I tend to agree, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve got a bit less strict with thinking all religious people are idiots.
But I’m still pretty fervently of the mind that dogmatic monotheism is honestly one of the — if not the — worst thing that happened to humanity.
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
Similar mindset for me. You can have your religion, I don’t care.
But like masturbation, keep it private or with specific loved ones, keep it out of politics, or any public sector, and DEFINITELY keep it away from kids since they can’t consent.
The silliest thing is that even YHWH was once but one of the Israelites’ many gods. He just slowly ate away at their pantheon until there was nothing left but anger and jealousy.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve done the opposite! If they think there are any gods at all, then they make important decisions without evidence. That always spills over into more physical concerns, like climate change.
Maybe that is what we need to do. “Decide” on certain moral questions based on best scientific data and our values and sound arguments and then stop debating them. Unless new scientific evidence challenges those moral edicts.
Somehow we keep going round in circles as a civilization.
But srsly, the person you replied to needs to understand just how slippery of a slope his argument is. There’s no such thing as 100% objective morality.
Maybe not, maybe there is an infinity of variation of objective morality. There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree. But the vast majority, like 95% of people would agree for example on the universal human rights - at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed. Basically given the options of a variety of moralities and the right circumstances (safety/not in danger, modicum of prosperity, education) you would get an overwhelming consensus on a large basis of human rights or “truths”. The argument would be that just because a complex machine is forever running badly, that there still can be an inherent objective ideal of how it should run, even if perfection isn’t desirable or the machine and ideal has to be constantly improved.
There is another way to argue for a moral starting point: A civilization that is on the way to annihilate itself is “doing something wrong” - because any ideology or morality that argues for annihilation (even if that is not the intention, but the likely outcome) is at the very least nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself. You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless. So any ideology or philosophy that “accidentally” leads to extermination is nonsensical at least to a degree. There would still be an infinity of possible configurations for a civilization that “works” in that sense, but at least you can exclude another infinity of nonsense.
“Who watches the watchers” is of course the big practical problem because any system so far has always been corrupted over time - objectively perverted from the original setup and intended outcome. But that does not mean that it cannot be solved or at least improved. A basic problem is that those who desire power/money above all else and prioritize and focus solely on the maximization of those two are statistically most likely to achieve it. That is adapted or natural sociopathy. We do not really have much words or thoughts about this and completely ignore it in our systems. But you could design government systems that rely on pure random sampling of the population (a “randocracy”). This could eliminate many of the political selection filtering and biases and manipulation. But there seems very little discussion on how to improve our democracies.
Another rather hypothetical argument could come from scientific observation of other intelligent (alien) civilizations. Just like certain physical phenomena like stars, planets, organic life are naturally emergent from physical laws, philosophical and moral laws could naturally emerge from intelligent life (e.g. curiosity, education, rules to allow stability and advancement). Unfortunately it would take a million years for any scientific studies on that to conclude.
It is quite possible that it’s too late now, or practically impossible to advance our social progress because of the current overwhelming forces at work in our civilization.
Having objectivity in our system doesn’t mean our morals are based on objective things.
Is it objectively wrong to kill?
You can’t answer that with a “yes” or “no”, because it depends so much on the subjective situation.
Also, arguments which you say “like, uh, 95% of people”, by guessing kinda devalue your whole comment. You dot need to not write what you were thinking, but instead say something like “they may not be completely objective, but our subjective views are so similar that practically we do have objective morality in certain contexts”.
Which would be true.
The “95% of people believe in basic human rights” isn’t. Utterly naive.
I’m not arguing for “one single 100% objective morality”. I’m arguing for social progress - maybe towards one of an infinite number of meaningful, functioning moralities that are objectively better than what we have now. Like optimizing or approximating a function that we know has no precise solution.
And “objective” can’t mean some kind of ground truth by e.g. a divine creator. But you can have objective statistical measurements for example about happiness or suffering, or have an objective determination if something is likely to lead to extinction or not.
There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree […]
And dismissing their way of perceiving the world is a choice which we make, not an objective mandate or imperative. We do it because the benefits to us (“normal people”) seem to outweight the loses.
[…] at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
[…] nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself […]
Which is a judgement call you’ve externalized, again not an objective reality. You have chosen to believe that meaning is important, that self-destruction is bad. There’s nothing in the universe that inherently holds this as being true. Whether one person or one billion people choose to believe something as true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.
