Every iteration of gun control, with few exceptions, carves out exceptions for LEOs and Military. If you want this to stop a good start would be making these guys have to follow the laws the rest of us do, because if you campaign for more of the same from your lawmakers, I guarantee there will still be exceptions for the people who protect the rich.
None of them were using muzzle loaders. The death toll and injury count would have been drastically lower if it took roughly 30 seconds to a minute to reload the guns per shot.
Exceptions for active military can work because they are subject to the far more strict ucmj. Cops are a real problem though, they kill 1000 or so people every year with minimal consequence.
The ucmj being strict is worth little against someone taking up his guns and going rampage.
Why does anyone from the Police or Military need to own firearms privately? The only reason i could think of is training, but that is a responsibility of the employer, to give enough training to the cops and soldiers.
Being able to choose either of those myself is unarguably the freest. The real question is the conflicting rights. If the right to own guns is conflicting with the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness then we need to find a resolution. Legally speaking when two rights collide like this the they typically try and preserve as much of both rights as possible. Thats not what every gun control advocate wants though. Everyone has a different version of how it should shake out.
you should clarify what exactly you mean by ‘free’, cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.
you should clarify what exactly you mean by ‘free’, cause as an outsider it just seems like you have the freedom to get indiscriminatly mowed down by high powered rifles owned by mentally ill spree shooters.
As an insider it seems like this too.
But to the guy you replied to it's most likely the freedom to have a gun which you never do those bad things with, while also plugging your ears regarding the reality that the same laws protecting your ability to have a gun and not do those bad things are enabling that endless stream of indiscriminate deaths by the folks who do those bad things.
And although I don't know him personally, he probably also deflects to mental health being the cause while continuing to vote for the party that both is responsible for our lack of mental health infrastructure and also refuses to consider restrictions on gun ownership.
This argument would make more sense if this free society wasn’t the same society that would jail me for years for wanting to occasionally do some cocaine. As it stands, this is not a free society and this argument isn’t one.
That’s where the gun culture comes in. America has none, they just have guns and no protective, strict culture of do’s and don’ts around them. Not everything has to be restricted by law if a society decides that there are still rules. We have a social rule that when we sneeze or cough we put something in front of our mouth. It is not a law, but it is a healthy social rule that is helpful; everyone accepts that they are not free to sneeze in other people’s faces. You need either gun laws or gun culture, Switzerland chose more culture, Germany more law, both work. America chose … more guns and the “freedom” to shoot them in other people’s faces. That’s stupid and dangerous.
Not so fun fact cops were invented to prevent people like us from stealing crates in the harbor 200 years ago. They used to be just upper class people who patrolled the port. They didn’t always exist, so it’s just as possible for them to cease to exist. A society without goons in blue is possible. Cops protect the owners of the country. Why can’t we commoners set up our own force to protect us the regular people?
What’s unsurprising is how strictly gun control is implemented on US military bases and navy ships.
If you live in barracks on-base and own a personal gun, if often has to be stored in the base’s firearm storage. The only people who can walk around armed are MPs or people on their way to/from authorized training. Even if you have a concealed carry permit for the state the base is in, you can’t conceal carry in the base. If you’re on your way to the base’s firing range and stop to get gas at the base’s gas station, you can’t leave your gun in your car while you go into the convenience store at the gas station unless your car is locked in your trunk. Often even a paintball gun has to be stored in the base armory.
Keep in mind these aren’t rules for random civilians. These are the rules for people who have already had to pass extensive firearms training courses.
It’s pretty insane that random untrained civilians have far fewer restrictions on guns than members of the military on a military base.
I understand why it seems strange that the Military has stricter regulations on weapons than civilians but honestly thats a good thing to me. Not saying the level of rules on civilians is fine the way it is, however soldiers are quite literally tools of and representative of the US government, what they do, the US government does, or at the very least is accountable for. Often times what they are doing they are doing to citizens (or soldiers) of other countries as well. A random US citizen doesn’t represent the government, but an active soldier is very much representetive of theirs. From the governments POV its like self preservation.
Aside from all that, it’s just sane to lock down weapons.
The military knows how dangerous they are, so they don’t let people on military bases just wander around with them. They’re carefully controlled. It’s just insanity that outside the walls the rules are less strict.
