Crypto were a good idea on paper, they could have rid us of centralized banks and provide fully anonymous transactions, instead we got massive exchanges that require your identity to do anything, massive speculation, money laundry, ponzi schemes and GPU shortages.
At this point I don’t even care anymore about what it could have been, fuck crypto.
Massive exchanges - you’re free not to use one, there are so many ways to get around using the biggest
Massive speculation - the established cryptos (btc, eth) are alright in that regard nowadays, still far from stocks of course, but it’s gonna get better over time
Money laundering - there have been countless reports that cash is used for the absolute majority of money laundering, not crypto
Ponzi schemes - they exist everywhere, and it’s not that hard to not fall for one, just stick to btc and eth
GPU shortages - growing pains, has largely been fixed, shouldn’t happen again
You’re just picking out the worst points you can, I suggest you look at things more objectively, life’s better that way
Turns out, banks aren’t a terrible idea after all. Losing your password or mistying on a transaction is no biggie, thanks to banks. With crypto you are always one typo away from losing your whole life savings.
Might not be an issue to a great crypto bro, until it actually happens and than is an issue.
Plus, banks actually serve an important economic role. When you put money in a savings account, the bank can lend it out to someone else as an investment, allowing enterprising individuals access to startup capital to build productive businesses or even just mortgages to buy homes, while also providing a quite safe means of storing your savings. Essentially, they connect those who have spare capital with those who need capital. And sure, there’s a lot of tomfoolery that goes on in the industry, but the core idea of banking is good.
That is true, but technically speaking crypto does the same, just in a really dumb way.
When you buy crypto, you essentially give away real money for something worthless, so the real money is free, while you have nothing except the expectation that some bigger idiot will give you real money for your worthless coins.
But contrary to banks, there is no check whether it’s useful to give the money to that person (e.g. checking whether the investment is sound) and there are no guarantees at all that you’ll ever see that money again, as the owners of bored apes can attest.
Even when crypto has a use it is still bullshit because most of crypto is an elaborate scam. It’s hard to see Monero having value when the entire field of crypto is built upon fraud. If the coinholders of Monero never held any other crypto it could be different but it isn’t.
The problem is the investment in monero is still the same cryptobros whose “money” is tied up in the scamcoins including the stablecoins which are obvious scams. That makes the whole thing bullshit.
Here in Norway you are legally required to attend a few sessions with financial advisors(a protected title here, so they will actually be qualified), before you are able to recieve your winnings.
The rough thoughts I have had about being in such a situation is to allocate maybe 10%-20% as “fuck you money” to have fun with, and the rest to follow all their advice with
France does that too. It’s not a legal obligation, just something the local lottery does, presumably to avoid bad publicity of winners going on a tasteless spending rampage.
For me at least, there’s just not enough content. Not enough communities, with not enough posts with not enough comments. Lemmy still hasn’t reached that tipping point where it can replace sites like Reddit. It fluctuates, but I think it is on the way.
Reddit eventually got super-specific subs because so many people showed up and made more and more niche content that suited the needs of subgroups in communities. For example, lots of big subreddits banned memes, prompting the rise of specific shitposting groups
I came to Reddit from Slashdot, like, a couple of months before the Digg exodus. It was cool to see it grow so quickly and become the hot new thing, but a lot of the more established users were quick to note the changes in culture. It probably took me those few months just to figure out how the UI worked. It was and is a website of mediocre design.
I always preferred Slashdot and its moderation system, but I’m far too much of a dilettante for its narrow range of conversation topics. I never cared for Digg. It felt too safe.
I know Eternal September brings problems but the large user base at Reddit made sure there was always fresh content and all kinds of weird subreddits. Too bad they went corporate.
It’s been over since they blocked third party apps. I don’t know what you were fighting for, but I wanted to stay on reddit and RIF was reddit, so I fought for RIF. Now that RIF is gone, reddit is gone. There is nothing to fight for. They say “reddit beat down the protest”, but that’s a bullshit interpretation. The core of the protest just left and Reddit beat down the left overs. Sure, Reddit won in the sense that things are quiet again, but they also have a valid competition now, where they had a monopoly before.
