Lately I started including what happens to my data in case I die unexpectedly in my threat model. As of now I’d like for everything to stay private. All my accounts have a strong password that I store on a keepass datbase that I store only on encrypted devices which themselves are protected only by PIN or Password with no...
When Bob is active part of what you don't want Alice to know, it doesn't matter whether you "tell" Bob or not, he knows.
You can try and hide it from him, add layers like an onion, but even that isn't necessarily a failproof guarantee that you left no trace, even onions can be peeled or holes pierced.
That's true, though personally I find a sort of warm feeling about the idea of my messages and content I produced being available for my descendants, beyond just my bank account.
I wish I had a way to see how my great-grandparents were. What their life was like. That I could check out conversations they had in a public forum. Or see what hobbies they had.. but life back then left no traces, so their thoughts were lost to time after my grandparents and my father went away. If they wrote any letters they were lost. So I'd be ok if one day one of my descendants has a way to see what accounts I used and they come upon this message when wondering about me. Like a time-traveling high-five from past-me to my relatives.
If you have the Brave Browser installed on your Windows devices, then you may also have Brave VPN services installed on the machine. Brave installs these services without user consent on Windows devices....
Systemd "enabled" services are literal symlinks... whenever a target runs, it tries to start also all the service files on its "wants" directory.
You can literally enable any service for next boot by making a symlink in /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/ (or whichever other target you want it to run on) as root (and installation scripts are run as root).
If depends on where you place your morals.
Human morals are antropocentric. The only reason we see "life" as something good is because we are descendants of people who saw "life" as someting good, it's in our genes, our instinct of survival. Our ancestors would have killed themselves without that instinctive attachment to life, so we wouldn't have been born in the first place. It's selection bias... natural selection.
The Earth, and the Universe in general, does not care about life (human or otherwise), or about suffering, or about apetite. The planets will continue to be there long after we are extinct. We (including the animals around us) and our feelings have zero "importance" in reality. There's no real importance scale but the one we make.
Humans categorize things in "importance" based on how they serve the human race. Even something like global warming, is important in so far as it puts humanity lives at risk, no other reason. It's not about "saving Earth" or the animals, it's about saving ourselves. We are the "important" ones, in our own view. If you don't agree with this then... why not advocate for a safe way to end ourselves without suffering? wouldn't the Earth be "better" without humanity? if the goal was really about minimizing suffering, that might be a good approach wouldn't it?
Note that I'm NOT advocating for suicide... but trying to show the argument is not that good.
I can understand vegans that do it for the future of the Earth (and humanity) and to fight our own autodestructive behavior. And I totally support that, I think it makes complete sense and it's what got me interested in this as well. But I don't understand those who first and foremost put the focus on the animal suffering. I feel that's more of an appeal to empathy (another evolutionary trait) and it's driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing trying to make our reptile brain feel bad, not about giving an actual logical argument.
Veganism is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less.
Sure, compromises that "depend on where you place your morals".
The meme here is trying to superficially tackle a topic that's complex, projecting to the animal by "talking" to it with the intent of triggering empathy and causing a natural emotional reaction.
I do wonder, though, why do you think it’s reasonable to put importance on humanity or its future at all? Might as well just put importance on oneself, no?
Exactly.
I do believe that the only reason we give importance to "humanity" is because it happens to be what's interesting for our own importance on "oneselves" as individuals.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
I do genuinely love other people, and I do so for egotistic reasons. Because they mean a lot TO ME. My family and friends are a huge part of MY world, of what I am. They can give me strength when I need it. A strong group makes ME strong, so I wanna give them strength when they need it too. Making them happy ends up making ME happy. And that applies (to a lesser/more abstract extent) to the community around me. It's in MY interest to have the most welcoming and charitable society. So I try to be charitable to help make it a charitable society since that is what's of interest to ME.
We have evolved as "pack" animals like that for a reason. If someone tells me they are freely acting in detriment to their own interest/satisfaction, then I would not trust that person... either they are lying to me or they are lying to themselves and they actually get some form of personal satisfaction/benefit from those actions.
