It depends on your definition of nihilistic.
For me, nihilistim means a value system that is devoid of meaning, value, or sense. I don't think that that's fitting with what I'm saying at all.
My value system holds honesty as paramount, and I don't believe that meta is an honest company. Therefore, it is well within my non nihilistic value system to believe that even if they are saying that they are pausing a thing that nobody wants, there's absolutely no reason to believe that they're not doing it because they've already done it and they don't need to continue.
Has the legendary US President George W. Bush once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." (A lot of zoomers don't remember this, but George W. Bush was in fact an idiot)
It's unassailable fact that meta just keeps on getting fined again and again for breaking the law when it comes to data, so it is stupid to trust them, not nihilistic to mistrust them. The right thing to do is to completely disregard meta, stop giving them data stop giving them patronage stop giving them money through your eyes on their advertisements,. And go all in on the fediverse, which is a free and open source social media Network you can post on your own hardware or on a posting plan you personally control.
In that sense, it's irrelevant because they're going to keep on doing it regardless of whether they lie about not doing it anymore or not, and to just keep on letting them is what's nihilistic. What would be the opposite would be to go do something about it like deleting your Facebook.
Which I did. Among many other things.
For me, nihilistim means a value system that is devoid of meaning, value, or sense. I don't think that that's fitting with what I'm saying at all.
My value system holds honesty as paramount, and I don't believe that meta is an honest company. Therefore, it is well within my non nihilistic value system to believe that even if they are saying that they are pausing a thing that nobody wants, there's absolutely no reason to believe that they're not doing it because they've already done it and they don't need to continue.
Has the legendary US President George W. Bush once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." (A lot of zoomers don't remember this, but George W. Bush was in fact an idiot)
It's unassailable fact that meta just keeps on getting fined again and again for breaking the law when it comes to data, so it is stupid to trust them, not nihilistic to mistrust them. The right thing to do is to completely disregard meta, stop giving them data stop giving them patronage stop giving them money through your eyes on their advertisements,. And go all in on the fediverse, which is a free and open source social media Network you can post on your own hardware or on a posting plan you personally control.
In that sense, it's irrelevant because they're going to keep on doing it regardless of whether they lie about not doing it anymore or not, and to just keep on letting them is what's nihilistic. What would be the opposite would be to go do something about it like deleting your Facebook.
Which I did. Among many other things.
I wish everyone would agree to public schools being the place where only the most milquetoast boring commonalities are taught.
Of course, one major problem with that is that a lot of people are going to claim that there's a lot of things that people dispute and don't agree on, but I would actually dispute that back in turn. The overwhelming majority of people agree with the sky is blue. The overwhelming majority of people believe the Sun is hot. The overwhelming majority of people believe that one plus one equals two, and that a e i o u and sometimes y are the vowels and all of the other letters are considered consonants, and that you can go to the dictionary to figure out how to spell most words. I'm not talking a 51% majority here, I'm talking like 80 85 90 95%. When you get right down to it, most of the big arguments are over a pretty trivial number of things, and so it would make sense to me to just say "hey, we are a government institution we are not here to teach controversies in either direction, we are here to make you basically competent" and then a core message of school becomes "we are not going to teach you everything, you need to go in the world and learn without us"
Nobody will like this opinion, but I think public schools should be more heavily regulated than cigarette ads. Anyone using government mandated and funded schools is immediate jail time under a universal hatch act.
For the concepts of "academic freedom" and "free speech", those things don't exist in public schools for teachers. If you want freedom to say whatever you want, or to teach whatever you want, you should have that separated from mandating that you get people's money and mandating that you get people's children. Yet another good argument for private schools, where you would be able to teach more or less whatever you wanted as long as they reach basic levels of competency.
Speech by government employees in public schools that children are often mandated by law to attend is not free speech. Such people are the organ of the state, and so anything that they say carries the authority of the state. Therefore, what they say must be deeply controlled. Speech that you are mandated to attend that's paid for by the government and operated by the government is essentially mandated speech, especially if your grade is going to depend on your willingness to conform to the dictats of this agent of the state.
