It's what's implied by seeing open cases everywhere trying to sell in bulk. Literally one of just a couple things at the bulk store checkout (not just there but it's one example) just boxes and boxes of the things. You'd need everyone who comes in to buy tons to justify having so many boxes.
I think I saw a giant basket at the corner store too. They don't have anything like that, but there's a giant bin of these things. Just doesn't make sense unless they're praying they can unload them and don't want to put much effort into selling them.
I think I saw a giant basket at the corner store too. They don't have anything like that, but there's a giant bin of these things. Just doesn't make sense unless they're praying they can unload them and don't want to put much effort into selling them.
Anyone else seen box after box of the Mr beast chocolate bars out there?
I have to imagine they made like a trillion and are fighting to unload them now that it turns out they're not selling.
I have to imagine they made like a trillion and are fighting to unload them now that it turns out they're not selling.
Yes, it seems like that discussion of free will boils down to: "is a man a piano key who will play the same note when pressed every time?"
If a man is a gear, a cog who will always do as expected, then there is no free will. If instead A man might surprise you and choose to do something you didn't expect, then they do have free will.
I think many progressive ideologies deny free will and say that if a man chooses wrong it's because they were played like a piano key and they had no choice, whereas most ideologies through history claim you do have a choice and thus it is your duty to choose well.
I'm one of 6 kids. We had the same family, grew up in the same house, often shared bedrooms growing up, went to the same schools with often the same teachers, but everyone's path is vastly different. I can't experience that and believe we are piano keys.
They made their own choices which led to those external factors. If you choose to walk down a certain path, the road ahead has certain paths and forks. For me, I can see many people and how my life could have turned out more like theirs if I'd chosen differently, and those decisions were choices someone personally makes. In some cases you can see how similar our paths were until a critical decision that changes the paths we walk, and it's often not a circumstance but an actual decision we personally make. Whether those decisions are rational or irrational doesn't really matter in that respect from my point of view. Both are part of us and our minds and our will.
If a man is a gear, a cog who will always do as expected, then there is no free will. If instead A man might surprise you and choose to do something you didn't expect, then they do have free will.
I think many progressive ideologies deny free will and say that if a man chooses wrong it's because they were played like a piano key and they had no choice, whereas most ideologies through history claim you do have a choice and thus it is your duty to choose well.
I'm one of 6 kids. We had the same family, grew up in the same house, often shared bedrooms growing up, went to the same schools with often the same teachers, but everyone's path is vastly different. I can't experience that and believe we are piano keys.
They made their own choices which led to those external factors. If you choose to walk down a certain path, the road ahead has certain paths and forks. For me, I can see many people and how my life could have turned out more like theirs if I'd chosen differently, and those decisions were choices someone personally makes. In some cases you can see how similar our paths were until a critical decision that changes the paths we walk, and it's often not a circumstance but an actual decision we personally make. Whether those decisions are rational or irrational doesn't really matter in that respect from my point of view. Both are part of us and our minds and our will.
I bought an old Soviet passport and kept my papers in there. I fly for work a lot so I had to present my papers a lot, so I got a lot of mileage out of my "ryeal syovyiet vyaxxine pyasspyort"
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?