Maybe spez would have turned back during the protests but after 3rd party apps officially disconnected, there was no turning back. Next is karma for sale and verified checkmarks for 8$.
The week after the switch linkedin recruiters started poking me about “interesting opportunities at reddit that aren’t posted publicly yet”. Lmao
I had this idea for a while to build a Frankenstein monster of a 3D software that uses real time graphics and has a multi step build process covering CAD, wireframe manipulation and voxel workflows. If I ever actually make it, your concerns will be heard despite being probably not the best softwsre to do your work in :)
CAD system must be reliable. It is simply unacceptable to have math issues which cause unpredictable geometries.
CAD system should have a good UI. This is a big issue for open source software in general as UI and UX is usually an afterthought.
CAD system should be fast and use hardware acceleration. Running single threaded python scripts on CPU to do complex computations kills the productivity. Designing real life objects is already a mentally taxing task, the whole purpose of CAD is to remove the computational bottleneck of a human.
CAD should be object aware. If I draw two gears and put them next to each other, I should be able to rotate one and see the other moving accordingly.
This is a bare minimum, I’m not even talking about computational modelling, stress testing, etc.
That is a question too hard to answer in a comment and one that depends on the use case of the software. Few users need the power and features of CATIA or NX, but those who need it can’t accept anything lesser. SolidWorks is a good spot in terms of flexibility and features if it could be easier for the average person to use. You need proper accurate parametric modeling (e.g. a NURBS kernel) for solid models and surfacing. Hearing things like wireframe and voxel indicates it isn’t suitable to me.
For electrical engineering there is KiCad, which is pretty good overall. Only reason I’m still using proprietary software is because I’d have to recreate my libraries and it will be a huge pita.
For mechanical design there is FreeCad, which is usable for simple geometries, but if you come from a proprietary CAD software you may find it lacking.
I got into the 3D printing hobby a few months ago and FreeCAD is pretty much useless. I can be more productive by writing JavaScript code with Three.js library, lol.
OpenSCAD has its uses, but would hardly classify it as full CAD software. Prusa, I believe, used OpenSCAD for a while but they even moved to Fusion360. FreeCAD would be great if the devs would stop trying to reinvent the wheel in their UI. There is a ton of potential, but it simply isn’t where it needs to be yet.
Fusion360 or SolidWorks are very well established in that space and their shitty license models reflect that.
Still, as a free alternative, FreeCAD is where it’s at. You just really need to understand if it will suit all of your needs and for me, it doesn’t.
Not really. Blender is NOT a CAD. It doesn’t ensure that your bodies are solid, it doesn’t provide any analysis tools, it doesn’t support working with blueprints/sketches, it’s not parametric, etc. Basically, it doesn’t do anything CAD at all.
I have a similar one for our country - we were occupied by Soviets and to this day I fucking hate that the communist party wasn’t outlawed after revolution. They tortured people for fuck’s sake. And the even sadder part is that it took 30 years after revolution for the communist party to not have any presence in the parliament - the last elections were the first where they didn’t gain any seat.
Cool. I used to live in Brno (although I am Norwegian). I had a coworker from Praha who used to curse commies on a daily basis when we worked offshore together. “What kind of asshole party man designed this commie piece of shit??!”. He grew up in the 80’s.
Heh, lived there as well for a while! Yep, commie hatred is huge here. Especially because they fucked up so much for us. Throughout centuries we were part of the west, one of the most innovative countries in the world and one of the richest! Then decades of occupation by those fuckers (the previous occupation by Nazi Germany didn’t help as well, thank you all the countries who sold us over because that would definitely stop Hitler from going further!) and suddenly everyone calls us eastern, we’re far from our former prosperity and have basically become a factory for Germany. I’m a little salty about that.