A lot of people have a problem with the idea of tightly controlling public schools, which to me is just another good reason to make it into a free market question like they did in Arizona. In that case, instead of a monopoly of public schools, there's a certain budget that follows the child and can be used for whatever, and I'd suggest there should be some basic competency levels kids must reach but otherwise leave it alone. One thing I'm imagining would be a few parents getting together to hire an extremely competent instructor for a few kids, someone educated that they trust.
With respect to disparities in education caused by a funding only model, there are dozens of cities throughout the US that have dozens of schools that graduate sometimes thousands of students and not one of them is able to read, right, or do math at grade level. And far from being a problem of not enough money, and some of those situations such as baltimore, those schools that are failing to put out a single literate child from high school get some of the highest amounts of money per child in the entire state. In other words, government education is failing on a systematic level. Meanwhile, in other schools or other cities, there are tons of kids who come out fully capable of reading a grade level and who go off to have productive careers and lives. A lot of people think that you're going to solve the problems of inequality with government, but anyone who understands anything about government knows that that's the opposite of reality. You just end up with the people who are best able to convince the government to give them more money and power. If you could have it where people were actively trying to find the best education then I suspect you could get a huge benefit from that.
Of course, one major problem with that is that a lot of people are going to claim that there's a lot of things that people dispute and don't agree on, but I would actually dispute that back in turn. The overwhelming majority of people agree with the sky is blue. The overwhelming majority of people believe the Sun is hot. The overwhelming majority of people believe that one plus one equals two, and that a e i o u and sometimes y are the vowels and all of the other letters are considered consonants, and that you can go to the dictionary to figure out how to spell most words. I'm not talking a 51% majority here, I'm talking like 80 85 90 95%. When you get right down to it, most of the big arguments are over a pretty trivial number of things, and so it would make sense to me to just say "hey, we are a government institution we are not here to teach controversies in either direction, we are here to make you basically competent" and then a core message of school becomes "we are not going to teach you everything, you need to go in the world and learn without us"
Nobody will like this opinion, but I think public schools should be more heavily regulated than cigarette ads. Anyone using government mandated and funded schools is immediate jail time under a universal hatch act.
For the concepts of "academic freedom" and "free speech", those things don't exist in public schools for teachers. If you want freedom to say whatever you want, or to teach whatever you want, you should have that separated from mandating that you get people's money and mandating that you get people's children. Yet another good argument for private schools, where you would be able to teach more or less whatever you wanted as long as they reach basic levels of competency.
Speech by government employees in public schools that children are often mandated by law to attend is not free speech. Such people are the organ of the state, and so anything that they say carries the authority of the state. Therefore, what they say must be deeply controlled. Speech that you are mandated to attend that's paid for by the government and operated by the government is essentially mandated speech, especially if your grade is going to depend on your willingness to conform to the dictats of this agent of the state.
A lot of people have a problem with the idea of tightly controlling public schools, which to me is just another good reason to make it into a free market question like they did in Arizona. In that case, instead of a monopoly of public schools, there's a certain budget that follows the child and can be used for whatever, and I'd suggest there should be some basic competency levels kids must reach but otherwise leave it alone. One thing I'm imagining would be a few parents getting together to hire an extremely competent instructor for a few kids, someone educated that they trust.
With respect to disparities in education caused by a funding only model, there are dozens of cities throughout the US that have dozens of schools that graduate sometimes thousands of students and not one of them is able to read, right, or do math at grade level. And far from being a problem of not enough money, and some of those situations such as baltimore, those schools that are failing to put out a single literate child from high school get some of the highest amounts of money per child in the entire state. In other words, government education is failing on a systematic level. Meanwhile, in other schools or other cities, there are tons of kids who come out fully capable of reading a grade level and who go off to have productive careers and lives. A lot of people think that you're going to solve the problems of inequality with government, but anyone who understands anything about government knows that that's the opposite of reality. You just end up with the people who are best able to convince the government to give them more money and power. If you could have it where people were actively trying to find the best education then I suspect you could get a huge benefit from that.
In retrospect he was scary *and* a piece of total garbage. But somehow still better than Kamala which is impressive for her...
Amazon goes "hey if you like books from Japan about getting iskekai'd you might like this one!"
I'm surprised they let that through. Were the Karens who control the algorithm off for the long weekend?