The lack of laws around weapon storage are wild. As a part of gun culture I can tell you in the US the gun culture around you is going to determine how safe the area is from guns, and in no small part due to storage habbits that somehow come down to the culture rather than the law. When I see divisions between red and blue state gun crime, it makes intament sense to me having seen how gun culture is in each place. Even the conservatives in liberal areas are generally more careful with weapons than the conservatives in area where they are the majority. Advertising is another problem that imo is a massive contribution to the negative aspects of US gun culture. Not many outside of the culture would see this but if you go to a web site that sells gun accessories and buy something, just wait for the bonkers catalogue they send you in the mail later. For me it looked like a mall ninjas paradise, with just enough inflammatory marketing to not be punished for it, and if we can’t reign that in as well I fear all we will be doing is chnging what type of gun the next shooting will be done with.
Extensive firearms training is a bit of a stretch. Yes combat jobs get plenty of range time, but many only get a basic refreshers as needed (before deployment)
But yes military bases are pretty strict compared to outside the fence
I’m not aware of any federal exemptions to gun laws for military/ex-military citizens.
The only ones I’ve seen relate to state gun law in e.g. AZ, where if military/ex-military want a conceal carry permit, the training requirement is waived. You still have to submit an application with fingerprints and everything to DPS. (Which is kinda moot anyway, since AZ citizens who can federally own a firearm can also open/conceal carry.)
Fuck Reagan. He created this shithole of a situation and ruined this country. I’m happy he died of Alzheimers and simply pray he was terrified and miserable in the last moments of his life.
Reagan dismantled the mental health institutions which were commonly abusive to patients and featured no objective pathway to release for those committed. They were basically prisons for the mentally ill and undesirable that hadn’t already committed crimes. They did successfully isolate a handful of truly dangerous people though.
The second amendment isn’t what is causing mass shootings. Mass shootings are a recent and regional phenomenon that haven’t existed (or been incredibly rare) in many instances with just as many guns
The 2a doesn’t, or didn’t until 2010, make reasonable gun control outside government legislation.
It was a sharp shift to the constitution first in 2008 at the federal level and then applied to the states under the doctrine of incorporation in 2010.
Gun nuts like to pretend it is some eternal constant, or more likely most of them simply don’t know the law here and are just parroting the gun lobby take on things, but it’s a straightforward fact that the individualized right to own guns didn’t even really exist until 2008 and the near complete inability to pass any gun laws didn’t exist until 2010.
The 2a was reinterpreted very recently. Before 2008 it wasn’t well defined and most assumed the bit about militias had something to do with it. Scalia basically is the one who decided to edit out that part of the constitution by calling it a preamble, which is extremely against the fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation which is to assume every word was written for a reason.
And for the record I like guns and am for gun policies that allow sane and healthy adults to have guns.
I have been to a lot of gun shows in my day and for all I know, what you wrote might be the modern legal argument or whatever as far as libs on the joke of our SCOTUS; but I can personally vouch for the absolutely confirmed existence of insane “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” gun libertarians, sov cits, white supremacy, tree of liberty watered with the blood of the patriot, cult compound guys since at least the 70s, and undoubtedly before that, and I’ve seen the typewritten manifestos to prove it.
If anything the 2A guys are WAY more moderate than they used to be. The old guard of rednecks before my time all had a bunch of basically illegal shit that was grandfathered into being quasi legal, not because it was a good idea, but because the ATF didn’t feel like losing all their field agents.
Could not disagree more with what you said. Reagan doing a heel turn on his nut job electorate and dramatically restricting gun rights as governor because of the black panthers is def peak radicalized shit for libertarians working their way into a more coherent political systems theory, though.
I didn’t say anything about Reagan. If you are saying “Fuck Reagan” then we don’t disagree about anything important so far as Reagan is concerned.
As for it not being a legal right in the USA that’s a straightforward fact. It was DC vs. Heller, a 2008 case where a Washington DC law was found to be unconstitutional which is the first case where such a law restricting access to handguns was found to be unconstitutional. There were plenty such laws prior to 2008 that survived legal challenges which is what proves the legal right to own a gun didn’t exist prior. But in 2008 the Supreme Court stated the law was unconstitutional at the federal level (DC being a federal district) establishing an individualized right to guns for the first time.
And it was in 2010 that this was extended to additionally restrict the law making power of states, in addition to the federal government, since by default the constitution is understood to restrict the federal government and not the states, but the poorly defined legal doctrine of “incorporation” basically says some bits are applied to restrict states as well.
In the sense of having an individualized legal right to own a gun, prior to 2008 it didn’t exist.