Mate, you’re looking for approval from westerners by kicking down east. You internalized the whole racial hierarchy some imperial fucks invented with them on top, and you’re trying to climb it.
It’s not a made up hierarchy and I didn’t internalize anything - I agree with the hierarchy! Soviets were in the wrong, they illegally occupied many, many countries. If we disagree on this simple fact, we have nothing further to discuss. If we agree, then there is a logical conclusion: everyone, who supported them was in the wrong as well.
And as much as I hate to admit it, they would’ve never been so successful here if we didn’t welcome them. I think it’s kinda understandable - we were torn by war and our western allies has fucked us over to save their asses (which they didn’t in the end and honestly that, for me, is the only good thing about the war) and suddenly a big Slavic country comes and says they will help us, unlike those big bad guys that fucked us. While I personally would be looking for the catch were I alive back then, I understand that people just wanted peace.
Anyway, that was kinda detour, the fact remains that we welcomed them, so we we’re correctly labeled as the “eastern bloc” for that. What pisses me off about it is that we were part of the western culture with western values for centuries, while we were part of the eastern bloc for measly 23 years (and most of the time it was involuntary when people found out that there indeed was a catch with the “brotherly help”).
We were fucked by west and then fucked by east, truly a wonderful country to live in.
Saying that every single Nazi should have been killed is.
Every nazi party member, every soldier, every sympathizer, everywhere in the world.
That would have included Nazi supporters in the US, all the nazi scientists that got a clean slate by agreeing to work for the allies after the war, every single member of their armed forces from the top to the bottom, and every civilian that worked for them voluntarily. That’s the only way to come close to eradicating something like what the Nazi are. You can’t let a single one survive to pass on their beliefs, so you end up killing people that didn’t believe in it as a side effect.
It would have also included a fuckton of people who had nothing to do with naziism but were disliked by someone with the power to decide who was a Nazi. And probably also a whole separate fuckton of people who fell into some bucket that was arbitrarily “close enough” to naziism when the original Nazis were running out. Etc etc
When the quest to eradicate Nazis turns the eradicator into something at least asbad as the Nazis themselves…
There were so many people, even children, drafted and forced to serve the Nazis, either in the military or in other capacities. Many of which returned as broken, disabled and traumatized shadows of themselves. Genociding them for being abused by the Nazis would seriously not be better than what the Nazis did.
(Disclaimer: I am totally not defending Nazis or Neonazis here. But history is complicated and messy and there where millions of people who just did what they were told out of fear of their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Also, history is largely written by the winners. Had the Nazis won the war, then we would now talk about the concentration camps for Japanese people in the US, and about the gulags. I wish that we could get rid of Nazis, but genocide cannot be fought by genocide and you cannot fight fascists by becoming one.)
“We should have systemically hunted down and killed every member of a political party” is unpopular, not because of the sentiment, but because actually doing so generally goes against the foundational beliefs of most modern societies.
Then comes the question who was a nazi? And who just feard them and not spoke up? Look at Russia or China, propaganda is also very much a problem, would you kill a 19 year old because he was in SS after all his life he was told thats a good thing?
I agree that Nazis are absolute garbage, but you can’t justify a genocide with a genocide, same with Japan after WW2 (and they did worse stuff)
Also, whats with the “Commies” from USSR? They where basically the same level of evil. (and yes the Holodomor was a genocide and not the only thing they did)
Well, killing all Nazis isn’t genocide, it’s just mass murder.
And it isn’t about a scale of how bad various regimes have been before or since.
And yes, that’s the entire thing. They should have killed every last SS, Gestapo, every brown shirt and soldier, no matter how young. The motivation of the victims of killing every nazi wouldn’t matter because the point is to eradicate every last one of them, and there’s no way to prove they didn’t believe in what they were doing other than their actions. There weren’t very many Schindlers that showed by their actions that they actively resisted from the inside. And if it took their deaths to achieve the goal, then it was a mistake to not do it then.
TBH, despite being against the death penalty for several reasons, I’m worried we might be faced with such a decision again in my lifetime because they didn’t do it then.