If people did not deeply place importance on themselves first, then that would lead to sacrificing themselves for a perceived notion they have of what might be of interest to others... that's essentially what hardcore Christians preach (even if they don't practice it): to endure suffering for the sake of others. Imho, if everyone did that, then everyone would have to endure suffering... and because it's impossible to really be 100% sure of what others really need (we are not mind readers) not only is it inefficient to base your life in what you think others need, but it might even be counterproductive, it might even lead to a never ending cycle of guilt. And even the Christians had to think of a reward in the "afterlife" in order to sound convincing at all... just so that they can actually try and convince their own animal brains that the sacrifice isn't against their own benefit...
I fail to see “the vegan argument” in your comment, whatever this is.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If you are asking me: "when do you think veganism makes a good case?" then I would say: when it makes the point that if we don't switch our diet we would end up destroying ourselves, since our current diet does not seem to be sustainable long term for our environment.
You call me nihilist while arguing that I'm likely not really nihilistic. I feel that's a very fuzzy box you are trying to put me in :P ...but you are free to call it whatever you want so long as it's kept respectful.
The Universe doesn't have morals. But humans do. And evolution has ingrained a particular set of morals in our brains.
However, in those morals the benefit (you could say "thriving") of our species is the main theme, and it could not be other way since they emerge from natural selection.
This can be in conflict with the survival of other species too. And I do believe that all creatures with instinct are also moral beings... it's not that wolves are behaving immorally when they hunt sheep, they are behaving in the most morally correct manner that emerges from their natural selection. Their appetite is more important for the wolf than the sheep's suffering.
This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It’s obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here.
Yes, my point was to show that the topic is not that simple. My first line was: "it depends on you morals"
"Suffering" and "empathy" taken as universal would not work, you'd need to draw the line at some point. So it becomes a question on where you draw the line. You can look into the eyes of a worm, speak to it and treat it like a child that has the same feelings a human would, and you'll be sad when it dies. But I don't see how our ability to project empathy towards an animal that has eyes justifies drawing the line there.
Don't you find it curious that most people only seem to care about an animal when it's relatively close in mechanism / behavior to a human? ...most people don't have second thoughts when it comes to killing a cockroach, for example. Is the desire to not have insects in the house more important than the insect's suffering? I suspect the meme wouldn't cause such an impact if it used that.
You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises “I want to be alive” and “suffering is bad”.
If those 2 premises were enough to start with, then it would follow that it's ok to eat meat (or use animal products) as long as we could be absolutelly sure the animals involved did not "suffer" (and as long as it did not put our own lives in danger, which is, imho, a better point towards going plant-based ...but I won't derail into that).
Then it becomes a matter of accuratelly determining what constitutes "suffering". Does experiencing suffering require "pain" and a nervous system exactly like ours? Or is it possible that the only reason we experience "pain" through our nervous system is because the way we are programmed makes this the most efficient way for a mechanism of reward-punishment to emerge that is evolutionarily benefitial to our survival?
If other creatures have a different emergent mechanism to signal in their biology what's hurtful to their survival and morally wrong for them, having a different manifestation of what (I'd argue) could also be categorized as "suffering", shouldn't they be included? are we just only caring for the nervous response because that's one thing we can relate to? are we unfairly discriminating based on how similar is their biology to ours? why?
it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given.
This is true, but only as the very first initial premise. You NEED logic to isolate what those premises should be (and to be able to extrapolate from those premises) if you actually want to maximize the success rate of the primal evolutionary drive that pushes our human morals.
I'd argue most crimes and acts considered immoral are driven by emotion too. You need logic if you want to form a coherent human moral that can be extrapolated to a higher abstract level. Because using emotion as a basis alone, without logical reasoning, would lead to contradictory and inconsistent results, the morals would be changing based on the circumstances in a way that is not logically sound.
This means that if you manipulate certain circumstances, you can manipulate the moral compass of someone who is driven by emotion and does not use logic. That form of manipulation is what I referred to as "emotional blackmailing".
Why is the meme asking us to "look in the eye" to the animal? why is it asking us to "tell" it to the animal as if it could understand the words of whichever language we speak?
Because it's trying to manipulate you into projecting your empathy towards it.
At the same time you seem to have missed that every ethical concept stems from similar emotional processes. I wanted to point out the contradiction you created by that
Have I missed it? ...as I said before, emotions are needed but only as a basis. And I believe you agreed on that.