As for ruby ridge types saying shall not be infringed sure, I’m sure many of them advocated the maximalist interpretation way back when that the courts later adopted in 2008, but up until at least the late 90s the idea that weapons could be regulated wasn’t even controversial and the maximalist position could then be called mostly fringe and was only just beginning to emerge as a position a suit wearing serious legal professional would advocate. Bill Clinton banned a bunch of them in 1994 and no one really blinked an eye at the constitutionality of it and the federal assault weapon ban of 1994 survived legal challenges that it definitely would not have survived after 2008 and DC vs. Heller.
The NRA became a lot more activist in the 80s and 90s and really it was their activism that pushed the once-fringe idea that the constitution required largely unrestricted access to weapons into the mainstream.
Which requires editing out an entire sentence by calling it a prefatory clause, a preamble, which flies in the face of the fundamentals of constitutional interpretation which requires the assumption that each word was written for a reason.
I think we live in very different worlds. People absolutely lost their shit over Clinton’s bans.
Legal interpretation doesn’t always match up to what people see as their right and how aggressively they will enforce that right until the courts catch up to where they are. You’re saying it happened with guns and we all just saw it happen with the religious extremists that run this country and abortion.
Unfortunately, this the correct way to view the legal system, as a means to an end that can be lobbied or bullied into getting what you want. Even more unfortunately, liberals view it as inviolable holy scripture handed down by God that must be honored regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Seeing it as your right, having an expectation that it should be a right, isn’t the same as being a legal right though.
You could have said you disagreed with the court but unless you’re sitting on that court you can disagree all you want and it actually just doesn’t mean anything in terms of changing the reality that it’s not up to you what legal rights are or how the constitution is interpreted because that’s what the Supreme Court is for - and it says so in the constitution.
A legal right is a constructed and formal concept. A legal right simply does not exist unless the courts say it does even if you strongly feel it should exist. That’s what I’m saying.
And since 2008 that legal right has existed but before then it simply didn’t.
And I’m not a liberal man. I’m not even anti-guns.
I am a progressive and you probably view the terms progressive and liberal as synonyms but they aren’t.
In fact youre the one who is appealing to an idealism here, and in that sense you’re more of a liberal than I am even if I’m closer to them in the sense or being a progressive. You’re pointing to a right existing in some almost metaphysical sense, ie you’re saying that because people felt it should be a right you’re saying it in some sense existed. Which is liberal idealism.
Look, we probably aren’t actually very far in terms of what we think sensible gun policy should be since I think if you’re in Montana or whatever then yeah sure a rifle makes a lot of sense and can be a lot of fun and you pointed to the more modern and moderate 2a types which probably places you actually not far from me in terms of what we would agree sensible gun laws could be.
What I said is that the legal right to own a gun was created in 2008 and that is a straightforward fact. It’s DC vs. Heller. 2008. Look it up if you want to. Going on about how some people really felt it should be a right before then doesn’t change that, and it is also a fact that if you were to ask a mainstream legal scholar in the 80s or early to mid 90s you would have to look into some pretty partisan political camps to find someone who would have advocated the current interpretation that was established recently in 2008.
But of course since the late 90s and certainly in the late 2000s you can find a lot of them. That’s also a fact.
On the off chance this question was asked in earnest:
The typical deflection from the US right is that the real problem is that we need to put more effort into addressing mental health. (and IMO there is some truth to that)
However, Reagan (R) dismantled funding for our mental health infrastructure and was responsible for the closing of many mental health treatment centers, and Republicans since then have (to my knowledge) voted against every effort to resurrect it.
They won't support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won't support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
The system is fucked and lacks funding, oh well let’s throw it out. Regan was okay with this because he, and almost all politicians, don’t have to live amidst it. I’m not a fan of electing people who say “it doesn’t work and it doesn’t have a chance of working so let’s not do anything about it”.
There are plenty of examples of systems that work, if ours doesn’t work then I expect elected officials to do something about it, not spit into the wind.
Dismissing the issue as saying all mental health institutions were shit back then and he got rid of them for good reasons is just as bad as saying mass shooters issue is mental health not guns. You’re hiding behind the obvious solutions. Manage the amount of access to guns, especially for people with mental health problems. Put funding, work, policies, mandates into those mental institutions, don’t just fucking get rid of them who the fuck is that gonna help in the end?
The Second Amendment is possibly one of the most frequently and wilfully misinterpreted pieces of writing in the history of humanity. Right next to the bible.
I don’t mean to be all “BuT iT’s cLOseD SoURce” but you should give Logseq or Zettlr a try. They’re similar WYSIWYG markdown editors, but also FOSS. Zettlr also has vim keys.
