2nd Update: Musk hired a company to remove the Twitter sign from the building in SF but neglected to get a permit. The cops shut the work down.
Space Karen’s destroyed the internationally recognized Twitter brand, reduced the value of his $44 billion purchase by at least half, chased advertisers and users away, seriously diminished the value of Telsa and tarnished his own reputation enough that it may never recover. He is now going to either have to back-pedal or be embroiled in years of litigation. Good thing the “genius” doesn’t pay his lawyers.
The absolute largest group of players in any game stuck with Mumble. That would be The Goonswarm Federation in EvE Online. We have just over 25,000 people, and well over 100,000 characters in the Alliance. In fact, AFAIK, all of the major alliances have to use Mumble because it allows more than 100 people in a room
Don’t you have to host Mumble somewhere? With Discord anyone can create a server and invite friends for free with no technical knowledge required. That’s a huge plus. I also remember RadCall was a thing for a while, at least where I am from.
Yes, you need to run the service somewhere. But anyone can do so (Foss).
With discord my experience is limited but I currently understand it’s a service model so you’re dependant on a company, which can pull the same sh*t teamspeak did at any time.
Not needing any technical knowledge just means someone else is running it, possibly being able to lock you in. And in the case of discord, you already are locked in and have to accept whatever they think up.
I don’t think that people are trying to find an eternal solution. Nothing lasts forever. When Discord turns to shit, something else will take its place. There is no need to worry about that when it offers too many advantages today.
Problem isn’t just on Linux’s side for a change. Louis Rossmann did a video on Netflix’s bullshit some weeks ago. Seems it’s far from uncommon to not get what you’re paying for with those shitbags
when we've had netflix (off and on a couple months at a time, last was about a year and a half ago), we often encountered 540p max playback on "hd" titles that should have (legitimately) been streaming at 1080p; and we rarely were able to use all the simultaneous connections of the plan (usually only limit-1)
I’m still on the old cheapest 720p plan that they no longer offer (waiting to see if they jack the price up or silently move us to a different plan). I stream on too many devices that would require way too much fuckery to get a higher resolution anyways plus we’ve really only encountered the number of screens limit once
If only. Democrats are historically milquetoast in response to Republicans.
This charade has been going on for 40-some years or more. At least since the likes of Reagan and Gingrich.
The court could go out of their way to rule on the case and make sure it only applied to Trump and only in this instance.
Just because the Democrats are suddenly given power doesn’t mean they will use it to stop fascism. Sadly, too many in the Democratic party are invested in the US Empire to just let go of how things currently work. Their long inability to act is literally why we are at the precipice of fascism fully taking over. The Democrats fell in line with Bush’s illegal war in Iraq, and they declined to do anything about the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. signed off on torture. We’re about to have Trump as a Dictator because we refused to do anything about leaders who were and are war criminals. People expecting Biden to do something, even if it is ruled in his favor, are waiting in false hope, imho.
EDIT: To be clear, I’d be ecstatic to be proven wrong, honestly. It would be nice to see Democrats really stand on the right side of history, not just partially or out of convenience.
This meme is explicitly about the President committing crimes and getting away with it. I don’t think this is something you want, whether the President’s a Democrat or a Republican.
Sometimes the law is on the opposite side of justice. When the law is unjust and oppressive, the just break the law. That’s how you get civil rights that the current laws don’t allow.
I’m not kidding myself that the authoritarian pro-cop Senator from MBNA would break any of the unjust and oppressive laws, though. Those are some of his favorites, and he’s the main culprit behind many of them.
While true in general, I can’t think of any unjust laws that bind the President. In fact, Trump has shown that there’s not enough laws that rein in the President. Stuff like the Presidential Records Act not actually having any penalties or enforcement mechanisms (besides impeachment) are really giant oversights.
Just because the Democrats are suddenly given power doesn’t mean they will use it to stop fascism.
Democrats had the opportunity to enshrine Roe after the 2020 election. They had a trifecta. They could have passed whatever they wanted and the Republicans would have had to suck it. And they deserved to go unheard, too, because it’s what Republicans did to Democrats for four years. Abortion is overwhelmingly favored among the voter base. We’ve been seeing abortion rights being protected on state ballot measures, even in states Trump won by wide margins. What we needed for half a century was a law on the books explicitly granting the right to an abortion rather than a SCOTUS decision based on an interpretation of an Amendment that doesn’t explicitly guarantee that right. So why did the Democrats do basically nothing to enshrine Roe between 2021 and 2023?