But my point was that you need logic to have a consistent/sound human moral out of that basis.
Emotions also lead people towards murder, rape, abuse and all sort of things that are considered immoral.
Emotions are just the expression of our animal instincts. I'd argue that even the most complex feelings of love are linked to deep responses to stimuli hardwired in our genes.
Without using logic to distill morality, you'd get an animalistic set of morals as wild and clueless as our emotions often are... the same kind of morality that an animal, like the wolf, would have, because that's all it has: instint / emotion (I know you disagree with the wolf as a moral being, but I'll get to that in the next point).
Didn’t you know that - based on our current understanding - virtually all animals besides humans lack the cognitive capacity of moral agency?
Agency? based on our current understanding, humans might not even have any real "agency" themselves. That's something that scientists and philosophers have been discussing for ages without reaching any sort of agreement... many think that "free will" is just an illusion.
I feel there's a fundamental diference in the way we define "Morality". I'll try to explain my take on it, which doesn't involve "agency":
In my view, if a creature (human or not) is capable of displaying a set of priorities in how it behaves, and we can notice there are rules governing the way they conduct themselves, then that set of priorities and rules is susceptible to be understood as the moral compass that governs its behavior.
To me, morality is intrinsic to any form of complex natural behavior subjected to evolutionary pressure (whether they have cognitive capacity or not). Even if there's no "Universal" morality, there are objective moralities emergent from the way each species has been driven towards seeking some set of stimuli that might be "good" for their own survival. All that we see as "good" is only "good" because it satisfies that evolutionary drive.. not because we happen to have a "thought" about it.
As I said before, in the case of humans we can use logic to test, distill and extrapolate to obtain a higher level and better defined morality. Plus our actions usually have more complex and convoluted causations that require logic.
But if you do something "bad" without "thinking" (like you said wolfs do), that does not make the act any less "bad". At most, it just shows that your "thinking" wasn't the cause responsible for your behavior.
I wonder what's you position about "determinism". I'm not sure how would you reconcile it with your idea of morality, which seems to require the need for agency.
I don't believe in free will. But my take on morality does not require it.
there are different levels of suffering. While reactive behaviour of, e.g., oysters or plants are simple and mere reflexes to the environment, more complex organisms like vertebrates are capable of more complex forms of suffering, like pain, fear, stress, etc… Simply put, that’s also where vegans draw the line.
It seems to me that's arbitrary. I don't see enough reason as to why the line should be drawn on vertebrates.
Equally arbitrary would be to draw it on intelligent beings who's suffering can be more complex and say anything below is so much less important, that the desires of an intelligent being to marginally improve one tiny aspect of one instant of their intelligent lives takes priority.
I know. It's kinda extreme, but it's jut as valid as any other arbitrary line. That's not a strong case for Veganism.
Of course, defining "intelligence" might be complex. But it was just an example. And it's a particularly interesting one because you already implied that "virtually all animals besides humans" lack some relatively important cognitive capacities.
This meme was posted to the german vegan community (VeganDE), the title of the post translates to: “Why did you become a vegan?”. It does not seem as if it would aim to appeal to the viewers of this post to change their lifestyle towards veganism, but I see it rather as a conversation starter within a vegan community.
Yes. Often with these memes the title is a question that is either answered by the meme, or a follow up from it. So I interpreted it as an answer (ie. the quote in the meme being given as a reason on "why did you become Vegan?").
Maybe I interpreted it wrong... but seeing that the meme was not enough of an answer for me (and on top of that, it appealed to emotion), I saw it as an opportunity to engage in some conversation which I hoped would not be unwelcome.
Laplace's demon is but a "thought experiment", you could make the assumption that it knows everything without even needing to measure it. In fact, it wouldn't even need to interact with our Universe. What it would need is to know its initial state (big bang or whatever) and extrapolate from it (using the right maths/rules) what the position of the stars are now without violating the speed of light. Note that "to know" is not the same as "to measure".
It might be that this demon can't exist, but that itself doesn't disprove determinism, it depends on what reason is given.