Thanks for the suggestions, I’m actually checking a couple new editors out as i’m looking for an alternative to OneNote. Just started messing with this one, but i’m not sure if i’ll settle for it yet.
Also not a fan about the closed source thing, but I like about Obsidian that it’s all just markdown. If I ever need to ditch it, I can keep and use my existing files as they are.
Would this also be possible with Zettlr or Logseq?
I don’t know about Zettlr, but last I looked at Logseq it worked off markdown files similar to Obsidian.
That said, I felt Logseq wasn’t quite ready for prime time when I was doing my research a year or so ago. So I went with Obsidian and have been very happy with it.
There’s nothing there that really strikes me as disingenuous or bad. If they wanna be closed source, they can be, for whatever reason(s) they want. Does it mean a number of people (me included) are less likely to use it? Yes. But outside of our bubble here, most people don’t care about open vs closed source software.
Open source doesn’t guarantee safety without specific (and expensive) third party audits.
This one is debatable. Without expert eyes, open source code doesn’t do much to guarantee safety. Expert eyes aren’t necessarily expensive, but for non-super-popular projects, they are hard to entice. Can you spot a cross site request forgery attack vector at a glance? Have you used open source software without checking for this specific attack vector in all relevant code? So, as stated, this is basically true.
Open source doesn’t mean faster development. Code review often takes longer than development.
This is true. You need those experts from point one to check if contributed code introduces security vulnerabilities. Code is work^2. Work to write and work to review. (Also work to maintain, so work^3, but whatever.)
Open source projects don’t last forever.
This seems false, but is phrased super oddly. I mean, nothing lasts forever, so sure, but open source code is essentially available for as long as someone is interested in it enough to preserve it, so I would generally disagree.
Open source requires a lot of extra effort, and the developers would rather put that effort into the app itself.
This is unambiguously true. I maintain several fairly popular open source libraries, and they take work. I also see the benefit in maintaining them as open source projects, but that is my own discretion, as a fan of open source software. If I were more worried about profit, I could definitely see this as a barrier to releasing my code as open source, considering I need to pay those engineers for the work they do just maintaining the project as an open source project.
This is also not to be confused with a source-available project, where the source code is freely available, but not necessarily under an open source license, which can be much easier to maintain.
I was about to comment that their website also claims “legitimate interest” to create a personalised ad profile on me, before I realised that that is not the official Obsidian website. But yeah, the stated reasons are dumb.
It’s extra work they don’t totally see the value in and they want to be able to sell their product? Those seem like pretty normal reasons not to maintain an open source project.
Even if you don’t accept PRs, you’ll get people who want you to. Having the source open will generate a good amount of support email that is about modifications to your code. People can’t help it.
They also want to be able to support their families by making money through the Obsidian application, which could be more difficult in an open source environment.
This is the only one that seems really legit to me. That and the other commenter that said open source is more work, which is probably true, and if you’re not getting benefit it could be a net loss.
I tumbled across Zettlr when I was looking at maybe replacing Zim for my homebrew TTRPG games at the table. I use DokuWiki online. I ran my Star Wars game through it. Pretty impressive.
Edit: I tested Logseq. It has the basic functionality down, so for many it might be great. For me, though, it doesn’t come close to what is possible with the plugins of Obsidian. So for now I’ll stick with Obsidian.
Would love to but I’m not going to pay a subscription for sync (one time would be ok), or have my data on a random aws instance. And last time I checked there is no plugin for your own self defined sync storage like Nextcloud. Once there is, I’m having a go.
I may need to add, that I use Obsidian across Win/Linux/iOS/macOS via remotely save. the sync solution needs to be able to work on all platforms. Logseq doesn’t have mobile plugins yet and iOS makes filesystem access a pain.
Coming here to recommend Joplin, been using it for years and it’s a great note app, markdown + external editing supported, open source, CLI & GUI clients, encrypted… Does everything right!
Firstly Joplin is great note taking app and if that is all you want you really should go for it. I used it for years and was really happy.
But Obsidian is far more than just a note app. It like a Wikipedia page, you can add links within the text of your notes to another note. But they are also bi-directional, meaning you can see the incoming and outgoing links.
Making easy to use the related notes instead of just link to it. Sometimes you did not even think this note could use that note information and it shows you can connect them.
Not only that Dataview lets you live index and query your data. Letting me build a template and query that data dynamics.
