To each their own, motivations for veganism vary vastly. My dad was hardcore vegan for over 25 years and never ever did he care about animals or the environment. He was vegan out of (for a lack of a better term) health beliefs. Nowadays he eats mussels and raw cheese and egg yolks.
No one forces you to update. People simply choose to run an OS where automatic updates are the default.
And that OS also lets you permanently disable automatic updates. It just doesn’t give you a straight-forward GUI option for it.
Critically wrong in this case. Crowdstrike updates push outside of, and regardless of, os settings. This wasn’t, and never was, an os issue, it’s a crowdstrike issue. Good try though.
Believe it or not, CrowdStrike’s model forces updates and people pay a lot of money for it to “handle things” for them. I had to deploy it at a previous employer about 8 years ago. It was stupid.
Problem is, an individual computer user often isn’t the victim of that computer’s lack of updates.
Any time a site you like has been DDOSed, it’s often from thousands of zombie computers infected by some malware that their owners aren’t aware of. Those infections are generally made possible by unclosed security holes. So, you know…not updating.
I’m fine being part of a botnet if that’s the trade off for not using windows 11. Just got it installed on my testing PC at work and I hate it so much.
You really don’t understand how many millions of hours of human effort force updates have destroyed.
Yes, there should always be, ESPECIALLY IN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, a point where the client can vet and approve the update.
This recent Crowdstrike problem is proof of it. You LITERALLY witnessed proof as 1/4 of the world basically shut down for the day. This would have been avoided in many cases if the update was vetted by the local IT teams.
So CrowdStrike shouldn’t allow real time threat protection? That’s what caused the issue. It needs to update its threat library to do deal with any day 1 attacks. It’s one of the main reasons it’s used
Ice is a mineral. So molten ice, i.e. water, is lava. Humans are mostly made of water, much more than they are made of DNA. So you are more molten rock than you are genetic material. And people are some sort of water golem.
Static, low-js, HTML tags used-as-intended, some basic CSS for formatting, responsivity and dark/light. Modern-looking accessible webpage from scratch done in half a day.
If we assume “half a day” is 4 hours, and 500 pounds. That’s 125 pounds per hour. Which isn’t the worst rate. Assuming it’s actually capped at 4 hours and we all know that if it’s your dad’s friend, this is not going to be a set and forget kind of thing. So that 4 hours quickly becomes 10. And suddenly you’re down to 50 pounds per hour. And then if it’s actually static and simple and good, you still have high odds of getting insane feedback demanding changes to make it worse. A motherfucking website would actually be the best option, but wouldn’t get you paid. At that point youre just doing it for the lols.
But ultimately, this isn’t even about the rate or how much time this will take. this whole scenario depends heavily on the son here. Is the son unemployed and living in dad’s basement for free? Then yeah. Sorry, he should probably take any work he can get for any rate he can get. His dad gets a lot more say in how things work financially if the son is relying on him financially. But if the son is already working a full time job and living in his own house? Then no, I don’t care what the rate is. Don’t commandeer other people’s time. Don’t make deals that people haven’t agreed to. Come to me with opportunities, not demands.
You’re not wrong, but a lot of time those webpages aren’t overengineered because the developer wanted it to be, but because the client kept making more and more demands.
The irony of some dude trying to prove a point that a website doesn’t need to be bloated and burdened with all the design and fancy scripts, just for other people to incrementally built on top of that idea, one-upping each other in the process, mimicking the exact evolution of the modern bloated website as we know it.
Honestly I hate the fact that browsers’ default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their “default” CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn’t look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser’s CSS, and I as a developer shouldn’t have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.
Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style…
The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress…
Hey! I made this content and was made aware of Lemmy by a friend two days ago. I decided to join and wanted to enter with a bang by sharing some of my OC.
Yep, those awful vegans pushing their agenda for their own gains. Make ME aware of MY CHOICE to pay for animal abuse and torture?! Blatant manipulation!
Exactly! My ancestors didnt pay for slavery, they just wanted cotton. Everyone need cotton, right? I mean they wouldve harvested the cotton themselves, but it was way cheaper from neighboring farmers for whatever reason. That didnt concern them though, they had enough prpblems!
Please dont twist my words. I didnt compare anything. And if I did, I would have compared animal cruelty with slavery (both as unethical acts), not animals with slaves (the recipients of cruelty).
Good point, but I never said they were the same, nor did I compare them. I just made an argument about passive involvement in unethical doings which some regard as normal.
Did you really just call stuffing 10 pigs in a cell smaller than my toilet, leaving them unable to even turn around, feeding them with drugs and then killing them without ever having seen the sun ‘nature playing out’? Good one.
I really don’t see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That’s what the meme is getting at.
Nature playing out
Why is this an argument, when it isn’t an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.
One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn’t perfect.
i’m stating facts, and you concede those facts, and then claim i’m arguing in bad faith. you don’t know what that means: your accusation of bad faith is, itself bad faith.
You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.
I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.
Strictly speaking, that question is invalid, as a rock has no genetic material. It’s like saying “You’re more similar in color to sand than to mathematics.”
lemmy.world
Hot