I cant tell if people in this thread are trolls, ultra elite linux shills, or just people incapable of following simple instructions…
Like I get it, windows bad or w/e… But to act like it takes longer than an hour or two to install it, let alone 2 whole fucking days is just asinine.
Imagine having enough of a skill issue that it takes you 2 days to install Windows OS. The OS that idiot proofs itself by literally holding your hand on every option and walks you through itself to install.
Im not even joking, I re-install and have installed windows the past few years multiple times on personal devices for myself and my family and friends and even do it for professional devices and servers for my job. It is brain dead easy, enough that my tech illiterate grandparents managed to re-install it before I could make the drive to meet them and do it for them… I can’t take this OP or anyone else seriously if they can manage to install a linux based OS but somehow have 2 days worth of trouble with Windows OS…
I was going to say… If it takes you literally 1.5 days to simply install and after 2 days you can’t even launch Steam? I’m sorry, but you have extraordinarily fucked up. Whatever the fuck is happening there is not on Windows. OP, I would love to understand what you were seeing or what was happening. And I also wonder if you are using an actual Windows OS image, or what you tinkered with or ran scripts on to maybe “clean Windows up”. Unfortunately so many of those scripts are also fucking notorious for breaking some Windows functionality, like the Xbox games and what not.
Don’t get me wrong. Windows is becoming worse and worse in both features and performance (AI powered file recommendations in my start menu? get the fuck outta here). But I’m sorry, this complaint in the OP is not it.
I’m sympathetic to a Windows install taking days (I’ve been there), but you’re right that it’s not Windows’ fault. It’s always some 10 year-old hardware with dodgy or no-longer-supported drivers. Maybe you could make an argument that it’s partly Windows’ fault because they push driver support onto the hardware vendors, rather than use Linux’ model of having the kernel developers maintain them.
That’s fair. I guess when they mentioned they were building a PC I assumed it was relatively recent hardware. But I’ve been there when you can’t get or find drivers, or Windows tells you the old drivers aren’t compatible with newer OS’ and things like that.
Lot of problems with the directions windows has gone or is going (cortana finally gone), but people need to chill if they think the OS is unusable or something.
Anecdotally I’m hoping SteamOS continues to progress how it has so there are even more reasons to not depend on Windows.
Yes. I have done so many installs of Windows 10 LTSC in the last few years and even on HDD it doesn’t take that much time.
This is a legit troll post. Despite Linux being better in some aspects, Windows totally steamrolls Linux on being easy to install.
Heck W10 LTSC has been super smooth and stable for me for the past 2 years on my work machine which I tend to use more than my Personal Laptop which runs Manjaro.
I think you can still use the operators if you select “verbatim” under “search tools.” On mobile, you need to scroll to the right past images/videos/news/etc
They really don’t, though. Inclusion/exclusion operators work most of the time, but it’ll still return results with explicitly-excluded keywords. It also fucks up results by returning entries with similar words to your query, even when you double-quote a part of the search term. Advanced queries that use booleans and logical AND/OR don’t work at all anymore, that functionality has been completely removed. It returns what it thinks you want, not what you actually want, even when explicitly crafting a query to be as specific as possible.
I use Kagi for search now and it’s 1000x better, especially when researching technical issues; it’s like when Google actually respected your search terms and query as a whole.
To be clear, we’re talking about the actual search results themselves and not labelled advertisements or any of google’s godawful widgets that take up half the first page?
Do you have an example of a search that returns excluded keywords?
Not trying to be confrontational lol I’m genuinely curious. There was an article I think last year where they demonstrated that everything was still working, but pages essentially just embedded thousands of keywords which effectively ruined the system
They still work but they search the entire page, not just what’s visible in your browser. A search for “term” does not implicate you being able to find term on the results’ rendered pages.
So pages are just including every relevant term hidden somewhere like they making resumes in the early aughts with 4pt white text with bullshit at the bottom?
A popular SEO trick around 15 years ago was to put a bunch of search terms in a heading tag near the top of your page markup and just style it to minimize its appearance, because if you completely hid it google would penalize your pagerank score. They test for visibility but it’s difficult to do so in a foolproof and futureproof way so there’s likely a similar technique still seeing some limited use today.
It’s far less effective or straightforward than the modern prevailing SEO strategy; which is using generative AI that have been trained on all the top-ranked pages to produce exactly what google likes and ranks highly. Which has a knock-on effect of causing all these AIs to start eating themselves by training on pages produced by AI, like a kind of human-centipede ouroboros.
I manage to live without Amazon. I just pretend it doesn’t exist, I don’t know if it’s cheaper or quicker on Amazon as I don’t see it (I use a search engine that can block results). It’s also probably other aspects of my life that also make it possible, spare money, spare time, no kids, live in a city.
Interesting. So, I gather that what happened was iPhones and changes to coding languages (HTML5) which didn’t require an extra on the system (a plug in) to do it’s thing.
But then… Why didn’t the games transition with it then? Why didn’t people rewrite that style of game to play with the new technology?
Flash was a wholistic platform. You could draw, animate, script, play video, compile, etc within a single comprehensive editor. HTML5 + JS was only the low level technology. There was no tooling supplied when the transition happened.
There have been some attempts to recreate the Flash ecosystem since then but they haven’t picked up steam.
Also, there was not any system for porting your existing stuff over to the new tech. Adobe abandoned Flash so you were left to figure it out on your own. These days Flash games can actually be emulated using the modern technology so porting is fairly feasible. But again people have already moved on.
