes the most sense. People have also talked about nuclear, which is also a proven method to produce electricity at scale.
There are a lot of articles talking about how completely useless battery electric buses are in a lot of places. There are jurisdictions that have bought into this technology, and essentially they have to shut down their bus lines for good chunks of the year because it isn't practical. On the other hand, there have been forms of electric transport within cities for over 100 years. Electric trolleys, trackless trolleys, technologies like this use overhead lines and have operated in many cities that are cold a good chunk of the year.
I was just speaking about electric vehicles today, and between regulators and car companies, they want to replace your $20,000 car with a $60,000 car. It's a great deal for them, but the reality is that first of all, a lot of people can't afford to replace their car so they will go from having transportation to no transportation. Second of all, there are still many big questions about the viability of large scale EV deployments. I haven't really seen a whole lot of people talking about the experience of using an EV under circumstances that people routinely use their cars such as places that hit 40 below. The solution that I propose is the opposite, instead of trying to reproduce a big bulky internal combustion engine car, I think we could deregulate the Auto industry for evs, and create a new style of small light vehicle that is better suited to the nature of battery electric vehicles. Unfortunately, it seems like the only option that's allowed is the one that keeps the stranglehold on people, and makes people's lives harder.
Another thing is that recycling is a scam, and it doesn't have to be. A few years back I was trying to get a hold of some recycled materials, and I followed the entire chain of companies and couldn't find anyone willing to sell me anything. Later on I discovered a massive scandal where entire boatloads of garbage were being sent overseas to basically get dumped in someone else's country. In my view, if the people are paying for a recycling program, they should get a recycling program. And anyone who needs recycled materials should be able to get them from the local recycling plant. It isn't actually that hard to for example grind up plastic and melt it back down into pellets, but even if it is, they should do it anyway, and make it available first to local manufacturers or hobbyists, reducing the footprint of materials that get used or reused. Bonus points the more renewable electricity such as hydroelectricity can be used in the process of converting the materials back into something that can be used.
Finally, (and it's not the final idea that it exists, it's just a final idea in my head because I'm just a dumb pleb) it's time to set the picture of Dorian Gray on fire. First world individuals end up suffering under a regime that demands we use renewables and follow many regulations, and then companies just shut down the plants and move them to China or India or Bangladesh where they burn as much cool as they want and it doesn't matter because it's not on our ledger. If companies operating in those jurisdictions can't follow the same rules as everyone else in the world, then they shouldn't be doing business with the rest of the world. What's happening right now is exactly what I said -- we are still engaging in the sin, but instead of it showing on our bodies, it's showing up on the painting. If we are going to engage in all this stuff, we need to make sure that other places have to follow the same rules or they don't participate in our markets. A lot of people have come back and said that these countries should be allowed to use fossil fuels in their development the same way that the West used fossil fuels in their development, and I can agree with that without moving on this: go ahead and use fossil fuels all you want for your development, but the moment that you're doing business with us we don't want anything to do with them. I think you'll find a lot of the companies that are calling for Net Zero magically have a different opinion somehow.
It doesn't really matter whether climate change is real or not when the solutions being presented seems so suspect.
It's shocking how every single solution for climate change just happens to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and also hollows out the middle class.
All the richest and most powerful people on Earth go to a city characterized by extreme wealth and extreme poverty built by Middle Eastern oil barons to discuss how they are going to screw over the little guy next year, and yet it's either idiot yokels or right wing megamagnates to blame when people who have been watching their quality of life evaporate for the last 20 years are skeptical.
It's shocking how every single solution for climate change just happens to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and also hollows out the middle class.
All the richest and most powerful people on Earth go to a city characterized by extreme wealth and extreme poverty built by Middle Eastern oil barons to discuss how they are going to screw over the little guy next year, and yet it's either idiot yokels or right wing megamagnates to blame when people who have been watching their quality of life evaporate for the last 20 years are skeptical.
"my name is Stephen Hawking and I am a stallion in bed. A stud put out to pasture, I got these bitches giving me head. Hawking understands nature, I'll fill your man with Dread. I won't bother with a debater, I'll just fill his ass with lead"
What people don't realize is you don't need to win voting third party to change things. You just need to get a large enough stack of votes that the parties start to say "I want that" and start pandering to you.
We're in a once in a lifetime moment where anyone having a boy can name them chad.