I’m still going to vote blue because the options are either fascists or business as usual. Do I really have a choice? So while we’re at it, fuck the two-party system.
And it’s not just that particular Congress’s fault Roe wasn’t enshrined. There were other Democrat trifectas after Roe. The last Congress just happened to be the one to oversee the overturn of Roe.
The Republicans had the house in 2020. The last time Democrats had the trifecta was under Obama for about 6 weeks, they still didn’t do anything because enough senators were having health problems, so they still didn’t actually have enough votes.
We need to burn down the state election offices till they stop gerrymandering the fuck out of tons of states so that the Dems can actually have a supermajority.
6 weeks? They held the trifecta for 2 years! From 01/09 to 01/11.
If you give the Dems a supermajority even more Senators will have “health problems” for way longer
Look, I know my instance gives it away, but from Marxist to self proclaimed angry commie: You are dead wrong comrade.
Dems under Obama didn’t not do anything bc of “enough Senators with health problems” but because they are beholden to their bourgeoise donors. In essence they are a party representing the bourgeoisie who only occasionally throw you a bone when they are pressured to do so
And you pressure them not by voting harder for them but by doing political work outside of both parties.
The harder you vote blue, the less they’ll do for you!
A bit oversimplified but I like the ring of it so I’ll run with it.
Not true, they passed Obamacare in that window. I remember it was a rush to get… i think the last Kennedy brother to vote on it before he died and they lost the advantage.
Democrats had the opportunity to enshrine Roe after the 2020 election.
God I am so sick of hearing that. Anything less than a Constitutional amendment would do fuck-all to protect abortion because Republicans would just repeal any law the Democrats passed. How do you not get that? Or are you just a Republican troll trying to demotivate Democrats?
Sure bud. I’m a Republican troll. Don’t worry about going through my comment history to learn a shred about who I am or what I stand for.
You think I’m not aware they’d try to repeal it? Trifectas are rare so it’d be some work to pass a law repealing it. It’ll die in a chamber or get vetoed. It took a Republican trifecta just to end the Individual Mandate of the ACA, but the ACA is otherwise still in effect. But even if it only took a few years for Republicans to repeal an act granting the right to an abortion, at least they tried directly addressing the issue instead of shrugging and going “well that’s that.”
Yes, it’d be a lot of back and forth at the federal level for a while until people got sick of it and an Amendment actually made it to ratification. Until then, Amendments are practically impossible. Over 10,000 Amendments have been proposed since founding, but only 27 have been ratified. We can’t even get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, despite its popularity. So what makes you think 37 states would vote to ratify an Abortion Amendment? Would you also have been a naysayer in '64 when Johnson signed the umpteenth Civil Rights Act into law?
Don’t get me wrong. I want an Amendment too. An Amendment is the strongest form of protection. But it’s also got a very slim chance of happening within our lifetimes. I’ll celebrate the moment I hear of its proposal, but I’m also not holding my breath for ratification.
“Republicans will overturn everything anyway so fuck it why try”
GTFO here with that. Abortion was a losing platform in multiple states this last cycle - If we had locked it into law on the federal level, yes Republicans would overturn it day one but they’d have had to do it in front of the whole world on the national level removing any wishy washy state by state bullshit argument that they love using to compartmentalize themselves from every evil thing the right does.
Pro tip: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit which has been defending your right to privacy for many years. If you shop on Amazon, you can give a portion of the purchase price to EFF. You pay the same amount and daddy bezos gets a few less dollars. Use the affiliate link, not the smile link as smile has been sunsetted: www.eff.org/node/58741
If I’m on Amazon it’s for something that I need and can’t get locally. There are no saving to donate. I’ll probably have to spend a lot more, drive multiple hours, or both if I don’t shop on Amazon. That’s the only reason I ever use it.