There’s a table edit plug in that makes it easy. The gripe I have with it is not being able to right-justify numbers (or maybe I haven’t looked close enough)
Zettlr is a great program, but to recommend it while bashing Obsidians table editing seems interesting. I’ve never used Obsidian so I can’t say how good their implementation is, but I know I’ve struggled alot with the Zettlr tables…
I would in theory prefer FOSS. But what is the situation with plugins and themes? Can I use obsidian plugins with any of those? If not, I’m probably not gonna switch.
Anything and everything that politicians propose to protect children, I am automatically against. It doesn’t matter how good it sounds, if they say anything about protecting children, I’m opposed to it.
This is because they know that ‘protect children’ are magic words that let them get away with almost anything, and that’s genuinely about the only time they say that anyway. Basically nothing the government does is actually to protect children.
We had a recreational marijuana referendum in my state and the opposition signs said, “Save the Children.” From what? I have no idea. Unsurprisingly, the vote failed.
Of course, it really helped that the state legislature sued to halt the referendum on grounds of improper procedure which caused the referendum to be put on the ballot as a special election instead of the mid-terms ballot. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, by the way.
The shit some people will do to stop other people from having a good time.
I bought a color brother laser printer 3…almost 4 years ago. It still has the toner that came with it. We use it probably 1-3 times a week. Still going strong. Still plenty of toner left.
Many pilots do this as a means of reducing the costs associated with operating out of areas with high hangar and service costs. This is Northwest of Chicago near Rockford. The about page explains a lot of the obvious questions.
I think SOMA made it pretty clear we’re never uploading jack shit, at best we’re making a copy for whom it’ll feel as if they’ve been uploaded, but the original remains behind as well.
That’s what I’ve always thought more or less, to have a chance you would need a method where mental processing starts to be shared in both, then transfers more and more to the inorganic platform till it’s 100% and the organic isn’t working anymore.
The animated series Pantheon has a scene depicting exactly this, and it’s one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen.
Edit: Here is the scene in question. It’s explained he has to be awake during the procedure because the remaining parts of his brain need to continue functioning in tandem with the parts that have already been scanned.
Interesting but I would argue that’s actually still a destructive copy process. “Old Man’s War” did a good job of what I’m talking about, it was body to clone body but the principal was similar and at the halfway point the person was experiencing existence in both bodies at once, seeing both bodies from the perspective of each other until the transfer completed and they were in the new body and the old slumped over.
That also reminds me of this scene from Invincible where during the copying process their experiences are sort of “blended” making them see from both bodies at once, only here they both live and are separate afterwards.
Edit: is it obvious how much of a sci-fi geek I am lol
You would have to functionally duplicate the exact structure of the brain or its consciousness while having the duplication mechanism destroy the thing it was reading at almost exactly the same time. And even then, that’s not really solving the issue.
I don’t see an issue with that. A prolonged brain surgery that meticulously replaces each part with a mechanical equivalent in sequence. Could probably remain conscious the whole time.
Yeah, but it’s still a Ship of Theseus problem. If you have a ship and replace every single board or plank with a different one, piece by piece, is it still the same ship or a completely different one, albeit an exact replica of the original. It’s important because of philosophical ideas around the existence of the soul and authenticity of the individual and a bunch of other thought-experimenty stuff.
I think so long as you maintain consciousness that issue is fairly null in this particular circumstance. There’s lots of tolerance for changes in thought while maintaining the same self, see many brain damage victims. So long as there is minimal change in personality, there are lots of other circumstances that have a stronger case for killing one person and having a new person replace them due to change of consciousness, imo, I don’t think most people would consider a brain damaged person killed and replaced by a new consciousness, or a drug addiction with radically altered brain chemistry, etc.
Not necessary. Imagine you begin suffering Alzheimer. And the artificial neurons are making a copy of your brain. Once a neuron stops working the backup one replaces it. Your mind, if it worked, could see the new neuron as part of the same brain and work with it seamlessly.
Yeah, like replacing individual braincells with more durable mechanisms. Idk, maybe they would be cellular as well. …that makes me wonder, maybe it is possible to transfer consciousness even with traditional biological mechanism?
Ahh, but here’s the question. Who are you? The you who did the upload, or the you that got uploaded, retaining the memories of everything you did before the upload? Go on, flip that coin.
If you are the version doing the upload, you’re staying behind. The other “you” pops into existence feeling as if THEY are the original, so from their perspective, it’s as if they won the coin flip.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would. The knowledge that “A” me is out there, somewhere, safe and sound, is uplifting, but it’s still quite chilling to realize you are staying wherever the hell you are. At least we die after enough time has passed because our bodies decay.
