literally if anyone else did stickers half as well as telegram

it’s not that people aren’t worried, it’s that they have immediate concerns (many of which are manufactured by conservative parties) and humans are remarkably short-term thinkers

snaps are like poor man’s containers when it comes to servers… maybe better than having single-use VMs but if you’re wanting to build out real systems in a modern way, i literally haven’t worked with anyone using ubuntu in the last ~10 years

i mean they literally admit to it in the article… they need to find the “business model” to support it, which could mean a subscription and an expensive price tag… the reason isn’t because it needs ongoing support - it’s because of planned obsolescence

boo hoo we can’t make money off selling you shit every few years so we have to charge you $200 and a subscription

i can’t remember the last time i got spam… i don’t know if it’s as good as, but it’s not a problem that i’ve noticed

i care about people… countries are a construct that we created, and often we use them as a bludgeon to make ourselves feel superior

you’re not superior to an eastern european fleeing russian aggression

you’re not superior to a mexican fleeing gang violence

you’re not superior to an african fleeing civil war

you’re not superior to a palestinian fleeing bombing

these people are all people. the fact that you live in a country where you do is luck; not superiority

heck, immigrants are what FORM local culture… without infusions of new ideas, culture stagnates

mexican immigration brought us tex mex; italian immigration brought us pizza… there are countless examples of how immigration has formed the local culture of a country. in the colonial world, outside of europe, we are entirely built from the culture of immigrants

also

Lived in places where people look at your like you don't belong because you are white. But if other people want to have that culture they can feel free, but why should I be happy about them coming to my country and changing things about my country that isn't my country?

that’s basically replacement theory right there, which is just plain horrific

imo i actually hate the idea of a public crypto currency

people think that the government having their hands on the levers of a fiat currency is a bad thing, but it’s an incredibly useful property to make sure that we can stabilise things and push away from recession etc! without those levers we can end up in a spiral a lot easier

i think though that where these problems don’t exist is behind the scenes: what if the whole world replaced SWIFT with a private blockchain? maybe a wire transfer wouldn’t take 5 days and cost like $20 (or maybe it would because it’s probably not the technology that makes these things slow)… in this case, you have a known group of semi-trusted actors (international banks), which is actually a perfect set of properties for a blockchain: they’re all able to cooperate but don’t implicitly trust, and can verify each other but mainly use blockchain so they can all automatically agree

not to mention reading to make sure there isn’t a “fucks up your day on a leap year” error

it’ll eventually get there, but we’re a while off

you can get oral chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and hpv

so yeahhhh it’s basically everything

i think you’re right in a few ways: there are myriad ways people present their conservatism, but i’d just say that’s kind of focusing on issues they care about… progressives have the same thing: some people care about the environment and don’t have much care about trans rights (like they care about it, but it’s not going to change their vote)

being progressive doesn’t mean you support all progress equally, just like being conservative doesn’t mean you support all conservation and (what we would call) regression equally either

i think the thing with progressive vs conservative is how “entrenched” something is… progressives change entrenched systems - “the way society works” kinda stuff, which can absolutely mean rolling back legislation - like don’t ask don’t tell, laws that made sodomy illegal, etc. these are all kind of entrenched societal things that we try to change. conservatism, by contrast tries to keen the entrenched societal things the same

in a well working system, this is actually great! progressives push really hard to change things and conservatives keep the best of the bits that were working - the bits that people actually care about. in reality of course, modern politics doesn’t work like that because it’s all corrupt bullshit

i’m not comparing the whole thing; just breaking the problem down into parts… i’m asserting that your definition of “dead” is wrong. they are not permanently dead, because they can be revived

we have 3 potential people. either you remain at the end with 1 person, or 2 people… the choice is between action (killing tuvix to save neelix and tuvok) or inaction (allowing tuvix to live, and accepting the death of neelix and tuvok)

it’s perfectly valid to say that inaction is the ethical choice because you should never personally cause harm… but it’s also perfectly valid to say action (in this case, murder, as we see in the episode) is the ethical choice because it has the greatest good for the most people

and in fact, the latter is repeated often in star trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

and indeed, in this episode they further throw a spanner in the works: the many includes voyagers crew, and their chief security officer

"Soul" is the word we use for something we don't scientifically understand yet

that’s far from definitive. another definition is

A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

but since we aren’t arguing semantics, it doesn’t really matter exactly, other than the fact that it’s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesn’t make it the only truth

of course i didn’t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists i’m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we don’t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; that’s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

it’s not abstracted; it’s simplified… if what you’re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be “abstracted” so much it “becomes wrong”, which is categorically untrue… it’s an incomplete picture, but that doesn’t make it either wrong or abstract

*edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didn’t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that it’s simply a belief, however it’s a belief that’s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree that’s fine but don’t act like you have some “evidence” or “proof” to back up your claims… all we’re talking about here is belief, because we simply don’t know - neither you nor i

and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, that’s not a violation

if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, you’re arguing that is a violation

the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something “more” than a probabilistic model going on… but again, that’s far from certain