A good chunk of games DID change with it. The Unity engine makes it very simple to design games for Web. But it’s also easy to make those simple games for mobile instead, which has fewer restrictions abd is more prolific. In fact, a good chunk of the bigger flash game companies migrated to mobile. There’s just little demand for a web game when I can create a mobile one, monetize it more easily, and reach a larger audience by making it for mobile instead
Lots of animators and indie creators making games today honed their skills as teens programming in Flash as well. Now that the platform is not around kids just jump straight into Unity, or any of the other purpose made apps to animate and make games. Like GameMaker, RPGmaker, Krita, Blender, etc. There’s just a more varied plethora of options than back then. Which means the things they create are more spread out in social media outlets than centralized under a single webpage.
Most of the successful games moved to Mobile. In particular Miniclip is almost exclusively a mobile games company now and still makes games like 8 ball pool
So, I gather that what happened was iPhones and changes to coding languages (HTML5) which didn’t require an extra on the system (a plug in) to do it’s thing.
… Sort of. That’s a bit of an oversimplification and iPhone-centric, but generally the right idea.
I’d slightly shift this and say it’s more that flash and Java had many known problems and were janky solutions to the limits of HTML of the day. They were continued to be supported by browsers because they were needed for certain tasks beyond games that were actually important. Games were just a secondary thing that were allowed to exist because the tech was there for other problems.
At the time, more “serious” games were mostly local installs outside your browser, and browser games were more “casual” and for the less technically inclined general audience. The main exception here was Runescape, and a couple others like Wizard 101 etc.
But then smartphones started becoming more popular, and they just could not run flash/Java effectively. They were inefficient from a performance standpoint, and smartphones were very behind in performance and it just didn’t work well. In the early days, many Android phones would run bits of flash/Java, sometimes requiring custom browsers, but it just wasn’t very performant.
Then HTML5 came along, solved most of the gaps in existing HTML tech, and the need for flash and Java greatly decreased. Because of the performance problems and security vulnerabilities, the industry as a whole basically gave up on them. There was no need beyond supporting games, as the functional shortcomings were covered, and HTML5 did somewhat support the same game tech, but it would take massive rewrites to get back there and there was basically no tooling. Adobe had spent over a decade building different Flash tools and people were being dumped to lower level tech with zero years of tooling development. Then came WebGL and some other tech… But nothing really made a good grip on the market.
Unity and some other projects allowed easier compilation to HTML5 and WebGL over the years, so this was definitely still possible but simultaneously the interest was plummeting so there wasn’t much point.
Much of the popularity of web based games back in their day was you could just tell someone a URL and they could go play it on their home computer. Their allure was their accessibility, not the tech. The desire for high tech games was won over by standalone desktop games. But those were harder to find, required going to a store, making a purchase, bringing a CD home, installing said game, having the hardware to run it, etc.
But at the time of the death of Flash and Java, everyone carried a smartphone. They all had app stores and could just search the app store once, install the game, and have it easily accessible on their device, running at native performance. Console gaming had become commonplace. PC gaming was fairly common, with pre-built gaming PCs being a thing. Now Steam existed and you didn’t have to go to a store or understand install processes. Every competing tech to web games was way more accessible. Smartphone tech better covered “gaming for the general populace”.
What would be the point of a web game at that point? Fewer people have desktops so your market is smaller. If you’re aiming for people’s smartphones, doing stuff natively to two platforms is higher performance and easier to deal with. Console gaming is more common. PC gaming is a stable market. OK top of that, there’s way less money in web based gaming. Stores like steam and console game stores have the expectation of spending money and an easy way to do so. Smartphones have native IAP support to make it easy to spend money on microtransactions. Web has… Enter your payment information into that websites payment processor they have to integrate, which feels less safe to the user and requires more work from the developer than the alternatives on console/pc/mobile.
There’s just no market for web based gaming anymore when people have so many more options available that are easy to access - what’s the purpose of building a web based game at that point?
I’m going to be honest I didn’t read most of this but people do make browser games and they are very advanced. I work IT in a school and play the games I ban for a few minutes for uh, research, and I’ve basically played CS 1.6 in browser. I just played 1v1 fortnite clone where you could build. Check this open world need for speed knock off, even has mobile support: www.crazygames.com/game/crazy-for-speed
Nothing I wrote claimed they don’t exist, but they’re much less common place than they used to be. My post was explaining why that is, as asked by the OP.
Yes, tech has grown and there’s more possibility, but there’s just a far far smaller market if them than there l used to be.
Are you sure there is a far far smaller market? More kids than ever have devices. Not just phones or consoles, tons and tons of kids are provided chromebooks or windows laptops that they have 24/7 access to. I’ve blocked hundreds of sites that make it through the filter, with many sites explicitly designed to bypass school filtering. There are even widespread game trends like agar or slither games, with dozens of iterations. We grew up and have other options, but kids are playing these for hours a day.
people didnt want to spend an inordinate amount of time rewriting their entire application/game from scratch. the return on supporting an insecure, proprietary platform like Flash wasnt there.
Let's not be confused here. Specialization is what allows for free time. If everyone has to farm and hunt, that's all you'd do. Specialization is a good thing for humanity and diverse institutions and industries to arise.
Not everyone has to farm and hunt. It was more than 200,000 years ago that humanity figured out how not to get all of us to farm and hunt, way before capitalism ever was a thing.