I'm glad someone said this here. It feels vile, being forced to do business with these corporations, but I end up getting bulk couscous (which has been scarce even in single bags or boxes in my rural, deep south community) for my autistic stepson who has very specific dietary needs. I can get very specialized disability equipment there, and it's delivered in two days (which is already two days longer than we can afford to wait, sometimes, but we make do.)
Yes, obviously, be ethical everywhere you can, as often as you can, but a blanket "dOnT dO bUsInEsS wItH eViL" is useless, whereas minimizing harm like with tips for links like this one is very helpful.
It's so insanely privileged. Reminds me of the same keyboard warriors who like to "raise awareness" by pouring ice water on themselves and then doing nothing else, feeling smug they did "something" when their only involvement with our causes is posting smug one-liners on the internet, or, of they're feeling particularly "helpful," changing their profile picture to reflect someone else's cause.
Hi. Autistic adult here. I‘m sorry you have to go through this and get triggered by these things. I can relate.
I think these „don’t do business with evil“ peeps are trying to make do as well as they’re watching the vast ignorant majority embrace consumerism and are panicking how to save our planet and our minds. I know its futile but I don’t think the majority wants to feel smug.
I learned something that helped me out a great deal since 2020: don’t assume malice if you can assume incompetence. (And for us autistic people: if you can assume incompetence, be kind and don’t repeat the ableism you were met with).
Just trying to spread some kindness. I hope it helps. Thank you for working so hard for your kid.
I appreciate your answer! I would like to offer a counterpoint; at what point does a person become responsible for their own ignorance? And how often is ignorance, whether intentional or otherwise, the direct cause of malice, or malicious behavior?
In the slim chance a person here sees what they said, and does not know that Amazon is "evil," merely saying not to work with an evil corporation is not educational, and therefore serves no purpose.
Since there was no effort to education, we can assume within a reasonable amount of doubt that they are speaking to those who are already educated. And if that's the case, then all they offer to the conversation is, at it's heart, self-satisfaction. Anyone aware that Amazon is evil who chooses to continue to use their services has either come to the conclusion that they have no choice, or simply doesn't care.
They add nothing to the conversation, and in fact, might reduce engagement with the premise (use this affiliate link to reduce the harm of doing business with Amazon).
I agree with your statement, that we should treat all actions with reasonable doubt. Offer that before assuming malicious intent. Which is absolutely true! I don't believe the commenter intentionally thought, "I'm going to shut down this conversation while also virtue signalling." But the effect is the same for the purpose of conversation. It adds nothing of value and may even discourage discourse. It is equally as useless, to me, as pretending to champion a cause from a screen, patting themself on the back for their wise ways, and doing nothing. It provides the illusion of helping, while adding nothing. And that's a dangerous thing.
I would correct my statement in the presence of anything at all to "add" to the discourse. Explaining why using Amazon would be unwise if it can be avoided. They did not make that effort. I stand by my previous comment. But I want to thank you for taking the time to engage me, and I really hope you continue to try showing other people the value of giving people the benefit of the doubt! It's so important, and does so much kindness in society.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and the people who focus on policing where others shop (or what others eat), instead of fighting the system that enables and encourages these corporations to exist and operate in the horrific way they do, are literally doing nothing to tackle the problem itself and are 100% doing it for their own dopamine hit and feelings of superiority (E: this is of course encouraged in capitalist society by those it serves via their media to divert attention away from them).
I'm also autistic as well as housebound, so I literally have no choice but to buy everything online, and while I try my best, there's almost no avoiding amazon, since even small businesses now sell through them exclusively. It's so frustrating how rarely the classism and ableism in those kinds of comments is discussed.
Never mind that it isn't even their retail business that makes them the bulk of their money, but AWS, but point that out to the person telling people not to shop there, and that it means that they almost certainly provide amazon income passively every time they use the internet, and watch the most incredible mental gymnastics display you'll see in a while. 🤦♀️
@DessertStorms
The world is much interconnected, and unknowingly we use the services of many that we don't agree with. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use, we absolutely should because that is what progress and technological evolution are.
Using some certain technology or service doesn't mean we agree with their leadership or policies
Using some certain technology or service doesn't mean we agree with their leadership or policies
Absolutely.