You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I’m arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I’m arguing against postmodernism / materialism.
For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it’s not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says “can it”.
I’m not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?
If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or “nonsense”.
I seem to recall seeing a video or reading an article where they mention that the media turned antifa into a sort of separate word to warp its meaning. Instead of saying anti fascist, which has a clear meaning, they shortened it and changed the pronunciation ‘an teefa’ (something to do with which syllable you emphasise) so they could distort its meani g and demonise the word to make people think it was bad.
So now people dont realise antifa means anti fascist which is surely a good thing to be, and instead, they fear antifa as some kind of terrorist group, which is almost the opposite of what it is.
The funny thing is, as an outsider to this, living in the UK, our media doesn’t ever use the term, and when i heard it, my instinct was to look up its meaning. It’s interesting to me that i won’t know if i would have fallen for it if the media were using it in the same way over here to lead my understanding of its definition
I think Antifa actually started in the UK even before the Nazi’s. Eh actually not but they did fight against fascists in the UK as early as 1930.
The reason why we need antifa and why it’s hated by the mainstream is because the establishment is notoriously bad at stopping fascism. There is a long history of it. So besides liberal antifa that uses legal means like suing the KKK out of existence, the autonomous antifa is actually needed for the continued working of our democracy.
Afaik, the first Antifa were a coalition of left wing groups in Italy fighting fascists in the 1920s. They didn’t necessarily use the term but they were the first active anti-fascists so that counts in my book 🤷
As a side note, they were left to fight both the fascists and the royalists alone, since the Italian Liberals refused to get involved until it was clear who would win and then joined the fascists.
I think that is the lesson, liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests (bourgeois). So we actually rely on antifa as a social force. Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it. At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
liberals do not effectively fight against fascism because they are too desiring of orderly and calm and polite politics and too much powered by economic interests
Absolutely 100% correct.
So we actually rely on antifa as a social force.
We need to, yes.
Neither the state nor the liberals will fight against it.
Right you are again!
At least that is my limited understanding of it, since this is never discussed about in mainstream media.
Seems to me you understand it perfectly but yeah, the mainstream media is for-profit and owned by billionaires who are often friends with or at least have common interests with the fascists, so they have very logical, if despicable, reasons to be hands-off about it.
Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion) under that name started in 1932 as action by the KPD to organise widest possible front against the nazis, in the face of SPD as a party being very reluctant to act against nazis. Many SPD members did joined, but as we know, their own party in reichstag made that futile.
Of course antifascist resistance is about as old as fascism or even older considering protofascists activity even before Mussolini coined the term, but the name itself is from 1932 KPD.
They have a constant and desperate effort to invent words they can’t define that categorize their blind rage since they’re not allowed to say one that starts with N. “Woke” is the newest one.
Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
And you know how.his followers hang on his every word. I mean, he literally incited a riot/assault on capitol.
I see your point, but i dont see how the old news being taken over by internet news changes who is in control of the narrative. I also dont think i was referring to any kind of “secret cabal.”
I was only saying that i heard or read somewhere that antifa was demonised in the media, and thats why so many think they are terrorists. If you ask most americans what antifa means, they don’t know. They only know the abbreviation ‘antifa’ and that they are scared of it.
Nope. Youtube ads are served from the same domains as the videos so there is nothing you can to to block them via DNS. Your best bet is just installing Ublock for them. Now a days an ad blocker is a security necessity anyways.
Installing uBlock is so quick, all you need is 30 seconds of their consent to lean over their shoulder and install it. The whole process can be faster than the actual ad break, in some cases.
Doesn’t really work for all “embedded” devices, though. Phones, consoles, sticks, etc. all come with their own apps and there’s unfortunately not always a reasonable way to install solutions there.
I actually really like the unified remote app. It lets you use your phone as a remote for any computer on the same network. I think the premium version just lets you link more computers otherwise the free version is just as good.
It does not. Domain based blocking does not work with youtube.
Your link event says it:
Some ads may […] be served through the same domain as the website, making them harder to block without blocking the website itself.
There is no point in using a proxy for this, because of https it won’t be able to block more than with DNS blocking. Maybe a tiny bit more if you set up mitm but that’s really not worth it.