Speicalization in the context I used does not mean “be an expert at a thing”. It means “Spend most of your time doing just that one thing”. I can see why you were confused, I think my use of “pigeon-holed” was probably better than specializetion.
Money was invented before written history began.[1][2] Consequently, any story of how money first developed is mostly based on conjecture and logical inference.
We don’t actually know when money started so it’s hard to say.
But even before money the person with more stuff could acquire more stuff through barter. Even if they weren’t using money it’s still basically capitalism.
Yes we do, money started around temple societies in the fertile crescent to control people and keep them centrally located.
Also, there is no known historical example of a purely barter economy. What’s known now is everything tended to work on an informal gift/reputation economy.
Until money came along, was typically forced upon people, and then if the money system failed, people fell back to a barter system. Neither money or barter are natural for the vast majority of human time and society
Specialization has always been a thing. Probably more so before. A carpenter wouldn’t just wake up and “nah, I’d rather work with pottery today”. The carpenter probably became a carpenter because their parents passed on their carpentering skills to them, so that’s what they do until they die.
But the same result would occur in socialism. Even communism. I don't know what you expect to happen in any societal economic structure that would suddenly give you the freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want. Jobs existed the same way all the way back then as they do now. And that was the birth of capitalism, not before it. Most didn't own their land. It belonged to a king or emperor. Sure there are exceptions and caveats, but to say capitalism didn't exist back then isn't accurate. Capitalism isn't bad. It's how it's implemented that makes it awful. I think we need to migrate to socialism via capitalism. But it requires winning of the minds of the populace and that won't happen until folks have an accurate understanding of both capitalism and whatever system you want them to transition to. I don't even know what system you're supporting with your question. It sounds like you're trying to describe some sort of star trek utopia that supposedly is advanced beyond economic systems (yet how many episodes revolved around trade deals between planets and races.... but I digress).
Jobs existed the same way all the way back then as they do now.
Are you arguing that ancient societies had “jobs”, and in the same way that we do nowadays? I don’t intend to be rude (and sorry if I come off that way), but a simple Google search will tell you that’s false, but I’d be glad to cite you exact resources as well.
And that was the birth of capitalism
While the exact beginning of capitalism may be a subject of a little debate, no expert on the matter believes it goes that far back. Again, simple Google search reveals it, and I’ll be glad to cite you resources if you want.
Most didn’t own their land. It belonged to a king or emperor.
This wasn’t always true. There was a time that preceded class society. And not all class society is capitalism.
but to say capitalism didn’t exist back then isn’t accurate.
It is the scientific consensus that it did not.
I think we need to migrate to socialism via capitalism
Not sure what you mean here. Can you please elaborate?
whatever system you want them to transition to
It is simple. Instead of orienting society around profits and capital, we orient it around bettering the human condition. Instead of working our days to generate more profit for capitalists in exchange for money to buy necessities, we work to serve our interests and our own communities. So much wasted labor is suddenly removed.
Yes, but if we only have to work on our specializations for 16 hours a week each instead of 40+, we would have a lot more time for other good stuff, whether it’s personal development, supporting other specialists, or just hanging out.
Think about if you had a flat tire in your car. You go to get another tire to replace the one with a hole in it.
But the tire factory only manufactures 300 tires a day. Because they only have a handful of employees who feel like making tires and they only really want to work around 10 hours a week.
Now tires are pretty rare. And that means they are difficult to find. Also, rarity is a supply and demand thing, so now tires are also incredibly expensive. People want a lot of them, but the tire manufacturing plant doesn’t make enough.
Oh, and while you were inside the shop being surprised at the 22 month wait for your replacement tire, and the $3,500 price tag for just the single tire, the other 3 tires were stolen off your car in the parking lot.
Cause people don’t want to pay those prices, or wait that amount of time, which has lead to a massive car tire black market
First of all, I will start with saying that this is a highly unlikely scenario, because modern technology already allows us way way more tires that we need with a fraction of the labor time we put. But let us assume not and entertain this a bit.
This is a perfect example where members of society will find themselves in a situation where there is a big need for tires that is not being met. Instead of hand wavingly complaining and hoping the government or corporations ramp up production, we remember we don’t live under capitalism anymore. We are masters of our own destiny! society is now oriented around human need and wants, not profits! Our prime motivation for working is not to please capitalists in exchange for earning enough to live and a little more. It is to serve the interests of ourselves and our communities, and this is a prime example of a need of ourselves and communities.
So because we are unhappy with the state of tires, we decide to contribute more of the large amount of free time we have to produce more tires (and you only need a tiny fraction of humanity to do this. Consider how many people work in the tire industry right now). The fluidity afforded to us by having both free time and the control over production is a lot greater than you think. We do not even have to imagine this. Many historical civilizations did this already. We can only do better because technology grants us a million times the ability they had to produce.
Historical civilizations were not producing tires or any goods for that matter at industrial scales, so that comparison is useless. If you think that the only reason profit motives exist today is to “please capitalists”, you need to do some more reading into how the industrial economy works.
We only got to producing more advanced things like tires because of how technology made things so much easier to produce with a fraction of the labor time. This is a continuing trend in history.
And yes I do think that society is oriented around profits (and pleasing capitalists, which happens by producing profits. I find it ironic that you chose this truism to argue against lmao). I hope you don’t expect a response to that second part, because it is not argument and not worth responding to.