Especially in a world they've manufactured specifically to leave us no choice, from food, and hygiene (and cosmetics, which like fashion are entirely manufactured for profit and perpetuated by the media.) to energy, and so on and so on. Wherever we spend, it almost certainly ends up in the hands of one of a few hundred people, that have created an illusion of choice.
I don’t think it’s saying to stop using the Internet, just that if you’re talking to someone preaching to avoid Amazon retail purchases to avoid giving them money with the goal of bringing down the company, pointing out the fact that only avoiding retail but still using websites that are hosted on AWS is hypocritical. It’s hypocritical because they will then start making excuses about why they won’t stop using those websites, which shows that they only care about “fighting” the evil of capitalism when it’s convenient (or only mildly inconvenient) for them.
Counterpoint: Perhaps “Don’t buy from evil” is just a catchy way to share a sentiment and you’re taking it too literally/to an unintended extreme to be riled up as hard as you are about it? I see no intent from those comments in line with “fuck you if you give Bezos money” as you imply.
For example: Sonic’s “GOTTA GO FAST,” but in reality, he IS capable of standing around. “Gotta go fast” doesn’t mean his circulatory system shuts down if he doesn’t, it’s just a short catchy way to share an aspect of himself. In that vein, nobody’s kicking your door down if you get the specialized thing you need from Amazon, just saying that it can be beneficial to shop in other ways when possible.
I thought about it a couple of years ago, and even started gathering information and talking to people from the field, as well as consulting lawyers. I ended giving up on the idea because of too much complications.
“[Amazon makes] every merchant that sells through their platform sign a “most favored nation” guarantee that they will not charge less for their products anywhere else – which means that the price is the same everywhere.
And that’s the heart of the California antitrust case against Amazon: Amazon’s market dominance makes it impossible to survive without offering your products on Amazon; to succeed there, you must turn over 35-45% of your gross to Amazon. That leads to higher prices on Amazon, and, thanks to the most favored nation deal, it pushes those same higher prices to every other retailer.”
So basically the price on their website is what the company would charge you if they would want to be a sustainable business (or they’re trying to recoup their losses from selling on Amazon).
Considering that Ethnic Palestinians are the original Semites, and most of the Zionist are “repatriated” jewish people from all around the world, I find it ironic that they claim any sleight against them to be antisemitic.
Full disclosure, I am Jewish myself, and sorry for the book… try not to knee-jerk react to it.
I hate to partake in this genetic essentialism garbage, but Ashkenazis by and large share their paternal heritage with Sephardic Jews and other Semites, although that Semitic heritage has become somewhat diluted over time by converts in the maternal line and their descendants. My point in saying that is not to say that Zionists have any legitimate claim to Palestine - they absolutely don’t. It’s just “Ashkenazi Jews aren’t Semites” is a highly debatable and fraught claim that has the potential to lead one down a rabbit hole into actual racism, and incidentally has absolutely nothing to do with the crimes of Zionism. When I hear that implication, my mind is drawn to the adoption by antisemites (most recently Black Hebrew Israelites) of the now disproven myth that the original Semitic Jews died out and were replaced by Khazars.
I’m stopping short of calling what you said, specifically, antisemitism, but in another context a similar statement might be called a dog whistle. People can say these things unintentionally when they just don’t understand the implications. This kind of reckless use of language and ideas is at least part of why we have Jewish students on college campuses claiming they don’t feel safe. We Jews have grown up being implicitly taught to keep our ear to the ground when it comes to rising intolerance, and yes in a lot of cases that has resulted in a massive blind spot for our own intolerance, but it doesn’t mean we should ignore warning signs. Of course, as a Jew, and like you, I often scoff when I hear claims of antisemitism, and in fact I get angry about them when they conflate Jewishness with Israel & Zionism, which ironically IS antisemitism.
Now I mentioned the Khazar myth and Jewish students who don’t feel safe. The issue here is that they lack the self awareness to say, “maybe my hangups about certain things people say are a product of my own upbringing and sensitivities, rather than any intentional antisemitism on their part.” On the other hand, when people talk about Jews or Jew-adjacent issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they should also have the self awareness to ask themselves “am I contributing to a climate that lets actual antisemitism fly under the radar and should I be more careful about the things I say?”