Let's assume for a moment that one of the non-deterministic quantum interpretations is correct and the collapse is random. I see some problems with this (I'll enumerate them for better reference):
P1) If it's "truely random" then it follows it cannot be controlled or predicted. This means you wouldn't be able to use "free will" or any external force to influence it, because that would make them no longer "truely random". Making the jump to assume that they are somehow "determined" by minds would be a claim with no evidence whatsoever. And in fact there have been experiments in this regard (people trying to consciously look into the double slit experiment to cause a tilting of the result) without finding any repeatable evidence showing the mental state of the observers influence the state of quantum particles.
Quantum mechanics exposes a gap in our capacity of knowledge, but to me, using this to explain consciousness and "free will" feels a bit like the "God of the gaps". As soon as we reach a point in science that reveals the limits of our capacity for knowledge, people have the tendency to want to use that to attribute spirituality to it, giving it properties that have not been proven with any level of reliable evidence.
P2) This doesn't solve the problem of determining whether animals have "agency". Quantum decoherence occurs also in their brains, and I see no reason as to why we should expect an animal to not trigger quantum collapse (even in the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) unless you somehow make the assumption that in order to be a conscious observer you need to be human, which seems to be kind of an arbitrary line not based in any scientific evidence I can gather.
This also leads to the famous "Schroedinger's cat". Many physicists agree that using a measuring device on a particle in superposition causes it to collapse, but because we can only perceive that collapse when we examine the results of the measuring, some actually believe the "superposition" of states also applies to the entire apparatus and even any animal inside of it... it's kind of ironic that the attempt of Schrödinger to display the absurdity of the situation with his thought experiment has led to many people to use it as an example even though that was completely the opposite of what he intended. However, I can tell you that when I studied this in the University we were given the argument that you cannot extrapolate quantum superposition to the macroscopic level. Thought I have no idea if this view has changed nowadays.
P3) Quantum mechanics applies to all matter, everywhere in the Universe. Not just inside our brain... so what causes quantum decoherence in particles that are at millions of light years from any conscious human entity? are each individual particle a "free will" agent? are there consciousness on things just because they experience quantum superposition? or are you implying that most of the universe is in superposition until a conscious observer looks at it? I guess this would be the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation... sure, though this brings us back to how this is just an interpretation of it. Like you pointed out, there are also other interpretations that contradict that... and I'll talk next about the study you linked:
hidden variable theories have been deeply challenged by the findings for which three physicists were are awarded a nobel prize last year. Those basically proved that our universe is not locally real.
Here's an explanation by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (widely considered a "free will denier" :P): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsjgtp9XZxo ...she doesn't seem to believe the results contradict her expectations.
This starts to become complex (if it wasn't already) since quantum mechanics reinterprets a lot what "observer" means and it's not exactly clear to me what the experiment implies (I majored in chemistry, not physics) ...but as far as I understand, even if the Universe couldn't be simultaneously "local" and "real" at the quantum level, it could still be "non-locally real", which is consistent with the quantum non-locality most physicists already assume.
I'm not convinced that the experiment is incompatible with hidden variable theories. But thanks for the interesting take.
I already gave my interpretation before. Instead of repeating myself, l'll try to respond to your points and try to clear misunderstandings.
I was thinking that for you and me, moral - in a nutshell - means distinguishing actions between “good” and “bad”, where the exact definition of “good” and “bad” can vary as well as the ethical framework which might be built on that.
Yes, this is something I also can agree with.
But I don't agree that "distinguishing" it requires "active contemplation" to manifest in the behavior of the entity.
You imply that if we don't "actively contemplate" the act then it cannot be "good" nor "bad".
This is analogous to the idea of a tree in the forest emits no sound if nobody hears it.
Well, I think we simply disagree on that.
In my interpretation, acts can be good or bad regardless of how you "contemplate" them. Even if it were done without "contemplation" if it results in killing humans then it'll be "bad" for humanity (and "good" for some other species?). There's an objective morality emerging from natural selection, though at the same time there's certain subjectivity when we have different species competing. Some aspects might converge, maybe even some level of "symbiosis" in which we have convergent goals that are "good" for both species, but that doesn't make it equal.
Take a plant for example. It will grow towards light. Is this moral behavior? I say it isn’t. I say it is a reflex. If the plant is not able to reason about whether it might be advantageous or not and thereby “good” or “bad” for its survival to grow towards light and if it does not have the possibility to “decide” against growing towards light, it can not have moral.