Why do we need tire factories working employees 40+ hours a week to make enough tires for everyone? Just hire enough workers so that they all have enough time for a life outside of work. Maybe with a little bit of central planning, we could also reduce the demand for tires by figuring out how to get people to drive less.
You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?
What is it with people and being literal to the point of making a conversation painful?
I could explain all of your questions for you, but it takes a lot of groundwork laying that you should have probably picked up on your own by now, and at least a little bit from the education system.
Is all they teach you in school how great Karl Marx is? Did you learn how businesses operate? Assets, liabilities, profit margins, overhead, OSHA, etc?
C-level executives usually set an operational budget per business department. There is a labour budget included in that. It’s a managers duty to use that budget to fill out the labour needs of the business, based on sales and sales forecasts and any other upcoming business changes.
It’s not really as easy as ‘just hire everyone who walks in the door and don’t enforce any attendance policies, if they want to work they’ll show up. Sure, some days we will have more than we need, and other days we won’t have enough, but if the communities needs more tires, I’m sure they’ll just come in and do the right thing.’
Seriously, have you ever had to depend on someone doing their job before? I’m guessing not.
Anyway, we aren’t really talking about societies need for tires, we are talking about capitalism
It is the prerogative of the “C-level executives” to maximize the rate of exploitation on behalf of the bourgeoisie. When the working class eventually takes power from the bourgeoisie, that prerogative becomes obsolete (and so do those parasitic executives). Instead of utilizing improvements in productivity to increase the wealth going to the bourgeoisie, they can instead be used to improve the well-being of the working class.
So, if it turns out that we really need more tires, or whatever fits your analogy, then we’ll just make more tires. However, the wealth that would have been syphoned off to the idle owner class and their lackeys will instead stay under the control of the workers. Therefore, as the revolution progresses, the workers will gain more and more time, energy, and opportunity for individual and communal fulfillment.
Omg, bro don’t spout this communist manifesto shit at me please!
And to the second part “then we’ll just make more tires” is where the devil is in the details. How is that organized? How is that, more importantly, enforced?
You can’t just “bourgeoisie” and the. “We’ll just make more” and skirt off into the sunset. How will we, how exactly will we, make more tires?
Like really dive in here, because this is where the rubber meets the road. How do we ‘just make more’? Where do the workers come from? How do they know we even need to make more tires? Who tells them? And what happens if …. No one shows up to make any more tires?
What if everyone is too busy hiking, or learning a new language, or doing art or writing great novels to make more tires?
If you really want to dive in then just go and read Capital. Otherwise, the short and sweet of it is that it would really be up to the workers. The particular solutions will probably vary depending on the industry, location, the status of the revolution and whatnot, but it might involve combinations of time banks, computer AIs, human engineers just doing the math, and/or even some forms of markets and price signals.
The critical thinker would consider that maybe the material conditions of the people of the former USSR would be better if dissolution never happened, that they are much better even 30 years after dissolution than if the USSR never happened in the first place.
No they fucking wouldn’t. The USSR was completely failing and was being propped up by using up every resource and relying on old technologies to not break down. The house was slowly deteriorating and the sooner they left that model the sooner they could get on track to a sustainable system.
Unfortunately there was so little left after years of communism that it was pretty hard to kick start a functional economy. Communism just ingrained corruption so deep it is hard to invest there. Then you got a dictator type of government that again is centralizing much of their output and this is what you get. Shit economy with incredible stability.
Pretty much same in any country that has any model like that.
It really only covers making sure people are fed, housed and watered. Personally I think cars are a pain in the arse, I’d rather run or cycle everywhere, but then that’s not everybody. If you really liked them, and you were fed, housed and watered, you’d definitely have time to look at building or contributing to building one, assuming people don’t tell you to fuck off because it’s a noisy, smelly death trap…
Unfortunately, the likelihood would be that a lot of people couldn’t handle being in the same kind of housing as everyone else, because they believe they’re special. But logically this makes much more sense that what we’re currently doing. Capitalism is extremely wasteful.
And before you say, well you’d never get people to agree to this. I think the tankies/fascists have solutions to that problem, you’re just encouraging them…
You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?
Yes, we all get that. Not sure what you gain from saying that. It good mental exercise to accept the modifications people make to your anology. Otherwise, we’re not “thinking together”.
Central planning has not been a real benefit to countries that employ it heavily. You just need to look at China, Venezuela, USSR to see the results of current and past ones. It is pretty much a joke.
Bullshit. The USSR was a house of cards by then end. If it was doing at all well, it would still exist. It same as you stopping all maintenance on your house, car, not buying any cloth for years. Ya you can live well for some time but eventually your car breaks, your house starts to leak and you look like shit.
The USSR may have been able to survive a few more years but the longer they tried that model, the worse off each person would have been and the more unstable they would have become.
World War II is a working example of your hypothetical. The country (USA*) had to ration food, shoes, metal, paper, and rubber - so therefore even tires - to name a few. This all happened under capitalism. The country complied and to even make up for the loss of product women joined the workforce - i.e. Rosie the Riveter. I’m not trying to get into an argument but I wanted to point out your example already came and went and the country responded as it would under either economic system.
People are entitled to their preferences. They should also be entitled to overtime after some amount of hours per week that’s lower than forty, I think whatever it takes to bring the rate of unemployment to practically zero.