The generation being born right now is called Generation Alpha, so it'll be an Alpha Chad no matter how much soy they drink.
(yeah, it's a cringe joke, I don't care I stand by it)
The generation being born right now is called Generation Alpha, so it'll be an Alpha Chad no matter how much soy they drink.
(yeah, it's a cringe joke, I don't care I stand by it)
I think there's something to be said about the idea that when you get really sick with anything it can have long-term effects. I had a bad chest cold, and it made it into my lungs and months after I "recovered" I was still so messed up I passed out during a spirometry test and was using puffers multiple times a day.
When women call men they don't like incels, I feel like it's always important to remember that all the greatest monsters in history were universally able to get plenty of pussy while Issac Newton died a virgin, which seems to prove that having sex doesn't predict anything about your value as a human being.
For people wondering what "sigmoidal" means, it refers to a trend that takes an S-curve.
Once I understood that detail, it seems self-evidently true. When you build one factory, your output goes up maybe 100 times, but your second factory only doubles your production. Eventually you run out of factories to build and there's no more growth to be had.
Klaus Schwab is a scary guy for many reasons, but his concept of there being multiple industrial revolutions makes a lot of sense, and each one has a similar profile to this. If the computer revolution is one such industrial revolution, consider this: Look at computers 10 years ago, then 20 years ago, then 30 years ago, then 40 years ago, then 50 years ago. The leaps and bounds for the first 30 years are incomparable to the slow dribs and drabs of progress today.
Even industrial revolutions themselves are following the same profile. the initial industrial revolutions were truly revolutionary, but as new revolutions followed they too had increasingly incremental improvements to society. The Internet is nice and all, but in the grand scheme of things the sawmill and mechanical loom affect us all far more.
Once I understood that detail, it seems self-evidently true. When you build one factory, your output goes up maybe 100 times, but your second factory only doubles your production. Eventually you run out of factories to build and there's no more growth to be had.
Klaus Schwab is a scary guy for many reasons, but his concept of there being multiple industrial revolutions makes a lot of sense, and each one has a similar profile to this. If the computer revolution is one such industrial revolution, consider this: Look at computers 10 years ago, then 20 years ago, then 30 years ago, then 40 years ago, then 50 years ago. The leaps and bounds for the first 30 years are incomparable to the slow dribs and drabs of progress today.
Even industrial revolutions themselves are following the same profile. the initial industrial revolutions were truly revolutionary, but as new revolutions followed they too had increasingly incremental improvements to society. The Internet is nice and all, but in the grand scheme of things the sawmill and mechanical loom affect us all far more.
A deregulated EV market could actually be a game changer.
A friend of mine grew up in China. He told me about going to high school, and there were these little three-wheeled electric vehicles that were only a couple thousand dollars each, and they were not fully fledged automobiles but they were weatherproof transportation. Not only did it mean that students could have transportation of their own, it also meant that many of those students could go off and sell their services after school as a low rent taxi service. Eventually, the Chinese government got really embarrassed by these little three-wheel things and it didn't project the image of power that they wanted, so they banned them.
I really believe that a deregulated EV market that put this sort of vehicle front and center would change a lot.
A friend of mine grew up in China. He told me about going to high school, and there were these little three-wheeled electric vehicles that were only a couple thousand dollars each, and they were not fully fledged automobiles but they were weatherproof transportation. Not only did it mean that students could have transportation of their own, it also meant that many of those students could go off and sell their services after school as a low rent taxi service. Eventually, the Chinese government got really embarrassed by these little three-wheel things and it didn't project the image of power that they wanted, so they banned them.
I really believe that a deregulated EV market that put this sort of vehicle front and center would change a lot.
On the topic, I think future generations are going to be rejecting technology as a social institution. Not entirely, but definitely to the degree that the first generation embraced it.
You can live in a situation today where you can convince a million people to press a button to say that you are their friend, and not have anyone to help you move a couch. People are slowly beginning to realize the absurdity of this.
You can live in a situation today where you can convince a million people to press a button to say that you are their friend, and not have anyone to help you move a couch. People are slowly beginning to realize the absurdity of this.
Problem is that government dwarfs most capital at this point. The entire fortune 500 is only 97 trillion dollars, and much of those assets aren't American, so even if you sieze every US asset you might be able to balance things out......once..... But the beast is still hungry and having gutted the wealth production centers it'd just be the beginning of the end...