Obviously, eradicating the nazis wouldn’t prevent the kind of insanity and hatred that exists as part of the human mind. It would have changed the face of that hatred though, and it would have sent the message that some things will not be forgiven or forgotten. It would have meant less rallying points, less bullshit. And it would have set the precedent that if humans behave like that, they can be put down like a rabid animal to protect the rest of us.
Again, I’m aware of exactly how ugly this opinion is. I do not like looking at the world and thinking that there wasn’t enough death done back then. I do not like looking at the world now and wondering when it is going to happen again. But it’s an ugly fucking world, and they’re coming back. They’re coming back exactly the same way they did before because they were allowed to survive.
At the end of the war literal children were being drafted. Are you seriously arguing that we should kill a 13 year old because he got a threatening letter and followed it’s instructions?
Ahh, I’m not arguing we, as in humanity today, should do anything yet.
I’m saying that the people alive and in charge at the time made a mistake in not wiping out every nazi they could find.
Age is no barrier to such things at all. A 13 year old can be tried as an adult in many places for extreme crimes. Child soldiers have been sent to war for millennia, and still are today. Children are quite capable of committing atrocities. I wouldn’t want to do it, I wouldn’t want to see it get that far. But it was a mistake not to go as far as necessary to eradicate anyone that served the nazis because there’s absolutely no way other than actions to prove what the individuals believed, and even that has flaws.
How many children had already been killed? I’m not even talking about by the nazis. Look up the Dresden fire bombing. Plenty of children were burnt to ash there. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The are just the famous ones. The allies had already killed children of all ages by the end of the war. Pretending that there’s a moral difference between that and executing them is not useful. Executions would even be arguably less horrible since it would only target those that were in the armed forces.
Well, this discussion has been less contentious than in the past, so I’ve actually had a chance to cover this.
Before I go copy/pasting things already covered, would it be too much to ask that you give a quick scroll through the thread and see if any of that changes your question, or if there’s follow ups that you might have? It would help streamline the thread overall if there’s not a lot of repeats.
I read the whole thread and didn’t see a single argument about what good would have come from that. I think you’re looking at this from a very removed point of view that lets you forget the actual individuals involved. I’m German. Let me introduce you to my grandparents and let’s see how they would’ve fared under your proposed processing:
Grandpa A was drafted at the end of the war, he was 13. He didn’t want to be there and plotted a “genius” plan with his two buddies two lie to his general about a super important mission from the general next town and run off. He probably only survived that because his general wasn’t in the mood to shoot him on the spot.
Grandma B wasn’t drafted obviously, she worked in (basically) social services while WWII because she actually was a supporter of the Nazi party and felt like that’s how she could do her part. She didn’t commit any atrocities, probably simply because as a woman she never got anywhere close to the front.
Grandpa C was a party member. He didn’t want to join at first – we still own a news paper page where he (and a few others) were openly shamed for refusing to join party and front. After his brother, who had turned down an SS position, was transferred to an extra risky combat unit as cannon fodder and died on his second day, he caved. I can only assume that, as a soldier, he actively participated in the fighting. He tried to disobey where easily possible, but he didn’t desert. When his general told him to “take care” of a woman he abused, he brought her away from the front, pointed her to the nearest town and told her to flee.
Grandma D didn’t do any of that, but she was proudly engaged to a Hitler Youth leader (who thankfully died, so she met my grandpa after the war). While WWII she absolutely was a Nazi, but she didn’t actively do anything that would mark her as such. She got into a personal crisis after the war when she stopped lying to herself about this horrible system she had supported. Until the day she died she was convinced she would go to hell.
Killing every active supporter, as you suggested, would have both my grandpas executed, although they both condemned what was happening and, limited by their sparce abilities to do so, tried to disobey. My grandmas would’ve ironically been spared, even though they were (when it comes to their attitude) more Nazis than my grandpas. Neither of the four were Nazis at later points in their life, I’d like to add. And the generation after them would have never existed - an anti-nationalistic, anti-patriotic, highly political, highly critical and socially active family, influenced by traumatized men and rueful women.