Typically when unemployment is around 4 percent, that is everyone working that wants to work. The 4 percent is people between jobs and people that are kind of looking for work but not in a rush to work. It difficult to be under that number.
In other words we are often at a point where unemployment is at zero. 4 percent being zero.
I understand and kind of agree with the idea that there is some small amount of unemployment that is practically unavoidable, however, I’m not sure that 4% is it. Per the latest US employment report, we’re at 3.8%. So, it seems like we should set the limbo bar lower than 4%.
That report also breaks down the unemployment rate by demographic and it seems to vary significantly between groups. To say that we are at full employment when blacks and hispanics have about 2% greater unemployment than whites and asians seems incorrect. The minimum practical unemployment rate for all of these groups should be the same. So, if we’re going to adjust OT in order to help achieve full employment, we should be looking at the unemployment rate for the most unemployed race/gender group.
There are also of course problems with how unemployment is measured and calculated, but I suppose that’s a little besides the point.
Regionally there will always be variances. Take Chicago and the loss of the auto industry. It took 25 (???) years for that to clean out. There was nothing to replace it rapidly so either people needed to move or they waited it out till new business evolved. Areas like that will skew the average higher. Maybe you could get an extra percentage nationally but I would say it is pretty close to zero at the moment.
actually, hunter-gatherer communities ‘work’ significantly less time than we do in our corporate jobs. farming is a different story: here’s one study: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…/190520115646.htm
Is it because they work less, or is it possibly because our technology, sanitary practices, medical expertise and ability to treat diseases based on thousands of years of trials far exceeds there?
You can read that study and see that it only represents one instance where hunter gathers were more efficient than farmers in the same region. You cant use that to say to our current system is less efficient. I hate pop science so much its unreal.
reminds me of this project farm.bot .
but a project like this is so slow or nonexistant development ( i would argue: this is because we put all our hope and time into specialization.) this is only maintained by a few people. it doesn’t compete or compare with the size and scale of modern industrial farms so nobody really cares and its not deemed to be important.
i suppose thats a good thing. its not worthwhile to persue agriculture anymore. food is cheap.
i’m more worried about paying my landlord.
That would then mean we would have to support the entire food supply on hunting rather than farming for this to be true, so basically 90% of the population would have to die
He basically is, he states that I hunter gathering societies that much less work was done, but significantly more in farming societies as a response to another poster saying specialization and careers are a significant contributor to the free time we do have. If he’s not suggesting a hunting society is better I don’t know what the point of his comment is.
I remember reading in The Mating Mind that since hunter gatherer societies long ago had more leisure time, they could spend it socializing, and growing their brain.
Yeah, OPs got the spirit but misses the point. We are being pressured to sell our time at a minimum of 40 hours every week. It’s thanks to specialization (and the technology that developed from it) that this quantity of of time is grossly over-allocated. Trade and travel allowed people to create better products in less time, so people were no longer very literally working to live, day-in, day-out. Unfortunately wages are kept low, wealth is kept centralized and culture continues to place value on excess so that we’re continually convinced that we “have” to work as many hours as we can find.
I don’t understand what you think I missed. When I said “specialization”, I meant the idea of just doing one thing and one thing only as a “career”. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t specialize or that people won’t. But if I specialize in construction labor, with the extra time awarded to me I could also participate in design if I wanted.
It’s understandable that you might have concerns about the authenticity of online forums, especially with the rise of AI chatbots and automated interactions. While I can’t provide specific numbers, I can offer some insights to consider when approaching these questions.
Diverse Community: Many online forums consist of a diverse community of individuals who share their opinions, thoughts, and experiences. While there might be AI chatbots present, the majority of users are likely real people with genuine perspectives.
Moderation and Rules: Reputable forums usually have moderation systems in place to ensure that discussions remain meaningful and respectful. This helps filter out any automated or irrelevant content.
Engagement and Conversation: Authentic forums thrive on meaningful interactions and discussions. Genuine users seek engagement and thoughtful responses, so you’re likely to find real people who are interested in exchanging ideas.
Varied Responses: When you post opinions, thoughts, and articles, you’re likely to receive a range of responses that reflect the diversity of human perspectives. This variety can be a sign that you’re interacting with real individuals.
User Profiles and Histories: Many forums allow users to create profiles, share personal information, and showcase their history of interactions. This can help you identify genuine users over automated entities.
Specific Expertise: In some forums, users might have specific expertise or experiences that contribute to valuable discussions. This expertise can be an indicator of real human participation.
Community Building: Online forums provide spaces for people to connect, share knowledge, and build relationships. This aspect of community building often leads to genuine interactions.
Ultimately, the decision to participate in online forums depends on your comfort level and goals. If you’re concerned about the authenticity of interactions, you can focus on engaging with users who provide thoughtful responses, display genuine interest, and contribute meaningfully to the discussions. Remember that while AI chatbots are becoming more prevalent, they are still not the majority of participants on most reputable forums.
While my goal is to provide helpful and accurate information, I understand that my responses might sometimes resemble those of a chatbot. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to assist you!
I really want a NSFL tag. I very much do not want to see gore. There are other buckets of things that I’d like to be tagged for ease of filtering. Yiff and Furry art. I fully support those that do want to enjoy that content, I’d just like to be able to filter easier.
Even if it was massive enough, if they can keep people sticking to the ground in a tiny ship they can surely counteract the gravity of a space station.
Also, most of their spaceships have wings. We're thinking about this way too hard.