Is it chilling? I was already going to stay where I am, whether I made a copy or not. Sharding off a replica to go on for me would be strictly better than not doing that
I think it’s both for me, which I think is what you might be saying as well. I would absolutely push the button to create the copy, or whatever, because I think I would derive satisfaction from creating a life (identical to mine, no less) that was free of the circumstance I was in, which must have been dire. However, I definitely don’t consider that instance “me” even if I do consider the copy a legitimate, separate version of “me”, so I don’t feel that I have perpetuated my own instance, leaving me in whatever fight-or-flight terror I was in to cause the scenario in the first place.
What do you mean he wasn’t so lucky, after all he lived out his live in Toronto. That he did a brain scan at some point of his life doesn’t matter. Sucks for the robot who thought he was him.
I was just annoyed at the protagonist for expecting anything else. The exact same thing already happened 2 times to the protagonist (initial copy at beginning of the game, then move to the other suit). Plus it’s reinforced in the found notes for good measure. So by the ending, the player knows exactly what’s going to happen and so should the protagonist, but somehow he’s surprised.
Yeah true. But Catherine said it perfectly at the end. Something like “you still don’t get it? What did you expect?”. The fact that one of his consciousness remains down in the abyss was kind of frightening. All by himself.
Two actually. The one from the before the suit change is also left there, and Catherine said he will wake up in a day or two. Maybe they can meet up actually.
That’s actually not true. When you cut/paste a file on your computer (for most computers), it’s much faster than copying the file. Deleting the file is also not instant, so copy and delete should be the slowest of the three operations.
When you cut and paste a file, you’re just renaming the file or updating the file database. It’s different how that works depending on your file system, but it typically never involves rewriting much of the data of the file.
Only if you copy and paste to the same disk. When copy pasting to a different disk, as any consciousness transfer would entail, it is very much actually copied and actually removed (from the index).
I mean, if I die instantaneously and painlessly, and conciousness is seemingly continuous for the surviving copy, why would I care?
My conciousness might not continue but I lose consciousness every day. Someone exists who is me and lives their (my) life. I totally understand peoples aversion to death but I also don’t see any difference to falling asleep and waking up. You lose consciousness, then a person who’s lived your life and is you regains consciousness. Idk
Yeah, and I completely understand that. Just from a logical perspective though, lets say the process happens after you fall asleep normally at night. If you can’t tell it happened, does it matter? I’ve been really desensitized to the idea of dying through suicidal ideation throughout most of my life (much better now), so I’m able to look at it without the normal emotional aversion to it. If teleportation existed, via this same method, I don’t think I’d have qualms about at least trying it. Certainly wouldn’t expect other people to but to me I don’t think it’s that big a deal. I wouldn’t do a mind upload scenario, but moreso due to a complete lack of trust in system maintenance and security, and a doubt that true conciousness can be achieved digitally. If it’s flesh and blood to flesh and blood though? I’d definitely try
You make a good point. We all might be being copied and deleted in our sleep every night, for all we know.
There’d be no way to know anything even happened to you as long as your memory was copied over to the new address with the rest of you. It would be just a gap in time to us, like a dreamless sleep.
Old post but…if it’s just memory, you’d lose ttauma and other ingrained coping mechanisms, no? There’s no brain to try and fight back against things. Just memories making you…you…? Or not you, if you oose some of your behaviors?
Because the US has several million more people living below a certain level of income, experiencing a daily misery but it’s somewhat excusable because the ratio is smaller.
I dont know the metrics, but I assume poverty means different things in each country. I would think poverty in a second world country means that people are at a state where they have a hard time getting enough food.
I would grant that even if the metrics were measured largely the same way you could argue or even observe that experience would be meaningfully different in some ways.
One of the paintings used as set dressing for the Littles’ home was Hungarian avant-garde painter Róbert Berény’s 1920s painting Sleeping Lady with Black Vase, which had long been considered lost. A set designer for the film had purchased the painting at an antiques store in Pasadena, California, for $500 for use in the film, unaware of its significance. In 2009, art historian Gergely Barki, while watching Stuart Little on television with his daughter, noticed the painting, and after contacting the studios was able to track down its whereabouts.[8] In 2014, its owner sold the painting at an auction for €229,500.[9]
So basically ever since I first tried Windows 7 I held it as the “Gold standard” for desktop OS’s. Half my tweaks to Windows 10 were trying to get it as close to Win7 as I possibly could.