So it would have achieved nothing. I’d argue the world would be even worse if that would have been humanity’s answer to WWII back then.
I think you are kinda insane, at the wars end most German soldiers where literally underage, there is no justice in killing them, not the smallest bit.
The holodomor as it is reported in the West appears to be a myth. There was a widespread famine where more Kazakhs and Russians died than Ukrainians, and the USSR did try to send Ukraine provisions but not enough. Also there is under reporting in the West of kulaks burning their fields instead of giving them up to the govt. Stalin even thought the West might have been responsible but that seems to just be Stalin being Stalin.
That’s not exactly a genocide, just more incompetence as usual.
The man whose work is most often cited has been refuted by his own wife and the initial publishing came with doctored photos that he removed when they were called out.
You ever hear of the idea of some act being a warning to others?
If you wipe out all known nazis, the rest of them are now aware of the price of their practices. You can then freely stomp them out as they arise, like the cockroaches they are.
No, not like roaches, because roaches have a role in a healthy ecosystem (when it isn’t an invasive species). Nazis are a fucking cancer. You eradicate cancer, you nuke it, poison or, and cut it out, you don’t tolerate it. Because if you do, it grows and spreads and kills everything else.
But killing every Nazi wouldn’t have killed the ideology.
No… to kill the ideology (of which nazism was merely one expression), you have to dismantle the thing nazism (and other right-wing ideologies) served.
Right-wing ideology exists for one reason and one reason only - to protect the power and privilege of elite establishments. You have to kill that which it serves.
My homie, what “we” do you mean? The allied nations? They all had sympathizers to some degree or another. Humanity? I think it should be self evident that humanity was (and is) full of that kind of person.
We have never been better than nazis because we is completely capable of spawning that kind of thing at any time.
With some rare exceptions of course (e.g. Oskar Schindler), every single Nazi member either contributed to or wilfully ignored the industrial deathmachines in the concentration camps. Let those who profiteered work in the same conditions as a slave for a few years and let those that were actively involved (e.g. the camp guards, developers, and all high level party members) be gassed.
How do you feel about the people who were technically nazies because of the peer pressure, social environment etc? They probably wouldn’t have been into any of that stuff if only they had been born 50 years later.
I think most people buying a lottery ticket know that it’s a loss on average. I think people buy it for the experience and the dreams that it represents. From that perspective, I don’t think that it’s a scam for most people but rather just buying a slice of fantasy
A junior team member sent me an AI-generated sick note a few weeks ago. It was many, many neat and equally-sized paragraphs of badly written excuses. I would have accepted “I can’t come in to work today because I feel unwell” but now I can’t take this person quite so seriously any more.
I dunno, I’d consider it a moral failing on the part of the person who couldn’t be honest and direct, even if there’s a cultural issue in the workplace.
Exactly, if they’re too lazy to write a fake sick note then they’re certainly too lazy to work, either send them in for remediation or terminate them, either way they shouldn’t be in the workplace
I’d say the first option is to simply talk to the mother and offer your help and paint it as a means of helping her out. Keeping the focus on the benefit to the mother and the benefit to the kid as secondary to keep her focused on how it would help her. Sympathize with her situation, she’ll be more amenable and that’s definitely the easiest way to get a constructive dialog going.
If that fails, involving CPS is still available as a fallback option but.0
Yeah, I agree that the above is excellent advice. Engaging in a way that comes off as “you’re a shit parent so I’m going to do it for you” isn’t likely to build conflict. It’s possible how the mother reacts regardless of what you say (due to insecurity about her parenting), but it’s going to be much better if everyone is working together rather than against each other, so that’s the best place to start.
Now I’m wondering what the market rate is for face tattoo sponsorships. If a Corona Extra tattoo means I don’t have to go to the office anymore then contract negotiations may be in order…
The basic problem is that to get 1000 calories of beef, you need to feed the cow something like 10,000 calories. So growing a cow is actually growing an entire field of wheat/corn/etc., then feeding it to the cow, then eating the cow.
