There’s a difference between working for your own and your communities good and working for someone else while not being allowed to keep your (fair share of) product/profit.
That’s not how farming started though. They started farming so that they can feed themselves and their community. It eventually devolved into that, but it’s not how it started.
Early farming would have been communally owned land. But hunter gatherer life was not remotely as relaxed as dudes on yhe Internet would make it seem
I mean an-prim is like the dumbest ideology ever unless you actually think 50+% infant mortality and everyone who needs glasses being unable to survive is cool.
I think both of you are not considering two major aspects:
Farming can feed more people on a given fertile area than hunting and gathering can.
Farming is area exclusive, e.g. there is a set amount of people farming in one area and considering this area to be theirs, excluding everyone else from usage.
It is very much possible, that in terms of providing food for the existing population both are equally viable. But with farming you could create larger more densely packed populations, which in turn provided means to exclude others by force. So while hunting and gathering was not necessarily a bad way of life, it did not allow for imperialism and was subsequently diminished by the imperialists.
And they existed about 2000-1000 years ago. Humans started settling and farming as far back as 10.000-12.000 years ago.
Of course by then populations have increased tremendously. But in the spirit of the meme that probably wasn’t the best overall course of action, was it?
We can ignore all the other nomadic tribes doing just as much evil shit as city dwellers throughout history the moment they have the opportunity and means, sure.
Several mass extinctions have been caused by evolution creating a lifeform that is too successful. The difference between humans and them is that we can recognize we are the problem and consciously adapt.
Some of us, anyways.
Regardless, that adaptation won’t be by abandoning agriculture.
So while hunting and gathering was not necessarily a bad way of life, it did not allow for imperialism and was subsequently diminished by the imperialists.
Have you seen nowadays how they fish? They destroy whole huge areas leaving no fish behind. This is a type of imperialism. The problem is capitalism in its nature
And for that kind of fishing you need large vessels, built in stationary warfts, using stationary ports. The materials are made in stationary complex apparatusses to extract and shape metals from ore and the ore is mined in stationary mines.
All of this is only possible as a result of settling
Sure. So your idea is that people should be mandated to travel and change places every X years? Or what? I don’t get it.
Isn’t the problem the disproportionate accumulation of goods, resources and money? AKA capitalism? I mean theoretically, if you restrict these, you can also settle in one place without taking advantage and destroying everything around it.
The thesis was that people settled because it was superior in terms of supplying the population back then. All i was saying is that at the time that mustnt have been the case. It was more effective in the capitlaist/imperialist/expansionist mindset that is fucking is over now.
Of course with the current 8 billion people living on earth a nomadic lifestyle is not viable. But that is a very different question from the question if it was viable 10.000 years ago, when there were maybe a few hundred thousand to a few million humans on earthin total.
Hunting and gathering wasn’t peace and love. There were wars and resources access problems already. Farming is simply much more efficient. Hunting can only feed people until you reach the natural reproduction of the animals. Same for gathering and plants. Domestication and farming is the process of increasing the volume of food you can have access too. Thus you can feed more people more reliably and with less space.
Human population on earth is directly linked to food access.
I totally agree. Thats why i made the argument “for an existing population”. In order to support a growing population changing to farming was the right choice. But not all populations had the ambition or necessity to grow, as we see with many indigenous people that survived quite well until being met with expanding settler societies.
So hunting and gathering wasnt necessarily an inferior lifestyle in terms of running a stable society. Qnd in the long haul it is very much possible that humanities growth leads to its downfall so severely, that a nomadic lifestyle will reemerge as it tends to be more environmentally sustainable.
We have more food than we know what to do with and people are still starving. Growing your own food provides a reward someone like you not only can’t experience, but if you did you wouldn’t be able to understand it.
Hey listen to this EVP I got from the cheap ass recording device that I was waving around like a mad man. Nevermind the fact that the professional boom mic didn’t pick anything up.
When you edit the file just right, tweak the equalizer just so, and apply the right filters, I can fool you into hearing something that almost sounds like a word!
I was actually using Celluloid before but videos were not playing until I used the commands you gave. Gnome videos is now crashing but I don’t care as much since Celluloid is now working
Celluloid is an MPV client and installing GStreamer codecs, as you did initially, does nothing. I didn’t recognize Celluloid on the screenshot, though.
This confused the hell out of me last month. You can install two different versions off fmpeg/gstreamer on Fedora. One version of ffmpeg—the completely free, patent-unencumbered version—is available in Fedora’s official repositories. This one does not include decoders for H.264 or H.265. You can still install OpenH264 from Cisco and use that to decode H.264 video, but there is no “free” way of decoding H.265 video. For that, you need to go to RPMFusion, which is not associated with Fedora. They ship the H.265 and AAC decoders, among other codecs that cannot be shipped without paying a licensing fee. RPMFusion is a third-party and they believe they can’t/won’t be pursued for patent infringement.