Setting aside the polarized nature of named generations, as a class; for these are entirely arbitrary and designed to create polarization …
There’s fun theory on the “Gen X are forgotten” meme. Yes yes, you Gen Xers got shafted, here’s a cookie 🍪 Please hear me out.
Most people fall on the cusps of their “generation” and Gen X is no different - in this case, you’re either old enough to identify with boomers, and are shouting “snowflake millennial” with them; or you’re young enough to identify with millennials, but still too old to identify with Gen Z, so you’re shouting “cringe zoomer” with the millennials, they who are cuspers themselves and too old to identify with Gen Z. The quintessential Gen Xer is uncommon, but exceptionally kind. You always know when one is around though, because they are quick with a self deprecation point out that Gen X was “forgotten again.” 😉
The sad thing is that many of the so-called boomers are being replaced by Gen Xers. And the millennials shouting the same inter-generational slurs will eventually take the throne of generational bully.
On the other hand, there is hope inspired by this meme - all we need to do to stop inter-generational trauma is stop perpetrating it.
Gen-X is a much smaller group than either Boomers or Millennials. It is treated differently mostly because of this. I don’t think we’re going to start treating Gen-X as the bully, because it just doesn’t have the numbers to be an effective bully
The only millennials I give a shit about are the ones who made my life painful as they entered the working world and even then, away from the office as long as they are not trying to police speech we are chill.
The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.
Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist
Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.
The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.
No problem. I just thought it was an important distinction because an anarchist country cannot exist by definition, while there is nothing in the definition of incel that requires them to be misogynistic. Though considering how meaning of words change over time, you could make the case that by the modern way we use the word incel, we don’t mean to include all who are involuntarily celibate, but only the toxic people who blame their situation on external factors. Even then, there surely are at least a handful of gay incels who blame other men for not being interested in them, and therefore wouldn’t be necessarily misogynistic.
Lol I could if I was desperate to be right but I think I used the wrong word to describe what I intended and you can clearly see that. It’s so difficult to pin down meaning on culturally developing words just due to how fluid languages can be. I intended for it to be a clear-cut example of things that can’t exist but you’ve clearly shown it isn’t so clear cut.
Yeah, it’s not easy to come up with something that is absolute like that, and also make it immediately understandable to a wide audience without needing to explain it.
For example I can say “an anarchist country is like saying an unarmed interstellar spaceship”, a lot of people wouldn’t know that it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship, so this defeats the purpose of the comparison because it requires an additional explanation.
I can’t think of any example right now that is absolute and that is also ubiquitous knowledge to be immediately understood without relying of specialised interest knowledge or explanation…
it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship
Since this subthread had already stepped into the realm of sidetracked internet debate, I’d like to challenge that claim.
I understand that the reasoning behind this statement is that interstellar travel requires some properties that disqualify the ship from being considered “unarmed”:
Interstellar travel requires ridiculous speed, which makes the ship itself a kinetic weapon.
The ship will need formidable defensive mechanism to survive cosmic radiation and impact with particles at the speed it is traveling.
I see two problems with this argument:
The spaceship could use some sort of FTL travel, which may or may not bypass these requirements entirely.
Regular cars have enough kinetic energy to kill people, and they are reinforced to a certain degree so that they won’t break from the strains of the speeds they travel in. Would you also say that it is impossible to have an unarmed car? One could certainly make such a claim, but that kind of drains the meaning out of the term “unarmed”…
About cars, road injuries are responsible for about 1.2 million deaths per year, they are extremely dangerous death machines, so I think it is reasonable to say that a car can’t be unarmed, though I agree that it would stretch it. By that definition, a large wrench can be a weapon, so I am hesitant to just call anything that can be used as a tool for violence as a weapon, because almost anything can be… I have a pretty heavy keyboard which could be used as a weapon if I really wanted to.
If you consider a weapon as an instrument that increases the attack potency or range of the wielder, a car is certainly can be used as a weapon… We even require people to have a license because of how dangerous they are, just like weapons.
If you consider only something that was designed for the purpose of increasing the attack potency or range of the wielder, then a car isn’t one. It all boils down to how you define a weapon.
And about the FTL thing, assuming it is possible, I can still think of a couple of ways any relativistic/FTL ship can be used as a weapon even without using it’s kinetic energy for impacts.