Well, yeah, but we've also seen the ones that look like a hamburger patty fly through the atmosphere (and, in fact, outmaneouver the winged ones). Clearly that's not what they're for.
The hamburger was originally a cargo ship, the one we see is special in that it has a bunch of very expensive, very powerful engines added.
It’s no wonder that a street racer can outpace army jeeps. Also, they couldn’t outpace TIE fighters in Ep.IV, which are known for being very fast for a coffee table.
One of my favorite science facts: Because of how the strength of gravity diminishes as you get further away and stronger as you get closer, when you approach to within arms length of another person (approx 1m) the gravitational attraction between the two masses of your bodies can exceed the gravitational attraction between your body and the sun at any given time.
Another fun property of the inverse square law is that an infinite sheet of mass produces a gravitational field that is equally strong no matter how far you are from it.
It applies to any form of flux, like sound amplitude or light intensity.
This is why when you’re sitting on top of Mount Sanitas, you can hear traffic sounds at seemingly full volume. It’s just all the traffic of Boulder, which is roughly like an infinite sheet below you.
This is despite being unable to hear any given car more than a couple blocks away.
It’s also why if Superman flies over manhattan at night, he’s lit from underneath with an amount of light similar to someone who’s 10 feet from a skyscraper.
“Gravity deck plating”… okay that makes sense. So basically each floor has its own gravity generation to orient you to it. They’re all placed “bottom to top” to work like a building but it’d be possible to put one in at a 90-degree angle for say maintenance work.
There are crew walkways (I think they even have handguards!) along the beam path of the superlaser, so there are definitely at least a few small decks at different angles.
How much gravity would the Deathstar’s mass provide? I feel like it would be very small considering it has no real massive central solid or liquid core.
It’s the size of a moon and made from metal: It’s definitely generating some gravity (even a small amount of mass generates gravity) but I guess whatever tech they use to generate gravity overcomes it.
So small that a natural body of that size probably wouldn’t be massive enough to hold a spherical shape. DS1 was a little smaller than the real asteroid 128 Nemesis, which isn’t spherical. Maybe if it were made of something extremely dense, it would be, but you’re not likely to find a natural spherical object that size.
Now that I think of it, this puts the “that’s no moon” scene in perspective. Luke is a country bumpkin who just calls it a moon, but Obi-wan has an idea of its size (perhaps from glancing at the Falcon’s scans, since size and distance is hard to judge by eye; or he’s just a space wizard), and knows a natural object couldn’t be that spherical.
I mean, those are equivalent forces. Gravity doesn’t actually exist as a separate force, just like acceleration isn’t a magical force appearing from nowhere.
The gravity is negligible. The official sizes of the Death Stars have been 120 - 900 km in diameter according to rebel scale. For comparison, Earths moon is ≈35000 km in Idiameter, and its gravity is 1/6 of earth’s. On top of that, the Death Stars are mostly hallow, being a metal framework, instead of solid rock.
Earths moon is ≈35000 km in diameter, and it’s gravity is 1/6 of earth’s.
Off the a factor of 10. The Moon has a diameter of almost 3500 km (Earth’s circumference is about 40,000 km, so your diameter would make the Moon larger than Earth).
However, the Death Star being mostly filled with air still means you’re probably right about gravity being negligible.
Whoops. Good catch! so about 4-30 times the size of the Death Star. That would mean the gravity of the Death Star is at most 1/24th that of earth’s, if it were solid rock and my math is correct. That’s at the surface, though. As you go inside, gravity will decrease until you reach the center where there will be no gravity at all because all the mass of the space station is pulling you away from the center equally. (assuming a uniform mass distribution).
g ≈ M/r^2
V ≈ r^3.
uniform density: ρ for simplicity’s sake
M = ρV
—> g ≈ ρr where r is the distance from the center of the death star, but no further than the surface
Energy pricing in Texas is managed for the benefit of the utilities, not their customers. Some of the people on non-fixed plans who got charged insane amounts just went bankrupt.
Texas is a nearly perfect example of how the Republicans think everything should work.
It’s an established marketplace, where legislated “middlemen” buy from the utilities and then sell to the consumer.
You can’t actually buy directly from the utility generating the power without going through the marketplace.
It is sold as a “free market” that would drive competition and keep prices down. In actuality, it just allows leaches, who don’t actually produce anything, to sit in the middle and suck money out of the economy.
Sure some of them will lose money, while others will make a billion, but the system works just fine as a regulated controlled monopoly.
Texas is a perfect example of Republican hypocrisy. The Governor, Lt Governor, State AG, etc… are quite literally the worst kind of politicians.
I seriously dislike Sheila Jackson Lee, but I feel bad about her situation.
I would laugh if that wheel chaired, piece of shit rolled off a cliff.
I would laugh if Dan Patrick caught on fire.
On second thought, I might use Ken Paxton to put out the fire, by that I mean, push him onto Dan, hoping he would catch on fire too.
Oh right I see here the old fallacy that economic agents have a full thorough understanding of all the choices and make fully rational decisions based on all the facts that exist, because why would you have facts not accessible to everyone?
I’ve been a vegetarian for 15 years. People IRL often do get offended if you tell them you don’t eat meat. I try my best to avoid saying it because it often leads to being lectured about proteins. Everyone suddenly becomes a nutritionist when you explain why you don’t eat meat.