But that's under your interpretation of morality.
Under mine, it is "good" for the plant to exercise a behavior that helps the survival of its species. My interpretation of morality relates to natural selection.
In fact, even our "higher" level human moral is constructed on "reflexive" instincts (emotions) as a basis, the only difference is that humans react to those reflexes while applying logic and reason in their behavior, because that way we can be more logically consistent at reacting to them. But the actions are ultimately driven by the same type of low-level instincts that drive all living things.
I'm curious: why do you think emotions are the basis on morality?
We agree on that, but I feel our reason as to "why that is" might be different.
How do you know something is "Good"?
Why do you think "treating others like you would want you to be treated", for example, is "Good"?
My answer would be: because it's evolutionarily beneficial, it helps our survivability.
Under your view of morality: why does it often makes us "feel good" to act "good"?
For mine: because it's a reward that increases survival, so it passes natural selection.
But it can not think about that in such a way that it could make the decision to stay. It lacks the cognitive abilities to do that.
Yes. but that's not a problem in my interpretation. Mine does not require "thinking", like I explained before.
This is simply a matter of definition, we can repeat it many times but it does not make it more/less true.
you are still able to think about your actions before you act on them. And not only think in a goal oriented manner about that, but in an ethical manner.
Yes. But this is just as true in your view of morality as it is in mine.
The difference is that to me, being "able to think" is an extra, not a requirement.
Also, I'd say you still are "goal oriented" when ethics are the goal.
someone suffers from a brain injury which incapacitaes their higher reasoning. Then they kill someone. Wouldn’t you argue that this is something less “bad” than someone who kills someone else intentionally?
The act is still "bad", because it negatively affects survivability of the species.
Like I said in what you quoted: "it just shows that [this person's] “thinking” wasn’t the cause responsible for [their] behavior"
So, what the lack of "thinking" changes is the chain of responsibility. The "thinking" of the injured person is NOT responsible of the crime. So their "thinking" should NOT be punished. Instead, other measures should be taken to prevent killings.
That doesn't mean that the act of killing unintentionally has no moral. The act is still something that we should try to prevent. It's a "bad" act, so we should try to minimize it. Or do you think we should not and that it's neither "good" nor "bad"?
One might argue the lack of intentionality might have less/more impact on human survival. So it might be less/more "bad", but that would still be consistent with my interpretation. I'm not sure it is with yours, since you said that "thinking" the act was a requirement for it to be "good" or "bad".
I think we have reached some level of understanding on that one.
I agree that human morals place an implicit hierarchy on animals, though I feel it has more to do with which animals are closer to us (and the attempt at measuring their "suffering" only makes sense as a consequence to that, with our concern relating only about forms of "suffering" that are closer to the way we ourselves experience "suffering"... in other words, we project ourselves into other creatures and judge them based on how well that projection maps).
That's what I meant when I asked if you did find it curious how humans feel more attached to animals the more similar they are to us. Also, the more you get to know/love the animal, the stronger the emotional attachment. Even if there were no "suffering" in their death, it would still make us sad. This is why looking at a creature in the eyes and talking to it as if it were a human makes it harder for us to wish for them something that would be "humanly bad".
In fact, I'd argue humans can even feel attached to inanimate objects sometimes. It's a known phenomenon called "animistic thinking", which it's theorized to be common in babies. And I expect there's evolutionary reasons as to why it happens too. Perhaps it's related to how some animal babies will get attached to whichever creature they see first when they get born as if it were their parent (probably it helps their survival), to the point that many caretakers need to use animal-looking "puppets" when caring for the babies destined to be released back to nature. So the babies get attached to the puppet (even if it's inanimate) and not the human.
Going back to veganism: personally, I find that the strongest case for it is in the defense of our own human interests. Because I do see that Veganism is actually something "good", under my definition of "good" understood as beneficial for our own survival & natural adaptability.
So personally, I would find a more compelling argument in that direction. Rather than appealing to empathy towards animals. Which to me requires drawing arbitrary lines based on preconceived notions of what "suffering" might be without having a way to determine how strong those "feelings" are in what can only be an anthropocentric analysis that cannot take into account experiences that humans would not be able to experience to begin with, and to which we would be biased towards protecting those who are most similar to us, not those who contribute the most to the sustainability of our ecosystem.