Blue shift of electromagnetic radiation. If you are getting closer to the target at either relativistic or FTL speeds and you release electromagnetic radiation (not necessarily visible light, even a powerful radio, which I’d imagine all interstellar ships would need in order to communicate over enormous distances), or even just a regular thruster… the blue shift would turn it into extremely lethal, short wavelength, somewhere in the deep X ray.
If the FTL system works by stretching and compressing spacetime around it to travel distances with some kind of field… It would be theoretically possible to asymmetrically stretch space in a way that would wreck a target’s structural integrity, and depending how aggressive you can take it, go full blown spaghettification like black holes do.
My point about the FTL thing is that this question is in the realm of science fiction. Sci-fi authors can come up with whatever physics they want, and in real life we are so far from being able to do it that we can’t tell how it’d look like. So I wouldn’t rule out that it’d be based on some physical principles that allow a non-weaponizable spaceships.
Regarding the comparison to cars - I agree that it all depends on definition, but while there is some merit to the philosophy that “there are no wrong definitions” - bad definitions are certainly a thing. And a definition of “weapon” that includes regular cars is a bad one, because it misses out the important distinction between regular cars and armored vehicles with mounted guns.
And as for cars, like I said earlier, I am pretty much on the fence about it. I think we can look back into prehistoric times when people would throw rocks, and I think that it’s fair to say that these rocks were also weapons, but not that every rock is a weapon, but any rock can be a weapon if someone grabs it.
The same can be said for a spaceship; even if it isn’t it’s primary purpose, much like the rock, it has a high potential for destruction that can’t be ignored. A single interstellar spaceship probably has enough energy to boil all the water on earth without even pushing it.
it has a high potential for destruction that can’t be ignored.
I agree about that part, but only from a modern human’s perspective. We don’t have interstellar spaceships (even intrastellar travel is still a huge feat for humanity as a collective) so if such a spaceship from an alien civilization arrives here tomorrow, even if it’s a civilian one that was never intended to be a weapon - its operators could still cause us tremendous damage if they decide to use its power against us.
But let’s go back to cars. If you take a regular car to a small village of some lost tribe completely detached from civilization (for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the ground is flat enough and solid enough to drive), you could probably use it to destroy the village. Take the same car to a modern city - and while you can still cause damage with it, it wouldn’t be as devastating since they know how to deal with cars and have the infrastructures and rules to safely deal with them. Bring a tank, however, and it’d be a different story.
I imagine a type 3 civilization would know how to deal with interstellar vehicles. Bring such a spaceship to one of its outposts - and it won’t be considered a weapon. Unless, of course, it happens to be one that’s actually designed to be a weapon.
Take the same car to a modern city - and while you can still cause damage with it, it wouldn’t be as devastating since they know how to deal with cars and have the infrastructures and rules to safely deal with them. Bring a tank, however, and it’d be a different story.
Just because a tank is a more powerful weapon than a car doesn’t invalidates a car as a weapon. You can take a brick and go on a smashing spree in a populated city, and they will stop you fairly quickly, take a machine gun and you will be able to hurt a lot more people with it. That doesn’t mean the brick isn’t a weapon when someone uses it to kill people, it’s just a different level of weapon.
And yes, a K3 civilization will not consider a 10^15 watt ship trying to attack it as an existential threat like a sub K1 civilisation will, but a modern military won’t find a guy with bow and arrow as a threat (unless he is Rambo), still, a bow is a weapon regardless. It won’t win a war, but it can still kill.
A bow is usually considered a weapon while a car isn’t, but the car has much more destructive power than the bow. It’s not the destructive power that makes something a weapon.
And a soft piece of sponge is also a weapon when you force it in someone’s throat. If you define “weapon” like this, almost anything is a weapon. You lose the distinction between a bow that was designed for killing and a brick which was designed for building.
But more importantly - if everything can be a weapon when used as such, then saying that an interstellar capable spaceship is a weapon says nothing about spaceships themselves or interstellar travel itself.
The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world’s treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.
We literally didn’t have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.
The human os isn’t ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.
Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today
Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.
That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.
The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?
They couldn’t effectively police borders, so they didn’t. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.
The argument isn’t against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies
They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?
That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?
Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?
Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.
There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.
A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.
We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.
It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?
We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.
You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.
But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.
Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.
Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn’t pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)
Full Mac updates not only usually update the entirety of the system and then run an SIP check, but often are firmware updates for the hardware, that’s why they now have a separate setup for quick security updates, which often happen in the background, without a full update required: support.apple.com/en-us/102657
Good question. Honestly I’m not sure. Windows installs wipe an NTFS partition and then dump the filesystem there, bootloader is installed and OS boots, job done. My only guess would be that the Mac installer individually hashes every file for security and verifies on write. While ensuring a perfect install and secure OS, it also leads to wildly long install times.
I think you’ve got a setting wrong. I’ve got mine set to download only. So it just downloads the update in the background and notifies me. I have even left that notification sitting there for months before without it forcing or nagging me.
You can turn off automatic updates, but it will still give you a notification when there is one so you can make it update at night.
Also, OS X? Is the OS 10.X or you’re just referring to it as OS X. Because in newer macOS versions, I can confirm the automatic updates do it at night when you’re not using the computer.
That ignore system messages. This post will be anecdotal, but I can’t ever get my systems to suddenly restart or reinstall the bloatware apps like some people claim theirs do. It honestly seems like it’s “power users” fucking with things that they don’t actually understand, and then complaining that things aren’t working the way they expect.
We have 5 Windows 11 systems in our household, and 2 family members that are terrible with computers. None of them act the way some randoms on the Internet claim Windows 11 does with updates all the time. And everyone I personally know doesn’t seem to have these issues either. But we’re also not installing random patches or messing with settings that don’t have a natural and intentional UI element.
All of our systems I help with for family and friends update on their own, and prompt when a restart is needed, including a button to delay the restart. If ignored, it prompts after a day or so again and only if ignored or delayed for an extended period will eventually give a countdown to a forced restart. I only noticed the countdown because I was explicitly trying to reproduce what people online claim about it suddenly restarting while using it. And at that point it WILL restart even in use, but that’s after an extended period, multiple days, of ignoring notifications about it.
I also don’t have issues on my systems with those annoying bloatware app links (like Candy Crush) reinstalling, etc. on their own. I turned off the various advertising settings in the settings menus and uninstalled the app links like normal. They’ve never returned.
Since I’ve been completely unable to reproduce these relatively common complaints on multiple systems myself, I can only assume people are adjusting settings or installing various patches from the Internet that mess with things that aren’t intended to be user-facing and that ends up causing issues. Like the infinite number of patches to remove telemetry, etc. that people don’t know what’s actually being changed by it, but install for privacy.
I mostly agree with you. But something like 3 years ago, I remember letting my PC run while I was gathering seats over night. There was no previous “restart now” or even “update now”. However, in the morning, I found the PC had restarted too install an update. And that was the standard setting back then. I changed it to only prompt that there are updates since, and AFAIR that setting was “reset” 1 or 2 times ever since in an update.
But seeing how absurdly niche what I do is, I doubt that random users will care. And sadly they need to be forced to update for the sake of all of us.
Agreed.
I’m a professional IT tech and see a lot of desktops during the week including my own.
We have some Windows PCs that still had 1809 installed because Windows does not manage to update itself without being forced to search.
Turnover is already high due to shitty work conditions and low pay, but most franchises will also look for reasons to fire so they can keep wages low.
A few minutes later than the customer wants but still within reasonable time? Oooh sorry they called to complain so we have to give you a strike.
Customer doesn’t want to pay? Tough shit, you shouldn’t have given them the pizza without getting paid and that’s two strikes.
You were 30 seconds late according to the managers watch which is 3 minutes fast as proven by everyone’s cellphones and the wall clock? Too bad, fired.
And I’m not exaggerating. I’m just giving a real-world example.
Ultimately I was just done and had already been looking for another job, so I just went ahead and dropped the shit on the floor and spent the rest of the day chilling at the park. I even had witnesses to the insane bullshit.
It’s not so much about how pizza delivery drivers get easily fired. It’s more about how cops get away with literal murder. If a pizza dude killed somebody who called for them, they wouldn’t have a union and PR team fighting for them and showing that the murder victim was maybe kinda asking for it because they ordered pineapple on their pizza. That’s a metaphor for a light criminal record, yes.
I propose that pineapple on pizza is the equivalent of personal quantities of pot possession in the legal world. Sure, a lot of people who claim to have never done it sure spend a lot of time talking about how terrible it is on a personal and societal level, but the ones who are actually using it just shrug their shoulders and say “more for me.”