And all of that is great, but I installed ffmpeg from RPMFusion and it still didn’t work. I had to mindlessly copy commands until it did work. So you’re not alone. I’m just giving you the context in case you were curious.
Well that’s why it’s a philosophical(?) question. Yes evolution made the chicken, but what would you call what laid that egg if not a chicken first?
If it wasn’t a chicken that laid it, it’s not a chicken egg, so the egg couldn’t come first. What hatched would be a chicken and it would than lay chicken eggs.
What comes between chickens and their non-chicken ancestors? The problem is in our human need to classify everything into different neat boxes, when it's an actual long and continuous process. In short, the "dilemma" created is more of an argument about what separates species, and that's a hell of a rabbit hole with no single answer.
But the answer is the egg, since a chicken born from that egg is different than its parents.
You're right in that it's not meant to have an answer as it's normally told philosophically. But the biological and evolutionary answer is that there is no dividing line to give that answer because species don't change with individuals but with large populations over great amounts of time. We see those lines because we find fossils of things related to but different enough to others to call them a different name. And the real mind blower is that almost all creatures that did exist never left fossils to find.
The false dilemma of the chicken and the egg shares the same misunderstanding that the "missing link" fallacy does. There's no line between things except over time and thousands of generations.
Proto-chicken laid the egg. It was a proto-chicken egg. The creature that came out of it had enough genetic variance to be defined as a full chicken.
Note, the question does not ask “what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” It’s just “the egg”. It doesn’t matter what type of egg, as long as a chicken came out of it.
chicken would also be able to defined as it’s ancestor
This isn’t the case, and there’s a mathematical theorem describing this called the Intermediate Value Theorem. Basically, if you have a function describing a line you can draw without picking up your pencil, at some point along that line the value takes on every value on that line. Makes sense, right?
If I draw a line separating Chicken-birds from Not-chicken-birds, and show the evolutionary path leading from non-chicken to chicken, at some point it crosses that line. We don’t have to know where that point is, we just know it crosses the line at some point.
At that point, wherever it is, we have a bird that meets the criteria of “chicken” hatching from an egg laid by a bird that doesn’t.
Besides, this is all pretty moot. We actually know when and where chickens originated. They originated about 3000 years ago in China and India after being domesticated from Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl.
The only wrinkle is that biologists might decide, presumably on genetic simularity, that red junglefowls and chickens are still the same species, like has been done with dogs and wolves.
That would mean the chicken came first, because it was the taming that made it a chicken.
In such a case, we would simply need to look backward in history until we find an ancestor that doesn’t meet the chicken criteria. Fowl as a clade were separated from other bird clades before the K-T Extinction Event, and many such species before the event had teeth, which means they weren’t chickens.
I don’t think you can use the Intermediate Value Theorem to answer this. If taxonomists can entirely agree on one single path at each and every stage of evolution, the singular point of where an egg is now defined as a chicken egg where the egg that the creature which laid it hatched from is not a chicken egg–or vice versa, where a creature which is now defined as a chicken where its parents are not chickens–cannot be objectively determined. They’re human-defined lines, which makes this entirely a human philosophy problem in the first place.
(EDIT: messed up the formatting of this image) I like this analogy here:
It’s not completely relevant to this discussion, but it has some good points here. We can all agree that, at some point, it stopped being one color and started being another, but any method we use to draw that line would be arbitrary anyway. Maybe you take the hex code and find the point where the blue value is greater than the red value, but where is the text purple? Does purple even exist under this definition? Or maybe the text is red when, say, the hex for red is 80+% the total color value, blue for the opposite case, and purple for the in-between cases? But then, why 80% and not 90%? This is starting to sound really pretentious, but my point here is that in agreement to your last point, there’s no correct scientific answer to this problem.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree with it, but the question isn’t asking “Which egg was the first chicken egg?”, it’s asking “Did the egg come before the chicken?” Determining the exact point is a way of answering the question, but is a lot of work that isn’t strictly necessary to do so.
We can use the Theorem because we don’t care when that point actually was, the question doesn’t ask that. We just need to prove that there was such a point, and the Theorem does that.
To use that text as an analogy, we don’t care which is the first purple or blue word, we just know there is one because the gradient starts from red, passes through purple, and ends up blue, so it must have a first purple word and a first blue word.
Sure, but if you’re using the IVT as a proof that there was a point where there was indeed a “first chicken egg”, you still haven’t answered whether the first chicken egg came before the first chicken. Clearly there was a first egg and there was a first chicken, IVT proves this, but which came first? This depends on those definitions. We’d need to find exactly where it “passes over”, which could depend on who you ask.