Imho, we should stop breeding animals for human purposes like crazy because that's gonna destroy our ecosystem. Though I expect this might lead to compromises that don't match the more extreme vegan ideas. but I'm not convinced that driving veganism to the extreme is something advisable anyway.
Also, note that in some cases this even applies to some plants. The Borneo island is more and more being overrun with palm tree plantations because palm oil makes so much money there.. we are removing jungle and more and more ecosystems are being lost, disturbing a balance that is likely to hit us in the face.. biodiversity is good for our own adaptability, and I would say that endangering so many species at this rate is gonna hit back to us at some point... it goes against our own interests to exploit nature this badly. And this can only get worse the more "developed" some countries that used to be rich in diversity & natural resources become. You used to be able to get all kinds of relatively rare tropical fruits for cheap in countries like Malaysia, but that's becoming increasingly harder little by little, as the country "westernizes".
Out planet is like one of those "ecospheres" that are left alone in the sun within an hermetically closed jar. You can keep it alive and well for a long time if you manage to hit a good balance... but any change that could destabilize it can end up triggering a chain of events that could devastate even the most evolutionary advanced creatures within it.
I also need to thank you for our discussion here. Even though we disagree on some key aspects, this motivated me to dive deeper into the topic of “true randomness” and related topics. This has yielded some life changing results for me, even though it led me to a minor existential crisis, haha. :D
Ow.. sorry (I think? :P). And I have to thank you too. I enjoy the conversation very much. It helped put into words some things, do some introspection and look deeper into how I think the world might work, trying to challenge my model of it. You have raised some reasonable points that have made me think deeper into some of its aspects, all the while keeping it very respectful.
Yes.. honestly, imho, any game that's competitive should either embrace "cheating" and design its gameplay to be as transparent as chess (ie.. make it ok to be tool-assisted) or be designed around controlled environments that forbid using tools like that.
Anyone who doesn't want to surrender to a controlled environment (whether it's in the form of some kernel-level control or VPN / Stadia-like platform) should just look for coop games.
It's sad that FPS have evolved towards the competitive landscape... to me, the best experience in the original classic Doom was coop mode. Yet Doom Eternal, at most, only supports some wacky asymmetric team deathmatch.
Doom did have networking, using IPX. You had to start the game with a parameter from the DOS commandline. Like Quake, the maps had special player spawn points & items for deathmatch too. The term "deathmatch" was coined by the Doom game mode.
However, there was no frame interpolation in the original Doom, instead, there might be a latency in the inputs. The game state only advances when all players have sent an update for that "tic" (1/35 of a second), so the game might be laggy for everyone if the connection from one of the players is slow.
But multiplayer back then was mostly for LAN parties. At least in my area. I didn't even have an internet connection at that time, personally. In fact, even during the Quake age, I was only able to play on LAN... and I still liked coop better.
Even co-op games have lots of cheating but the nature of the game means the cheating affects people who don’t want to cheat less. They aren’t directly subjected to it, it’s still a problem though, the cheating still affects things like the game economy and player perception of the game.
Yes, what I meant is that cheating becomes irrelevant in coop, not that it doesn't exist.
If a game has an economy that makes some players richer than others (like say.. in many MMOs), and you actually care a lot about being rich in that universe, then it'd starts being more of a competitive thing and less about coop... a game can be competitive and be PvE.
Even singleplayer games can be competitive if you make it about beating your friend's "score" or speed.. almost anything is susceptible to speedrunning.
I guess the question on coop vs competitive is more about what are the goals of the players. If people play games to have a fun time, or if it's because they want to have some way to prove themselves they are good at something :P
Personally, while I appreciate when people add a "snippet of explanation", I do prefer that to be in the comments. Not as the main text of the submission.
Making it part of the submission can feel like editorializing. If I want to read the artice, I read the article, if I want to read opinions / interpretations of the article, I read the comments.
Using the "text snippet" for opinions or interpretations can cause bias... and it also might encourage people to repost the same content multiple times just so they can post with a different bias.
I think the comment section is a more organized and suitable place for that. It also allows people to use their votes to decide whether the opinion/explanation deserves the upvote, separatelly from whether the link itself deserves promotion.
