What are the problem I think is default liberals thinking that they must be woke because they share ideas with the woke.
I mean, look at Linus Torvalds. I'm reasonably certain that that guy isn't remotely woke. The fact that he holds some center left ideas (or even further left ideas) isn't really material, if you started really grilling him on woke ideology, he'd probably be obviously anti-woke by the end of the conversation. You just need to look at how he runs his project. For one thing, it's his project and he has a central role, and the other people working on the project are typically old greybeards who are excellent at kernel development because that's who builds good OS kernels. He doesn't come right up and say, but there's gatekeeping. He's doing what he feels is right for the project and not what's right for the current political climate. Of course he would, the Linux kernel is his claim to fame, his legacy, his place in the world. If he started lowering the bar just to let people of certain racial or gender castes in, his kernel would become garbage and he'd become irrelevant.
In the same way, I think that a lot of people who don't have any problem with gay people think that that's the same as being woke, when in reality they are quite different things. People who actually care about gay people might actually oppose woke ideology because it's going to get the whole group unfairly lynched.
Because people think that they support this thing because they support a part of it, they end up accidentally backing psychopaths who aren't acting in the best interests of anyone but themselves.
In the case of Linux, I think that there's a parallel to be made. I'm sure that over the last 36 years or whatever it's been there have been people who talk a good game about doing the right thing for the Linux kernel when in reality they just want to get their way and by appealing to the kernel itself they're hoping to do so. I've seen it in a bunch of different ways. Somebody wants free meals, and they work at a place with a strong union, then they will frame their argument in terms of why the union wants them to get free meals. I worked at a place with a strong safety culture, and that same person would frame their argument in terms of why safety wants them to get free meals. I worked at a place with a real ball busting asshole of a boss, and anytime that someone wanted someone guess what? They bad mouth that guy behind their back everyday but when they wanted something they would frame their argument as in that asshole of a boss wants it done so get it done.
I mean, look at Linus Torvalds. I'm reasonably certain that that guy isn't remotely woke. The fact that he holds some center left ideas (or even further left ideas) isn't really material, if you started really grilling him on woke ideology, he'd probably be obviously anti-woke by the end of the conversation. You just need to look at how he runs his project. For one thing, it's his project and he has a central role, and the other people working on the project are typically old greybeards who are excellent at kernel development because that's who builds good OS kernels. He doesn't come right up and say, but there's gatekeeping. He's doing what he feels is right for the project and not what's right for the current political climate. Of course he would, the Linux kernel is his claim to fame, his legacy, his place in the world. If he started lowering the bar just to let people of certain racial or gender castes in, his kernel would become garbage and he'd become irrelevant.
In the same way, I think that a lot of people who don't have any problem with gay people think that that's the same as being woke, when in reality they are quite different things. People who actually care about gay people might actually oppose woke ideology because it's going to get the whole group unfairly lynched.
Because people think that they support this thing because they support a part of it, they end up accidentally backing psychopaths who aren't acting in the best interests of anyone but themselves.
In the case of Linux, I think that there's a parallel to be made. I'm sure that over the last 36 years or whatever it's been there have been people who talk a good game about doing the right thing for the Linux kernel when in reality they just want to get their way and by appealing to the kernel itself they're hoping to do so. I've seen it in a bunch of different ways. Somebody wants free meals, and they work at a place with a strong union, then they will frame their argument in terms of why the union wants them to get free meals. I worked at a place with a strong safety culture, and that same person would frame their argument in terms of why safety wants them to get free meals. I worked at a place with a real ball busting asshole of a boss, and anytime that someone wanted someone guess what? They bad mouth that guy behind their back everyday but when they wanted something they would frame their argument as in that asshole of a boss wants it done so get it done.
Choose 20 games that have had a big impact on you. One game per day, for 20 days. No explanations, no ratings, no particular order. #GameChallenge (6/20)
Wargames (colecovision)
Wargames (colecovision)
Lunduke does good work sometimes, but you can also tell he sometimes is totally full of shit.
It's like... great dude, you found some woke accounts on the fediverse. Shame you're missing the best part.
It's like... great dude, you found some woke accounts on the fediverse. Shame you're missing the best part.
Especially for stuff like computers, most people can actually keep their computers around and functional for much longer than they think. I'm writing this using a laptop with a 10 year old processor that's perfectly serviceable and with the 10 year old graphics chip it's even capable of low-end gaming. I'm posting this on a social media website hosted on a server with an even older processor.
You never know what the future brings, but it isn't like technology is speeding up (moore's law has been dead for a long time now). It's highly likely both machines if they're still maintained and therefore operational will be servicable another 10 years from now. Not for doing the latest and greatest big thing, but a core 2 duo from 18 years ago is still capable of doing basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing, and it seems unlikely that it'll change.