I'm surprised they let that through. Were the Karens who control the algorithm off for the long weekend?
I feel like there's a good chance "pausing plans" will be irrelevant because they're probably already done...
That seems like a dangerously specific thing to base your entire career around.
But there's people who make a living playing Pokemon yellow all day so I guess there's a market for anything...
But there's people who make a living playing Pokemon yellow all day so I guess there's a market for anything...
"How many drinks have you had tonight?"
"Just one! One really big, really strong one!"
"Just one! One really big, really strong one!"
They were the dream card back in 1996, but back then you were somewhat limited to whatever the local computer store had, and it didn't have much. (also I was a broke-ass)
lol today textures are so high resolution that often you turn off texture filtering entirely and it looks great, but back then seeing bilinear filtering was so exciting, like "oh wow, it's not pixelated anymore!"
lol today textures are so high resolution that often you turn off texture filtering entirely and it looks great, but back then seeing bilinear filtering was so exciting, like "oh wow, it's not pixelated anymore!"
Jealous. I made the dire mistake of going with a Virge GX as my first 3d card, and then next up I bought a Savage4 because I guess I just don't learn. (The savage4 was fine though for the most part)
Quake 2 always struck me as an anti-gestalt. Like, it had all the elements to be great, but it just was never as good as it felt like it should be. Action Quake 2 was pretty great though (I guess proving that it could be made great without massive changes)
Jeez, this music is making me want to get my brothers together and play Quake deathmatch over null modem cables.
(I know, it's a strange connection, but we'd have music like this blasting over the stereo and we'd play play games like that)
(I know, it's a strange connection, but we'd have music like this blasting over the stereo and we'd play play games like that)
You can find yourself a searx instance and it'll basically do a lot of what dogpile does without the wall of ads.
I run my own. It's a bit slower than most because I also run a yacy instance so I can get some results from a 100% non-commercial search index. (and I think I'm contributing about 0.1% of the pages to the total distributed index)
I run my own. It's a bit slower than most because I also run a yacy instance so I can get some results from a 100% non-commercial search index. (and I think I'm contributing about 0.1% of the pages to the total distributed index)
Once I started looking at the data, it became undeniable. One you start to see the statistical outcomes for kids who grow up in non-standard homes such as single parent households, it looks like a crime against humanity to advocate for such things.
Shit happens, I'm not saying that every instance of divorce can be avoided. My parents split up when I was growing up. But given the outcomes, it makes the most sense to at least aim at a boring conventional family because it's best for the children and thereby for the world.
Shit happens, I'm not saying that every instance of divorce can be avoided. My parents split up when I was growing up. But given the outcomes, it makes the most sense to at least aim at a boring conventional family because it's best for the children and thereby for the world.
The boomers tried free love, and it worked ok for a little while because they still had the old ways of doing things to fall back on. Their kids on the other hand lived in a world without the old ways of doing things, and it was a catastrophe that made nobody happy.
Ironically, without meaning to or intending to, younger generations are now starting to try to figure out what to do, and in doing so are rediscovering the old ways of doing things.
Ironically, without meaning to or intending to, younger generations are now starting to try to figure out what to do, and in doing so are rediscovering the old ways of doing things.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the salt water pools are less salty than ocean water, but the pool water is used as an electrolyte in an electrolytic cell which takes water and sodium chloride and produces chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide. The Chlorine gas obviously chlorinates the water like bleach would, but without the increased trouble of having to handle chlorine or sodium hypochlorite. Apparently you do need to dump some HCL into the pool now and again because the pH eventually starts to drop (and that's the sort of thing you want to avoid), and you also have to top up the salt. There'd also be a slight benefit to just having salty water, because it would be a slightly more challenging environment for microorganisms which aren't suited to salty water since the salt could try to pull water out of some.
(Maybe everyone in this conversation already knows all this, but I thought it was pretty interesting and looked it up myself and learned a thing or two and decided to share)
(Maybe everyone in this conversation already knows all this, but I thought it was pretty interesting and looked it up myself and learned a thing or two and decided to share)
lol "Oh no you don't. You said he was the bestest evar and better than he's ever been. You've made your bed, now poop in it"