I think it's also safe to presume that in the ultra future tech advanced society of Star Trek, they can remove the bacteria that causes body odor in humans.
A lot of odor-causing bacteria are actually beneficial for us though. And what causes Vulcans to experience that "odor" might not be coming from bacteria to begin with.. for all we know it might be one of the thousand of compounds that leak into the air we exhale directly from our lungs.
Virtually every gas or volatile liquid is susceptible to cause odor. The only reason we interpret pure water as odorless/tasteless is because water is everywhere so our senses evolved in a way that it doesn't trigger a response. There are many other compounds we don't really perceive because we are used to them at the concentrations that exist in our breath.
If let's say an alien species is not used to having 78% Nitrogen in their atmosphere, and they happen to have receptors sensible enough, then being in a ship with breathable air similar to Earth might just make them puke in disgust after having a sniff of what we might consider "clean air".
I'd argue it'd make more sense for everyone to wear the equivalent of a high tech mask (supressants?) rather than having to re-engineer the biology of the species every time they encounter an alien that might have a different set of compounds they might find unpleasant.
I wish this was a start towards a push for ActivityPub support across blogging platforms and feed readers.
In particular, it would be interesting if some form of support for statically-generated ActivityPub feeds was a thing among the software acting as consumers. That's the one thing that still makes RSS/Atom be better of an option for many blogs that are built statically.
To be honest, if this was an article it would either be way too long or missing a lot of the commentary... I actually don't mind this format because I can just listen to it while doing other stuff or commuting, as if it were a podcast.
Below is a transcript of the first ~3-4 minutes (out of the 48min of the video).. I could have posted more but it hits the limit of comment length for lemmy... it also might have mistakes, since it was mainly machine generated.
So today we're going to talk about JavaScript and we're not just going to talk about JavaScript. We're going to talk about Rust powering JavaScript libraries and build tools, we're going to talk about the Why is in the house, we're going to talk about what tools are actually being built with rust to target JavaScript engineers, and then we're going to cover how that's actually being done and how you can do it.
But before we get started I want to be very clear about something. This is about Rust AND JavaScript. I'm not telling you to go rewrite everything you have in Rust, I'm telling you that in the right places there are people making the decision to write rust today to power tools that you already use, that you can make the same decision in some cases, and that rust works well to power JavaScript experience. So don't go rewrite everything, but also don't be scared of it of course.
The first thing we have to cover is why this is happening at all, and to do that we kind of have to talk about webpack. Webpack is pretty much the standard for build tooling these days. It's been a couple years, I'll say, of people trying to actively build projects to move away from webpack, there have been Alternatives like rollup that target slightly different use cases in the past, but weback itself, while it was great when it came out in, you know, 2014, it has gone through a number of major versions and it would seem if you pay attention to what's happening in the ecosystem that webpack is kind of at the end of its life cycle. It's still an okay tool but there are creeks and strains and people want better tooling. One of those people is the web pack maintainer so versell has this thing called turbo pack, and turbo pack they advertise very prominently as being a rust powered successor to webpack, that the creator of webpack is actually working on. It's framed as an incremental bundler optimized for JavaScript and typescript written in Rust, which is, you know, without the Rust part vaguely what webpack was. And why did they choose rust? well they claim to be very fast as a result, and this is a claim that's going to get repeated over a number of different projects. I don't want you to take the speed claims too seriously. The things that I want to show and mention are for example nextjs 13 with turbo pack is being compared to Vite with SWC, which is also a rust project, so we end up having the comparisons of: hey we're improving our speed using rust against other projects that are also using rust.
But versel isn't the only people trying to build a web pack replacement, bite dance has Rspack. Rspack is a fast rust based web bundler basically the same thing webpack was but written in Rust. So why does Rspack work with rust? well as you might have guessed they also claim blazing fast. I don't know about you but uh if I see blazing fast on another product page I basically just ignore it. It's an extremely overused term in the JavaScript ecosystem. Here the comparison is Rspack and then webpack again with Vite SWC, another rust project um with the standin default. So webpack and babel are kind of what's been the standard since 2014 2015, it's been a number of years and just like webpack had tools built on top of it, like Gatsby and nextjs and so on, Rspack is also getting tools built on top of it. So there's RS press now which is a static site generator built on top of Rspack, and here I want to point out that they explicitly call out that it's simple, efficient and easy to extend. So again even though this project is very largely Rust forward they are still claiming it's easy to extend.