When I finally start experimenting with Linux early this year KDE quickly got me to reconsider my “Gold standard” and finally switch my main machine fully to Linux.
No regrets and certainly ain’t switching back even if Microsoft gave me updated Windows 7 with every extra feature I wanted back then.
I’ve been a Linux user for a decade and a half now, but still use Windows on my corporate laptops. Honestly, it’s baffling how Microsoft seem to consistently manage to miss the mark with the UI design. There’s lots to be said about the underlying internals of Windows vs Linux, performance, kernel design etc., but even at the shallow, end user, “is this thing pleasant to use” stakes, they just never manage to get it right.
Windows 7 was…fine. It was largely inoffensive from a shell point of view, although things about how config and settings were handled were still pretty screwy. But Windows 8 was an absolutely insane approach to UI design, Windows 10 spent an awful lot of energy just trying to de-awful it without throwing the whole thing out, and Windows 11 is missing basic UI features that even Windows 7 had.
When you look at their main commercial competition (Mac and Chromebook) or the big names in Linux (GNOME, KDE, plenty of others besides), they stand out as a company that simply can’t get it right, despite having more resources to throw at it than the rest of them put together.
To me it’s absurd how Microsoft gets beaten by a free desktop environment when windows is like their main product. They have billions of dollars. How do they manage to not do better?
What drives me crazy is how they can’t update all their configuration interface to the same standard, if you go deep enough you still fine things that are unchanged since Windows 98
It seems like a big company’s problem. They have a well-paid design\marketing department that can do whatever they want to create the best-selling interface for the new version of Windows, but before it’s released, no one tested it yet for anything but bugs, and who’d argue with a flock of top designers anyway? Add here the board of directors who are here to sell them ideas and who won’t use it either – I’m sure they applauded to the idea of unifying mobile and desktop experience with WinPhone&Win8, but especially Tablet-Laptop transformers they saw as the future. It sounds great on the paper, right? At that time it could’ve even sounded obvious for their business. And so it happened like it did.
Linux counters it by constant feedback and competition between easily switchable DEs, users being prepared even to jump distros; Apple has a fetish for style and experience (that’s a half of their pricetag), they build their business model about looking and feel nice, so you’d build an ecosystem of their products, you can’t even see error windows here and their garden is gated af; and ChromeOS\Android aren’t shy of looking what others do (like iPhone’s design findings) and conservatively taking what works, also having tons of vendor-created restyles\forks on their own platform as a testing ground for new ideas to make them then a standard. MS lack all of it, and their creative process is guided by external interests and ideals, it’s just an afterthought. And as they have their stable market share, they probably won’t even care. It took whole internet’s screams to return their traditional start menu in win8.1, then w10.
That’d probably stay the same until their new CEO would happen to be an art college graduate - like the current one pushed for accessebility and building special controllers because she has a child with a disability. A top-down signal. I won’t bet on it anytime soon.
The fact that Windows 11 has removed the ability to move the taskbar and has no intention of adding it back is just baffling to me. It’s a small thing but so jarring every time I try to use it that I’ve barely used my desktop in the last few months.
Haha, I remember buying Mandrake Linux CDs… I’m a FreeBSD user these days (for the past 20-odd years) but still run KDE. Plus they’re still trying to remain fairly *nix agnostic which is nice.
I hate to say this, because I know how cringe it is, but… Windows 7 actually removed a lot of features that made Windows fun. And yeah, I’m talking about ricing and I’m unironically saying ricing is valid.
The mid 2000s was an awesome time to be in the ricing community - between litestep, blackbox, foobar2k, rainlendar/rainmeter etc, you could actually make your experience look however you wanted.
And, litestep in particular, for me, was a gateway drug to openbox and therefore Linux - when you finally hit The Windows Wall, where, to go any further, you had to step into Linux, Ubuntu was there, and then Mint, and then…idr what.
I still have my 2007 Ubuntu installation cd that they mailed to me for free. Sure, you could just make your own installation cd rom, but, if you couldn’t, they would happily mail you one - or, as in my case, you felt motivated to evangelize, they’d send you a bunch that you could give out to people. I gave mine to friends and left some others at the local anarchist bookstore (I don’t remember the name of it but this was Washington DC just north of Chinatown).
Windows 7 was a big step backwards. You could still do a lot of ricing, but less - and it was very clear from the direction that Windows 7 went, that whatever came next would be worse.