Farming all of those crops for the animals takes up a lot of land, consumes fresh water, produces wastes, and uses oil/gas (for farm equipment directly, or to produce things like nitrogen fertilizers) which produces co2. Cows also produce methane (that’s the fart thing) which is a bad greenhouse gas.
You could just eat the wheat/corn/etc. directly (most of the time) and skip the meat step therefore saving a massive amount of environmental impact.
I remember driving through Iowa and seeing vast fields of corn and learning that the majority of that corn was not even destined for human consumption. That kinda blew my mind.
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Further, plenty of the land that grazing takes place on is not naturally grassland, and the “grass-fed” that you’ll see anywhere are still getting grain as well
Most of the UK and Ireland’s grass-fed cows and sheep are on land that might otherwise be temperate rainforest – arable crops tend to prefer drier conditions. However, even if there were no livestock grazing in the rainforest zone – and these areas were threatened by other crops instead – livestock would still pose an indirect threat due to their huge land footprint
[…]
Furthermore, most British grass-fed cows are still fed crops on top of their staple grass
Places that have tried to scale grass-fed production up have all kinds of problems. For instance, New Zealand often likes to tout its grass-fed production, but the production levels are so high that it’s a heavy polluter. It would require a 12-fold reduction in size in one region to meet the bare minimum standards for drinking water safety
The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.
[…]
The “grass-fed” marketing line overlooks the huge amounts of fossil-fuel-derived fertiliser used to make the extra grass that supports New Zealand’s very high animal stock rates.
‘Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively brief portions of their life in feedlots. ’
Almost all cattle spends some time on feedlots, as grain improves the meat close to slaughter. Ignore these sites that give the false impression that almost all cows are raised in feedlots. It is blatantly incorrect and obvious to anyone that drives outside the city and looks out of the window.
Plus is the fact that not all plants have the right amount of vitamins and minerals necessary to maintain the human body like meat does. Although it is possible, it does require research and monitoring to ensure that your getting all the nutrients you need. And yes, meat just tastes good.
If you’re discussing complete proteins then all it takes is rice and beans. Not particularly difficult given that about half the world population survives on that without much meat.
Because of the Norman invasion. 1066 and all that. (edit: specifically, after a time the peasants spoke English and looked after the animals, the nobility spoke french and named the food, so we got the English words for the animals and the French words for most of the farm animals were used for the food made from them)
The French eating it called it beef, the English raising it called it cow. The french didn’t call it roast cow because they were eating it as food, thus beef.
Regarding leaving behind biohazard... You'd be surprised that the vast majority of first responders aren't trained for it and are liable if they try. Yes, it's kinda crazy and varies heavily by state.
First responders of any kind aren't trained for the cordiality or technical aspects of cleaning up biohazard scenes. It's very common. They're trained for patient care and that's it. They leave messes behind. They won't wash blood off your sidewalk. It's like walking into a personal nightmare for most people. Trained EMTs and paramedics are supposed to keep their PPE bagged and taken out with them, but if things get hectic, which is why they're there in the first place, stuff gets overlooked. Someone below already mentioned that it would've gotten shoved away to make room and it just gets forgot since it's not visible anymore
The fact of the matter is that they're there to triage and get them to the hospital, not tidy up after attempting to save someone's life.
The situation is macabre but it's a common one. A lot of people have felt that same weird surprise going back to where there loved one was to just find it a mess. There's no laws about them needing to clean. It's not the first time it's been brought up though.
If you're in the right state of mind you can call the nonemergency county line and ask if they have cleanup services for first responder scenes... the vast majority don't though. Those that do usually take a day or more to get there.
9/10 times it's family doing all of it.
I work pretty closely with just about every type of first responder in my line of work just to qualify this a bit... I've had to deal with this same issue in my personal life and professional. It's the same just about everywhere from what I know.
kbin.life
Top