Fun fact: qualified immunity is illegal according to the law as passed by Congress. The 1982 SCOTUS unintentionally legislated from the bench in Harlow V Fitzgerald
Sony owns a patent for a system/concept that needs you to audibly name the company/product the advertisement is for to continue at the end of the advertisement.
With that power comes great responsibility. If they implement it, they are evil. If they don’t use it but have fees so high that others can not use it without going bankrupt, they are less evil.
In the center of the pizza, the toppings appear to make a sad face, as if the person who drew the artwork for the patent felt bad about drawing artwork for such a shitty patent idea.
Yeah for sure, except the one I set up won’t seem to pass verification because every answer might happen to sound exactly like “fuck you” (to Sony) 100,000 times in a row.
I have lately been pretty convinced that 70% of pickup drivers don’t actually need a truck but instead use it to compensate their insecurity about their small dicks and their fragile masculinity.
Absolutely. All you have to ask is why they need to own a truck and they instantly get overly defensive. I’m not saying there aren’t cases where you need to own truck but the vast majority of cases people bring up don’t even require a truck much less owning one.
Let’s just get inspired by oats jenkins and his idea for redoing the traffic system and add a truck license, and you’ll have to renew it every six months, just so they don’t keep it forever
The license would be given to people that have genuine need for a vehicle like this, and don’t have access to one (so if your job gives you a truck you can have it, it would have the job license on it, but then you cannot have your own license)
Otherwise they would just tell you to go fuck yourself because you don’t need a truck like this
I live in Europe where trucks are fairly rare but you still see large SUVs, 4x4s and vans around. My own feeling is that certain classes of vehicles should be considered commercial for the purposes of insurance, taxation, VAT, inspection, tolls, permitted usage and everything else. The legislation already exists for commercial vehicles so extend it to these kind of vehicles.
So is someone must have a stupidly oversized vehicle purely for personal reasons they can enjoy all the bullshit and restrictions that goes with it. Doesn’t stop them complying but making it more onerous to do it will take demand for these vehicles off the market entirely.
I agree, I think we could even go further and make vehicles of a certain size use cargo lanes on the highway.
My wife is European and lives in the US and she thinks the fact that giant SUVs and trucks can have such a vast size differential to compact cars, so that she is eye-level with their bumper, and that both use the same license and same lanes, is incredibly dangerous.
My wife insisted on getting an SUV for her car. It’s a hybrid, but it’s still an SUV. I really wish she hadn’t gotten it. It’s too big for me, I won’t drive it. I can’t tell her what to do with her money, but I didn’t like that she got it.
People can down vote you, but they can’t argue with this.
You must be the only pickup driver in existence that’s figured out that all your pathetic justifications can be debated, but your opinion on what you want cannot be.
I’m the same, i like the way my truck looks. Is it great these days? Nope it’s an old 08 with a little rust, ok a lot but hush, i love it anyway. Do i need a truck 97% of the time? Nope but that 3% of the time i do its amazing. And those people i pull out of random ditches in the winter will appreciate it I’m sure.
My cousin has a pickup and I won’t lie, it’s very handy to have one truck you can use in the family. He’s made ramps that fit his truck perfectly, makes loading and unloading furniture from it a breeze. He’s added hooks for snatch blocks, I swear he can tie down literally anything. We wouldn’t have that if we rented because the truck would be different every time. He’s probably moving someone in the extended family once a month. Granted he owns his own contracting company so he uses it daily. That all said there is value in a few generous people having trucks around. Emphasis on the few, especially in urban areas.
Yes I can. For the same reason I would argue against someone saying they want a faulty muffler because the sound is very aesthetically pleasing to them. Your sense of beauty doesn’t come at the expense of everyone else.
Sure it can. A large vehicle is more likely to kill someone outside of the car. So, by unnecessarily choosing to purchase a large vehicle, you are needlessly increasing the chance of killing someone else.
Not to mention the climate impacts.
To be clear, the fact that you want a pick up truck can’t be debated, but whether you should be allowed to purchase one and use it on a public roadway, solely because of your desire to have one- is another thing.
Also, with large vehicles more generally, there’s this awful snowball effect where people go “I get to sit up high and it’s bigger, so I feel safer! Besides, when I’m in a regular car I feel like I’m going to get crushed like a beer can.”