Idk if I would say it’s looks > usability, and it’s certainly not gaudy… There are theming styles that are much more unusable and gaudy than the “riced” look.
It’s an aesthetic that idealizes a kind of barebones utility, and while it often will lean towards the look over the usability, the look itself is like a “beautiful utilitarian” - minimalistic, uncluttered, etc.
Oh shit, I remember LiteStep and spending hours and hours to just fiddle with how my desktop looked. I personally felt Windows 2000 was the pinnacle of MS OSs (except so many games etc. wouldn’t run because rightly the OS reported it was Windows NT and a lot of games shat themselves at that)
This is unironically how i judge if someone is a decent person. It costs you nothing, and requires minimum effort, and yet most people I meet just can’t be bothered. I don’t even work in retail, nor have I ever, but it just annoys the hell outta me that people are that inconsiderate. It’s not like Sam Walton himself is asking you to put the cart away for him. When you don’t do it some minimum wage employee has to chase them down. You’re not better than them. You’re capable of doing the minimal task asked of you.
As previously stated, I’ve met way to many people like this. Pox on the Earth. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
No one will kill you, but I might call you a cunt-muffin to your face. And you can’t even complain to anyone about it because when you tack muffin on the end it sounds sort of cute and you sound like even more of a cunt-muffin for complaining. Ya cunt-muffin.
I don’t think anyone will confront you about such things where I live or where anon lives. So there isn’t even that incentive. Someone might look at you disapprovingly, but more likely they’re just condemning you in private without showing it.
One incentive used to be to get your money back, but nowadays many are unlocked.
What if I’m in a rush? Also, as a customer, the carts and the people that gather the carts are part of the convenience of shopping quickly at the store. I return the cart when it’s not an inconvenience.
It takes two minutes at most to return a cart. If you’re that short on time, plan better. Also returning carts is not just for the convenience of the staff, it also prevents carts from blocking spaces and damaging cars.
There are interim places that are out of the way of spots, like little islands where lampposts are mounted. The fact of the matter is that most lots don’t have enough corrales.
You might be able to make time to putz around the parking lot, but I keep busy. This is not a time management issue.
I don’t drive a car. I drive a truck. I take up multiple spots if it’s convenient and won’t ruffle anyone’s feathers. Today, someone tried to race ahead of me on a merge where they were in the right lane and I didn’t let them. They remind me of your sentiment. I could somehow let the person from the right lane cut in front of me by jamming on my breaks, but their place is clearly behind me in the right lane yielding to merge into my main lane. I am the main lane story, the cart boy is a supporting NPC.
Oh trust me. I’m a character. Some may call it a narcissistic personality, but I don’t like to put just one label on things. As far as I’m concerned, this is a simulation whereby the universe and I likely came into existence at the same time. You too may be an NPC. The simulators have the resolution up high. Others in newer universes might look at mine though and think it’s pixilated, but there is no way to tell because this is all that I have to work with.
I worked in retail as a college summer job and someone let their cart loose and it cracked a light on my car. The security tapes confirmed it. I was parked way off to the side with the other employees and the cart gained some momentum on its way.
Another similar test is when someone changes their mind on buying something if they return it to its original spot or just dump it on a random shelf. This is another thing that I really hated dealing with in retail.
I used to work in retail, and I looked forward to doing cart-cleanup because it meant I’d have a few minutes where I didn’t have to deal with customers but I was still getting paid. Returning shopping carts was the least stressful part of my day and I wished I could do it more.
I think the same word by word. Sorry, but I have to ask, are you dating someone? Somehow all the people I have dated don’t give a F about returning the cart back and then it shows later on in bad mannerisms. I wonder, where do I find people that return their car back in its right place!
This is also unironically a good way to get more comfortable spontaneously speaking a language you’re learning. Don’t know the word for refrigerator? Cold food box. Don’t know how to say yawn? Tired sound. Etc. You’ll be more or less understandable and people will probably tell you the word you need when they figure out what you mean.
Toki Pona is overdoing it, but it’s also how Esperanto is doing it: fridujo = cold-container. Also German, now you’re mentioning it: Kühlschrank = cold-cabinet.
Yep. I don’t speak Spanish. Learned all my extremely limited Spanish in restaurant kitchens. When I walk my dogs, and one of the many Spanish speaking Mexicans that lives nearby looks nervous, I tell them, “Perro es bueno por hombre. Perro es no bueno por otra Perro.” They understand what I mean even though I just butchered that sentence.
lemmy.ml
Top