Also, I'd argue the wikilinks (internal links) using [[any term here]] from Wikipedia, that optionally allow automatically inferring the link, is much more comfortable (and less error-prone) for the usecase of a wiki system, than the [text required](/link_here_also_required_even_when_redundant) from markdown.
I was hoping they might have added some markdown extension to do something similar, but it seems not.
"Danger Zone", the Battle Royal mode from CS:GO is completelly gone now too.
They didn't even bother to mention it being taken away....
Sure, it might not have been the best battle royal game, but as someone who was never a fan of the terrorist vs counter terrorist theme, and who actually enjoyed Danger Zone once in a while, it saddens me.
You aren’t giving it to them so why would anyone bother giving it to you?
Isn't that the point being made by he/she/they? (now I don't know what to call @Bondrewd )
I don't think Bondrewd was "preemptivelly" calling them "morons". The way I read it, Bondrewd was referring to those "who don't give me the same benefit of the doubt". Bondrewd did not specify if those who complained belonged to any particular "group of people", what was said is that they did do that so, given that, he won't bother.
Also note that there's more than one party here... the ones scolding/complaining are not necessarily the same ones being "misgendered", so that's why there can be different "they"s involved. The ones that don't give the benefit of the doubt (regardless of whether they are the ones being misgendered) are the ones that, according to your own statement: we don't have to "bother giving it to them"
In the past, English had "thou" for 2nd person singular and "you" was exclusive to the 2nd person plural.
I don't see why that can't happen with "they" vs "he/she" too.
Though it's a bit sad that it would likely result in a more ambiguous language that could potentially lead to misunderstandings. Unless we start to use constructs like "they all" for adding specificity, in a similar way as how "you all" (or y'all) is sometimes used.
Most definitions I've seen would make things like Chrome OS or even Android qualify as distros, so they wouldn't really be wrong, even if they might not be a very "traditional" form of it.
Maybe Stallman wasn't wrong to prefer the term "GNU/Linux" after all?
For contrast, currently the number of PS4 games in existence is around 3,325.
Sure, it does not reach yet the 4,527 from the Switch. But it's a matter of time... specially given that ProtonDB seems to be close to a 8,106 and Valve has still a huge (and ever growing) amount of games left to put a rating to.
What's you plan for your digital legacy?
Lately I started including what happens to my data in case I die unexpectedly in my threat model. As of now I’d like for everything to stay private. All my accounts have a strong password that I store on a keepass datbase that I store only on encrypted devices which themselves are protected only by PIN or Password with no...
Brave appears to install VPN Services without user consent (www.ghacks.net)
If you have the Brave Browser installed on your Windows devices, then you may also have Brave VPN services installed on the machine. Brave installs these services without user consent on Windows devices....
X begins charging new users $1 a year in New Zealand, Philippines (www.bbc.com)
The new trial, beginning in New Zealand and Philippines, is to combat bots and spammers, says X.
Aus welchem Grund wurdet ihr vegan? (feddit.de) German
Valve warns Counter-Strike 2 players: use AMD's Anti-Lag feature, get banned (www.pcgamer.com)
AMD users should think twice before installing driver update 23.10.1.
55 Years Later, Star Trek Finally Fixed Its Weirdest Canon Quirk (www.inverse.com)
So, do humans stink? (lemmy.ml)
WordPress now offers official support for ActivityPub (www.theverge.com)
Mastodon audiences will be able to interact with blog posts.
Why is the JavaScript ecosystem switching to Rust? (www.youtube.com)
A self-hosted wiki that can integrate with a fediverse instance (wiki.dbzer0.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/5400348...
It's messed-up and weird that CS:GO is just gone (www.pcgamer.com)
Another one bites de_dust.
Introducing: Raspberry Pi 5! (www.raspberrypi.com)
Announcing Raspberry Pi 5, coming in late October: over 2x faster than Raspberry Pi 4, featuring silicon designed in-house at Raspberry Pi.
They're human, not a child-eating clown (startrek.website)
Linux interop is maturing fast… thanks to a games console (www.theregister.com)