This of course ignores that:
Pedestrians are fucked
With everyone buying bigger, heavier vehicles, the energy involved in most collisions is significantly greater and I doubt anyone’s much safer for it. People in smaller cars just get screwed.
Also it’s an arms race. They feel safer because they’re comparatively above smaller cars, but then when everyone is riding tall trucks that additional feeling of safety becomes moot as you no longer have the additional height/visibility over everyone else.
And conversely, the reason they feel less safe in smaller cars is because of the comparison to larger cars on the road. They aren’t solving anything in a larger vehicle, they’re just perpetuating onto others what gave them small-vehicle anxiety in the first place.
I can’t wait til we as a society get over shaming small dicks. I don’t have a dick but it’s cringy to me when people use “small dick” as an insult like this.
“You don’t fit into the sociocultural group I’m a part of, AKA THE BEST GROUP, because you are not sending the right social signals! Therefore YOU ARE NOT A VERILE MATE FOR THE HOMINID FEMALES!”
“NO! CLEARLY IT IS YOU WHO WILL NOT SEED THE NEXT GENERATION OF OFFSPRING! Based on all the information I’ve gotten about appropriate social signals for my gender, age, ethnicity, cult, location and socioeconomic status, I am displaying the appropriate signals! So I shall point at you and say WEIRD!”
Well, I kind of agree with you, but also what I intended to say is that I think most pick up drivers don’t feel masculine enough, whether it’s due to a small dick or something else making them feel like they aren’t “real men”, so they compensate their insecurity by driving unnecessarily large cars.
Yeah, I maybe should have left the dick part out. A man can have a small penis and still not be insecure, and a man with a huge one can still be insecure about their masculinity and try to fix that insecurity with a stupid truck.
For me it’s not so much trying to insult them for having a small dick, but insulting them for caring so much about having a small dick they feel the need to compensate.
Doesn’t matter that their dick is small, just that they’re so insecure about it they need to try and tell the world it’s not true.
Well, you’re not exactly contributing to a world where that insecurity is eliminated. And besides, you’ll never win an emotional debate with rational arguments.
For me it’s not so much trying to insult them for having a small dick, but insulting them for caring so much about having a small dick they feel the need to compensate.
It’s very weird that you care so much about the size of other men’s penis. It’s equally weird that you care what someone else drives.
Are we at a point in society where we can no longer do anything as long as some internet keyboard warrior doesn’t think we should?
I have a truck to haul things. Trash, lumber, kayaks, bikes, and I’ve moved friends and family members at least 6 times. It’s a 1995 and it spends most of its time parked though, it’s not a daily driver. And I really dislike all the tall and massive trucks now. I want a bed that’s actually low enough to be accessible.
Someone I work with has never not owned a truck, mostly because “they don’t need the hassle of renting one when they need to do yardwork and buy a fridge from the store” or something.
So spending an extra $20,000-$30,000 every 10 years is totally worth those occasional trips and avoiding renting a tailer/pickup from home Depot maybe twice a year.
Its a mystery how some of these people are broke af and how they would be more wealthy if they invested the cash in better stuff than blowing it all on impulsive purchases, lottery, and eating out.
The $1,400 it cost me to buy a 5x10 utility trailer was money well spent. It has easily paid for itself over the years. I sold my last pickup years ago. If I need to use the trailer, it takes 5 minutes to hook it up. Having space to store it and a legit need for it are key factors here as well.
I have one because I’m 6’ 7" and I don’t fit comfortably in much. One of my managers is super small, but drives a lifted Ram. I have yet to see him get into it but it must be funny to see.
I have a pickup. My wife says she likes my penis size. I question your hypothesis. Today, I used it to haul fire wood and tow a broken down ATV. Yesterday, I brought kayaks up to my family cabin. It gets used. Pre-COVID, it was part of the first leg of my commute. I’m not going to have a separate vehicle just to drive to the train station. That’s absurd.
Lol not only do you have poor reading comprehension, you have also failed to get anyone to believe what you just said. If i may provide some advice, if someone say something on the Internet that doesn’t apply to you you do not have to get offened by it. Have a nice day friend.
I drove smaller trucks for about 20 years. I actually just got a small cargo van (NV200), but still have my Colorado after the dealership offered me $100 in trade-in.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.