If you define a chicken as hatching from a chicken egg (“every chicken must have hatched from a chicken egg”), then the egg came first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (“all chicken eggs must have been laid by chickens”), then the chicken came first. And notice how these definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, leading to this whole philosophical issue in the first place.
If, in a much more extremely broad sense, we’re asking which came first, chickens or eggs in general, then I think we could agree that eggs came first, as I believe creatures were laying eggs long before the first “chicken” emerged, for most definitions of “chicken”.
We’d need to find exactly where it “passes over”, which could depend on who you ask.
No, we don’t. It doesn’t matter when that is, because you and I both agree that it’s out there somewhere, and that at the point in time referenced, a non-chicken laid an egg and a chicken hatched out of it. That’s all we need out of that point, and neither of us are disputing that part of it.
If you define a chicken as hatching from a chicken egg (“every chicken must have hatched from a chicken egg”), then the egg came first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (“all chicken eggs must have been laid by chickens”), then the chicken came first.
Agreed. I, personally, use the broader egg definition you reference in the last paragraph, but a definition of “chicken egg” would put the whole thing to rest, and I propose this: Not every chicken egg contains a viable chicken. We all agree that these eggs are still chicken eggs when we buy them at the supermarket, though, so my proposed definition is that a chicken egg is laid by a chicken. Otherwise, we end up with unclassified eggs in our omelettes, and we can’t have that.
Republicans love de facto gun control. They’ll have the cops kill every armed PoC no matter how lawfully they were armed, and then acquit the killer cops.
We’re long past soap box and poll box, the fascists are using the jury box, and you’d have us give those same fascists exclusive rights to the ammo box.
Disarming the public can only be beneficial in a functioning democracy. The people to whom you’d give exclusive access are the same people who are currently murdering us.
Every bloody third advert on TV in Australia is a gambling ad, it’s insane that we continue to allow it given how much of an actual widespread problem it is here. They have fairly lame government mandated warnings after each one but I doubt they do much at all.
Same in the UK! When the pandemic started companies stopped advertising on TV because they weren’t doing business anymore, except for the bookies (gambling brokers) so almost every ad was for them. And because people are on doors and probably bored/miserable I bet they did much more business than normal.
I don’t think we have the warnings you’re talking about here, except for sone text on the screen that says something like “gamble smart” lol
I don’t understand this take. Yeah, it’s shitty as fuck right now, but if you’ve been paying attention at all you’d understand how fast things are moving. It sucks today, sure, but in 6 months? A year? 5 years?
Anyway in my opinion we really fucked up with this AI thing.
The deal is that AI is only good at remixing what’s already done. AI is never gonna be able to make an artistic desicion or create a new thing. What AI is good for is menial tasks like making ground textures and it still fucks it up.
I just hope GNOME’s developers would stop being so insufferable. Lots of Wayland extensions and FreeDesktop portals unimplemented on GNOME because of the developers’ stubbornness. These also adversely affect to other DEs and WMs and Wayland’s evolution itself because other DEs would have less reasons to support a standard if one of the largest DEs themselves don’t support it.
I really love GNOME because it’s polished, but if KDE would be just as polished I will immediately switch. I know KDE works really hard to make the DE and the apps in general as polished and modern as possible, but I can’t still help but feel better at GNOME.
One example is the color scheming protocol by FreeDesktop. You can now make your apps look greenish or purplish or whatever color you want regardless of the toolkit they’re made with. Right? Well no, because the insufferable GNOME developers keep blocking the proposal because they want the colors to be hardcoded by the DE. They were offered a compromise where a DE can just offer a limited, curated color picker to the user when they go to the theming settings and allow any arbitrary color hidden behind commands, but the insufferable GNOME developers said no. And the proposal, last time I heard, is still stalled because of GNOME.
I think the reason Gnome is good is the same thing that makes them insufferable. They believe there is a right way to do things, sometimes those are things you like, sometimes they aren’t.
Yup hard agree on this. Switched to gnome a little more than a year ago and not planning to switch back because the polish and stability is too good - but this is a major issue.
The one that got me with them was when they banned third party screenshot tools from using the default screenshotting hooks. They cited security concerns, which is valid as it stops malware from hijacking this, however rather than adding the ability to add to a user controlled allow list (or any other potential workaround) they just rejected working with anybody on fixing this issue. Instead it came off as a transparent attempt to push their own screenshotting tool.
Isn’t that hook used by Zoom for screen sharing? IIRC Zoom on Linux only worked on GNOME because Zoom’s screen sharing implementation was to call GNOME’s screenshotting hooks 30 times per second
I did not know that about Zoom, but would make sense given how stubborn the Gnome lot are that such a terrible bodge is required rather than them working with others.
lemmy.ml
Top