In any case, flinging accusations back and forth is unproductive. If my fellow Jews feel threatened by protestors and their words, I would recommend they approach those protestors with humility, and listen to their grievances before making assumptions about their intentions. Which is funny, because here I am Jew-splaining in response to a flippant remark in an internet comment section, but the reason is I just desperately want people to understand each other (and themselves) better.
I think most of it is just confusion inherent in the term “antisemitism”, which TBH is a bad term because it singles out a single Semitic people among many as the oppressed ones. That false focus then in turn causes a knee-jerk pendulum swing towards another extreme.
And who’s to blame? Again, Germans: The term was introduced to replace “Judenhass” (jew hatred) with something “more scientific sounding”, as recently as 1879. Damn that’s a lot of citations there. Maybe we should switch to “Jewphobia” or something.
To be sure. This sort of argument is as productive as saying the Palestinians don’t belong there because they’re actually Arabs. Neither is true. Palestinians are about as much genetically Arab as maghrebis are Arab. Both groups experienced massive culture shifts, but there was little change in actual population.
Yeah I can definitely see how the argument about “original semites” is coming very close to outright hatred and antisemitism. We have to be more conscious of the language we use than that. We shouldn’t be making arguments in this vein but instead focusing on anti-colonial arguments. When discussing the colonialism of relocating European Jewish communities to Palestine there’s no reason to be using this kind of “race politics” language.
The relationship between Ashkenazi jews and the communities that were already present in Palestine is not something I understand very well, and more broadly the history of Ashkenazi jews as a whole is something I’m only familiar with as it relates to early 20th century European politics. It’s something I’d like to do my own research on from reliable sources to better understand how these kinds of arguments feed into genuine hatred of Jewish people.
I’m not as educated on the broader nature of antisemitic arguments as I should be. I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment. Anti-Zionist action has an obligation to protect Jewish people as much as it has an obligation to protect Muslim people and ethnic Palestinians. Our goals ought to be to separate ourselves from race hierarchy and protect human rights for all. It’s critically important that in advocating against the Israeli government and the IDF that we do not tolerate anti-semitism in any form and that we reject the support of ant-semitic people wherever it appears.
I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment.
I feel like a dick talking about it with what’s going on, but it’s still important. And to be clear, we Jews who are inculcated with Zionism and the generational trauma of the Holocaust from a young age have to zealously interrogate our unconscious fears and biases. The protests provide the perfect opportunity to confront it head on if you can swallow your pride and just listen. My Arab & Muslim friends are some of the most thoughtful people I know, with strong opinions and moral convictions that come right from the deepest parts of their being. I feel as at home with them as I did in the Synagogue growing up, and I have no doubt if I were to attend a peace protest that I would find many more like them. They’re an absolute gift; I was never a supporter of Israel, but their friendship has thrown the whole thing into even sharper focus since October 7th. I hope one day the Zionists can be defeated, and from the river to the sea, all good people will finally be free.
The issue here is that they lack the self awareness to say, “maybe my hangups about certain things people say are a product of my own upbringing and sensitivities, rather than any intentional antisemitism on their part.”
Ah, yes. The suggestion that racial minorities just get over it. Don’t we determine racism based on the experiences and opinions of the victims?
I don’t think that’s true at all. Collectively determining racism is a complex process that involves interrogating social structures and power imbalances as a whole. Minority opinions are an important part of that, perhaps the most important part, but not the only part. Intersectionality taught us how flawed that was. That’s how we got the TERFs
In this case he’s talking specifically about an intersectional issue.
Well, yes, I suppose, and that’s why I said all the stuff I imagine you must have read before you got to that part, and the thing I said right after that, too.
II) During the time of Moses, the Semites lived partly in India, towards the Ganges, partly on the coasts of the South Sea to the Persian Gulf, in Elymais, Assyria, Chaldea, and in southern Mesopotamia, and with further expansion in some areas of Palestine, in the north and south of Arabia, finally too, but maybe not yet in Moses’s time, in Abyssinia or Ethiopia.