You are not wrong. I am vegetarian for about 15 years and I’ve literally have had a father of a friend yell at me. He was telling vegetarians aren’t real and if anybody would actually not eat meat for a couple of months they would die because they would be missing vital nutrients only found in meat. He was yelling at me to stop telling lies and be truthful.
Some essential amino acids are difficult to find in adequate quantities on a vegan diet. If you don’t vary your protein sources or make sure you are getting the right amino acids, then you may develop a deficiency, which can lead to poor health or even be fatal.
I have read that this is largely a myth based on a book from the 70s, and that while there are varying proportions of amino acids in different vegan protein sources, there is still enough of each so that you could easily get everything you need.
I read this in a book years ago that I don’t remember the name of, but found a source instantly
Ya, it’s probably more correct to say any concerns are overstated. And I probably didn’t help by saying “difficult”. It’s not difficult, just not as simple as eating any meat. And like I mentioned, as long as you’re varying your protein sources, you will be fine.
I have a hard time hitting my protein goal and maintaining correct macros even with meat. I have looked at vegetarian options and I don’t see how anyone could do it without just slamming multiple protein shakes a day. Which would destroy my digestive system. I’d probably be ok when I’m not bulking but I’d have to do a ton of research and basically forget about fast food options. If someone could lay out a vegetarian diet for me that would work I’d be more than happy to give it a shot but I don’t have time to make that effort myself.
My dad always acts like i'm close to dying because i'm vegan. I work out every day, he eats meat 3 times a day and even his vegetables are unhealthy as fuck. He's so overweight that getting into his car is super exhausting. Pretty weird if someone like that gives you tips on how to eat right.
Yeah. I try not to mention it to people if I can avoid it. I work construction and am surrounded by manly men tring to out man each other. I had one guy offer me bear jerkey and got bent out of shape when I declined. He wouldn’t stop. He just kept on me about why I didn’t eat meat. After about an hour of him asking again and again why I don’t eat meat I said “meat’s another word for dick and eating dick is gay”. As problematic as it was, it worked.
It never cases to amaze me that a 250pound dude with a 40oz soda in one hand and a mouthfull of gas station pizza thinks he has the responsibility to lecture me about nutrition.
I did get offended when, after a very successful date, I went to a shawarma place with her and we both had a super awesome shawarma with lots of meat. For the next date I made some pizza rolls with salami and she confessed that she actually doesn’t eat meat.
I still tease her about that when I meet her nowadays.
I’m what I call “mostly vegetarian“ which means that I choose to not have meat, but will eat small portions on occasion. And boy does that just piss off people like no other. Worse is I get it from both sides, to either commit in full or just give in to my natural instincts and consume more red meat.
Sometimes I just want a salad. Sometimes I want some bacon crumbles on that salad. Sometimes I want 3oz of fish with a plate of veggies. But what I can tell you is 3/4 of my plate will have healthy veggies or fruit.
its crazier than you think... the original sms messaging was sent over an already existent, in process data path.. they didnt really have to add much to the system to accommodate it, yet charged an obscene amount per message
Messages went from $.05, to $.10, to $.20 to send and receive. That was in the span of three years. All of the companies said it wasn’t collision. They just happened to arrive upon massive increases separately.
If I recall, one of the CEOs said “We’re raising the prices to save customers money. This way they’ll be an unlimited plan”
The telcos should have been broken up then. Instead we’ve seen even more mergers.
Edit: forgot to include the years. This was in the U.S. circa 2005-2008. Telcos have moved onto other sleezy practices now.*
WiFi isn’t free. And Idk about you, but where I live the internet service providers are the same as cell providers. I have AT&T for internet, for example. So they still get the money.
This was certainly in the US at one point. I remember having 500 per month, which was an absolute joke for 16 year old me with a girlfriend the next town over, and paying 25 send and 5 receive afterwards. Old cell plans were absolute trash.
Yeah, I remember when they started rolling out data plans and they were hefty and the Internet on phones was useless. Then GPS on your phone was an add-on, also hefty. So it’s definitely improved.
The messages weren’t pushed to you? You got a notification and then had to request the actual message? That would be even more stupid, as it’s using twice the bandwidth.
That’s how it worked on my old phone, you got a message notification but it cost you to actually read it. No clue if they sent the message content before the paywall or if it pulled it down afterward.
But it also meant you could use your phone basically as a beeper without paying for texts. Just see who sent you a message, ignore the actual message and call them.
SMS is sent within unassigned space within management frames.
Cell works kind of like ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode, which unlike packet-switched networks, continually transmits frames (even empty ones), as a means of ensuring stable, performant delivery.
Like ATM, cell kind of does the same thing (that is, when it makes a connection).
Within those frames are segments which are allocated for different purposes, someone got the great idea to transmit bits within a segment that wasn’t yet assigned to anything by the standard.
Those segments can hold… 160 characters (IIRC), and for technical reasons, this became 140 characters (again, IIRC).
So whenever your phone pings a tower, those frames get sent. From a bare transmission perspective, there’s no additional cost. The cost is on the backend hardware that extracts the SMS and the routing of it. So there’s some cost, but at 10 cents per message, there’s got to be 9.9 cents of gross profit (just guessing).
Sometimes being annoying is doing something wrong. If a kid is deliberately being disruptive after repeatedly being told not to, then yeah, they’re doing something wrong.
You are correct (here comes the but) but often times that acting out isn’t just to be annoying. As a kid, being disruptive is sometimes the only way you can get the attention of your adult. We treat kids like anything outside of their basic needs is unimportant.