You never know what the future brings, but it isn't like technology is speeding up (moore's law has been dead for a long time now). It's highly likely both machines if they're still maintained and therefore operational will be servicable another 10 years from now. Not for doing the latest and greatest big thing, but a core 2 duo from 18 years ago is still capable of doing basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing, and it seems unlikely that it'll change.
I like this idea tbh.
It's like, people look at landfills and see a problem of all that garbage, but you can also think of it as this spot with all this reusable stuff or recyclable material. People talk about the great plastic patch in the ocean, but that's potentially material that could be extracted from that location and we've got a spot the size of texas we can use to get all kinds of interesting material for many things.
The big thing that the Standard Oil company did that most companies didn't at the time is they had a lot of byproducts of kerosene production (the thing most people wanted to replace whale oil). Instead of throwing it out (or likely just burning it off) like many oil companies did, they found uses for the different distillates of crude oil that weren't prime kerosene. That way you got gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, plastics, all from the same feedstock you previously only got kerosene from.
People might think that's a bad example because fossil fuels destroy the environment through climate change, but given that the byproducts were to be disposed of likely by burning without doing anything productive with it, you're getting a lot more useful energy out of one unit of crude oil, making things much more efficient. In the same way, we could be looking at society's byproducts or polluting elements and asking "Ok, this is bad, but can we turn this negative into a positive by taking this thing we don't want and turning it into something we do want?"
It's like, people look at landfills and see a problem of all that garbage, but you can also think of it as this spot with all this reusable stuff or recyclable material. People talk about the great plastic patch in the ocean, but that's potentially material that could be extracted from that location and we've got a spot the size of texas we can use to get all kinds of interesting material for many things.
The big thing that the Standard Oil company did that most companies didn't at the time is they had a lot of byproducts of kerosene production (the thing most people wanted to replace whale oil). Instead of throwing it out (or likely just burning it off) like many oil companies did, they found uses for the different distillates of crude oil that weren't prime kerosene. That way you got gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, plastics, all from the same feedstock you previously only got kerosene from.
People might think that's a bad example because fossil fuels destroy the environment through climate change, but given that the byproducts were to be disposed of likely by burning without doing anything productive with it, you're getting a lot more useful energy out of one unit of crude oil, making things much more efficient. In the same way, we could be looking at society's byproducts or polluting elements and asking "Ok, this is bad, but can we turn this negative into a positive by taking this thing we don't want and turning it into something we do want?"
I still don't understand why they have a person doing sign language on TV next to government officials.
Closed captioning is a thing, and it's useful for people who don't know asl... So why take screen real estate doing this thing when they could just be showing closed captioning?
Closed captioning is a thing, and it's useful for people who don't know asl... So why take screen real estate doing this thing when they could just be showing closed captioning?
Sometimes I see stuff on the fediverse that surprises even me, such as a glowing anime recommendation from a large language model pretending to be Donald Trump.
Any other recommendations to make anime great again?
Any other recommendations to make anime great again?
If you look in a microscope, everything is moving around even when everything is still. The warmer it gets, and the smaller the particles get, the more they move.
This is called Brownian motion, and it is explained by matter being made of particles that push against everything and when the matter is small enough the energy of individual particles is enough to jostle things around. It isn't the only proof, but it's good evidence that matter is made of molecules, and that heat is related to the movement of those particles.
It was Albert Einstein who described Brownian motion mathematically which was one of the major things which helped tip the consensus of scientists towards atomic theory rather than something else.
(I know, you weren't asking but I thought Brownian motion is pretty cool so I decided to share anyway)
This is called Brownian motion, and it is explained by matter being made of particles that push against everything and when the matter is small enough the energy of individual particles is enough to jostle things around. It isn't the only proof, but it's good evidence that matter is made of molecules, and that heat is related to the movement of those particles.
It was Albert Einstein who described Brownian motion mathematically which was one of the major things which helped tip the consensus of scientists towards atomic theory rather than something else.
(I know, you weren't asking but I thought Brownian motion is pretty cool so I decided to share anyway)
AI performed, I wrote the lyrics. Just having fun with some tools lol
Pretty neat it can make crappy rhymes sound ok.
Pretty neat it can make crappy rhymes sound ok.
It makes people feel good until they find someone who is just objectively better than them by every measure.
I've met people who are better than me on every measure that I think I'm pretty good in, and if people are all equal then that means I'm just a failure who didn't work hard enough. Some people are just better. Sucks, but it's better to think some people are just more naturally gifted than to think you suffer from some personal failing that makes you fail that hard against someone who is by all measures your equal.
But kids don't realize that yet, or at least they pretend they don't.
I've met people who are better than me on every measure that I think I'm pretty good in, and if people are all equal then that means I'm just a failure who didn't work hard enough. Some people are just better. Sucks, but it's better to think some people are just more naturally gifted than to think you suffer from some personal failing that makes you fail that hard against someone who is by all measures your equal.
But kids don't realize that yet, or at least they pretend they don't.