Which isn’t totally off compared to our modern understanding of who spoke proto-Semitic. “Semitic” as a descriptor of languages is unchallenged in linguistics because, well, symbols are arbitrary anyway and “Descendants of Shem”, as in Noah’s son, ancestor of Abraham, is not exactly a contentious thing among a group of related cultures having birthed no less than three Abrahamic religions.
I think you a both right. Historically, Semites referred to a large cultural group.
Over time, it has become a nonsense word because those cultural groups have become so dilute and diverse that you can’t point at someone and say they are part of that group.
More recently, the label has become misappropriated by some sort of whacky religious nutbaggery so they can oppress other people.
Well, yeah, but it’s not supposed to happen to them. They’re the ones who are supposed to be in charge, not just morally and ethically, but also economically. If they can get called out for their bullshit it’s a warning sign to them. Their massive privileges are being eroded and it scares the shit out of them.
How much have you read about the history of religion?
If they’re not doing it to others, they’re doing it to themselves. The last time there wasn’t a Christian church leader ranting about an evil person was around year 0.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.
One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.
(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one…)
But you sure won’t make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It’s too involving, we’re bound to be obnoxious.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith.
They really aren’t. Science is about understanding how things work, and religion is about pondering our place in the universe, and morals. It’s really only fundamentalists that take scriptures literally and the fundamentalist atheists that believe all religious people are fundamentalists.
The only thing worse than being cornered by someone saying “have you been saved by Jesus Christ our lord and saviour” is being stuck talking to an atheist that’ll go on for much longer about their belief that religion caused all the world’s problems. At least a religious person is capable of saying something positive now and then.
God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.
Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That’s very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.
And atheists aren’t all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they’re not fundamentalist.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
That wouldn’t be science. It would be a religion.
For most of history science was done by the religious because few other people were literate. We long ago decided it would be better to have people specialized in science, and separated science from religion. And it worked really well.
Now you want to turn science into a religion? We already know that wouldn’t work very well. Why would you want this? It seems to me you’re not really against the concept of religion you just don’t like the religions we currently have.
Science isn’t about beliefs. It depends on people being skeptical of everything. Searching for empirical evidence that’s contrary to current theories so those theories can be improved and sometimes even replaced. Science is a process. Mixing morals and beliefs into science makes for bad morals and bad science.
Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.
What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.
Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.
So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.
Believing isn’t just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.
I don’t think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that’s contradictory.
As for moral, i didn’t explicitly say it’s science, because it isn’t, it’s philosophy. But scientists that don’t want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.
Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.
Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it’s application always had concerned about morals.
P.S. I don’t have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn’t a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.
To paraphrase Dr. Jones… Science is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it’s truth you’re are interested in the philosophy class is down the hall.
You seem to have science mixed up with philosophy. There is an argument for science being a subset of philosophy since it’s governed by a philosophy. But mixing up science with other parts of philosophy is just bad science. If you declare a theory to be the Truth then it’s impossible to make changes to that theory.
Back when it was the Earth being the center of the Universe was considered to be the truth then people have to create some crazy complicated models to explain the movement of the planets. Perhaps if they had more advanced mathematics they would have been able to accurately predict the movements of the planets while keeping the Earth at the center. But since science isn’t about The Truth, it is only concerned with theories that work, everyone switched over to the Copernicus model for the solar system because it worked.
Someone other than scientists can debate how central the role of humans (and therefore the Earth) are in universe. Science shouldn’t have to worry about having to weigh in on those debates.
If a theory best fits the evidence then that’s the theory that’s used until more evidence requires the theory be changed or replaced. The philosophical or religious ramifications are for the philosophers and theologians to discuss.
You’re right, it’s probably not right way ro put it, it’s not The truth in the philosophical sens.
Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.
However i don’t think science is just about facts, it’s also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That’s what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.
So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.
That’s why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don’t know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it’s true if there is enough evidence.
However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can’t never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.
(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)
…
For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth’s frame of reference.
(Of course Greek’s models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)
What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.
But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn’t actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy’s idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.
It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.
(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)
Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn’t science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That’s an important distinction in most context…
I saw a lot of cool Nintendo Lego creations recently at a convention. Nothing had Nintendo names. Instead of Goomba, it was named “angry mushroom” and stuff like that.
Also Disney once told a family no multiple times regarding putting Spider-Man on their dead child’s tombstone.