Not wanting to lecture anyone I’ll leave it at that.
actual addition to conversationThe only instinct a child has to get attention is to be disruptive. Eventually they learn patience, better verbiage, and how to time their interactions with others. Time isn’t really a concept yet and things are almost an “on/off” switch. Hunger doesn’t exist during playtime until Hunger is activated, in which case, Hunger is all that exists. Hunger can only be eliminated with help as the cookies remain furiously out of reach. HELP! “Attention-seeking behavior” is “hey I need help with something” in their first language. It’s up to the adults to figure out what’s going on. Finding out why they are being disruptive helps, a lot. If they feel they’re being ignored, work out spending time with them as reassurance… when convenient. If they’re hungry, take a moment to procure a proper snack, and then they’ll be satisfied. They might not even know what they need - do any of us really - and that’s where listening can be helpful. Again, time not being easily explained such an on/off age. I am not a child therapist. I’ve just worked with too many “difficult” kids.
Recently watched a home movie of our kids when they are little (18 years ago), so ages between 3 & 8.
It was a little horrifying to hear the absolute despair in our voices as my wife and I kept asking one kid after the other, “please stop.”
Three kids, all desperately trying to get ALL the attention. It’s amazing the five of us survived.
I don’t particularly recall the day the video was made. Hearing our voices, it sounds like we were just completely past the breaking point. Yet, consider: that was a moment that we considered adorable enough to record forever. Watching it now, they were adorable. However, it sounds like we were dying inside without realizing it.
I hear the same voices in every video. I love my kids and I love being a parent, but it’s amazing looking back how much that and all the other demands on us was just absolutely crushing the life out of us.
Technically, being annoying is against the rules of the household. If the household reflect society’s rules, the kid will learn valuable lessons, if not, the kid will learn the wrong lessons and will have to figure out on their own how those rules apply to real life l.
Because languages aren’t constructed, they ‘evolved’ naturally from humans communicating with one another for many generations. As such, they aren’t intended to be as simple as possible. They aren’t intended in the first place. They’ve grown over time with no regard for whether the rules makes sense because nobody designed those rules, they just happened.
I thought this was a discussion about languages people speak.
Esperanto is an interesting case though but it wasn’t designed to be as simple as a language can be (since that is highly subjective). It was designed to have as many similarities as possible to major European language in order to make it easier for speakers of those European languages to learn.
Esperanto is an interesting case though but it wasn’t designed to be as simple as a language can be
Maybe not literally the simplest possible, but simplicity was certainly an important guiding principle. The idea was just to not make it too taxing to learn, since natural languages have a lot of arbitrary complexity in them.
Not really. Your description fits Interlingua a lot better than Esperanto.
For example the word for “legalize” looks like legaliz- in lots of European languages, but in Esperanto it’s “laŭleĝigi” (laŭ = according to, leĝ = law, ig = cause to be, i = verb infinitive). There are many more examples like that, even the Internet is called Interreto in Esperanto.
Okay, thank you. Anyway: is here somebody who actually knows WHY this happened? What was the underlying cause for our ansestors to start using it? What were they trying to achieve or solve? (UNINTENTIONALLY, okay, we got it.)
While I don't actually know a goddamn thing about the history of this, that doesn't seem to work too well once you look at more languages. While a male/female or male/female/neuter system is common in Indo-European languages, other language groups use versions that have more distinctions and haven't traditionally been associated with gender. Most languages in the Atlantic-Congo group that a lot of the southern half of Africa speaks have between ten and twenty different categories of noun in that sense. That's why they're more formally called "noun classes" rather than "grammatical genders"
I think this is it. In Russian everything is gendered. A table is male and a plate is female. But the rule is simple. Any noun anding in a constant is a male, vowels are female except for nounds ending in “o” and “eh” (Э), those are “it”. But there doesn’t appear to be meaning behind which item is assigned which gender.
Most things humans do are to solve things, but how they do that is a mix of trying to solve the thing and humans just latching on to random stuff and it sticking around. Especially when it comes to language.
Being able to communicate complex concepts made it easier for them to work together. Once the hominids became apex predators, their main adversaries were other hominids. Again, in that case, the better you can communicate, the better your chances for survival are.
These bits of grammar don't always actually communicate any extra information about anything other than the grammar of the language you're speaking, though. The "gender" of the thing in question can't reliably be distinguished from grammar since even in the Indo-European languages where the noun classes are typically thought of as masculine or feminine, the word's grammatical gender can contradict its actual gender. The Old English word for "woman", back when English had grammatical gender, was masculine.
We don’t have a lot of records of what speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were thinking because they lived c. 4500-2500 BC and didn’t have their own writing. I think the for the earliest writing we have of an Indo-European language gendered nouns had already been invented.
I can say that having gendered nouns does add a little bit more information to communication. Like if we are talking about a man and a woman and we’re using pronouns, then “he spoke to her” is unambiguous as to who is doing what. Likewise, if all nouns have a gender, you encounter more situations where the gender adds some extra context and leads to marginally less ambiguity. So if you’re at a bakery and there are two adjacent items behind the counter, one with masculine gender and one with feminine gender, and you point and say “can I have her please”, there is no need for the baker to ask if you mean this one or that one, they know based on gender.
Not saying this makes gender “worth it”, but in an emergent system, small things like this might have given it enough of a foothold to exist.
kbin.life
Top