Worked in retail awhile back. Kept having glass shit fall off displays and ends. It wasn’t TOO often, just enough to be an annoyance. They were stacking glass product on top of one another. I explained why this was a problem; they didn’t care. Some time later I came back to the bosses with an argument:
This is how much we’re charging for the product.
This is how much I make per hour.
Cleanup of said broken product takes X time.
This is how much I make in that time, or Y.
Which means a single broken product that breaks costs you Z, multiplied by the number of times it happens, plus the cost of the product itself.
This was what got their attention. These people usually aren’t human, they’re sociopaths. Remember that.
Also Disney once told a family no multiple times regarding putting Spider-Man on their dead child’s tombstone.
This is one of those situations where it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. Even the most cold-hearted corporate ghoul is going to understand the cost/benefit of going after that family isn’t remotely worth it.
Yeah, the lawyers are going to say “no”. But even if they’re stupid enough to sue: some suit that isn’t a moron is going to tell them to drop it during the ensuing PR nightmare, and the family will be swimming in donations.
Well the reason it is like this, is because the lawyers that get to decide are “only doing their job” and can blame the policy. The ones responsible for policy are just slaves to the megacorp automaton machine that continues to not regard morals or ethics or laws in its hunger for profit. The one responsible for this mess is a machine where you can replace any or even all individuals and it will still continue to globally absorb value and eat anyone in its way. We nurture and cheer these machines on because they give us “profit” when in fact it gives only some profits to specific people that hoard it in Panama. I am very against these entities of destruction, but targeting any individual human is never going to help, and we probably can’t stop them without actually using politics. Except all available options in politics all want to and are praised for nurturing these entities because they bring illusory cash flow to the region
I’m in Thailand and knockoff Disney stuff (and Legos) are pretty normal. And it’s nice. The kids buying them have to deal with seeing their ads plastered all over town, so it’s nice there are versions they can buy. I just wish they were so shitty quality and the big companies markup wasn’t so fucking insane. Lego sets pretty regularly hit $200-$300 here. There literally is no Nintendo Thailand, so game prices are pretty random based on import fees that retailers can negotiate (or sneak through).
The nice thing is no one gives a shit about piracy. No risks really.
I liked the take by the utterly clueless Polish guy in the comment. I think his complete lack of understanding of any context is quite typical of online political conversation, especially when semantics come into play.
Also Linus did call for “Total world domination” (I have the tshirt).
This might be a dumb question: what do you mean? I know very little about Finland, so I’m just genuinely curious. Are the Finns in particular well-known for being anti-communist or is it more like a geopolitical thing since they share a border with Russia?
I don’t know where this idea that all Finns are anti-communist comes from. Finland had one of the strongest communist movements in Western Europe during the cold war. At the height of their popularity about one in four Finns voted for communists in elections. Card carrying communists sat as ministers in multiple cabinets, up to the early 1980s. Like many young people of his generation, Linus Torvalds’ father was a member of the Communist Party of Finland in the 1970s. And all this happened after Finland had fought against the Soviet Union in the 2nd world war.
unfortunately I think this is just him saying he’s a “woke communist” if being a woke communist is atheism, women’s rights, and gun control. I don’t think he’s a marxist of any stripe it seems. However, I am willing to be corrected here. I’ve only seen this post regarding to him
Mostly because the world disregards their concerns. “I was able to go through school with lead paint and leaded gasoline” says the fucking boomer.
“I was able to go to school withoit a cellphone.”
Good job, you survived a time when life was much simpler, and I’m glad you’ll use your experience to shit on the next generation. It’s the same argument against LLMs. They aren’t going away and saying. “No, don’t” isn’t going to change the world.
It’s the same stupid worldview that thinks playing a “gambling is dangerous” warning after a Draft King ad is an effective deterrent.
I don’t think OP is thinking that far into their future. I don’t think OP has any plans for higher education either. It’s been a few decades for me, but when I was an undergrad, if your pager went off in class --cell phones weren’t really a thing yet-- most professors would ask you to leave, which was not a good thing in the small upper division classes as they were very difficult and you had to pass with a B or better to move on in my major.
lemmy.ml
Top