I liked them as a kid, but now I just see the pollution, the traumatization of wildlife, the fire hazard and risk of injuries. I also have asthma, which doesn’t make it more appealing to me.
Also, with the advent of drones, I think we do have better alternatives now.
I don’t see why it would be. Isn’t ‘copyleft’ basically: “You may modify and redistribute this code for free, but whatever you produce with it has to be copyleft as well”?
Extending that to coding agents trained on copyleft code, I would say that any code that agent writes is also copyleft. How is that anti-ethical?
What’s wrong with copyleft code?
Neither, I think it’s none of my business.
I’m not sure that’s the point of the comment though. Maybe it is, idk.
I guess we fundamentally agree and just interpret the comment differently. Hitting others is generally not ok, except in self defense.
I interpret the comment as “The boy should learn some self defense. That will help him get over the abuse and recover some self esteem.”, which I find valid.
You interpret it as “The boy should start hitting girls. This domination will lift his self esteem”. I agree that’s a shit take, but again, I also don’t interpret the comment that way, and I don’t think that those who upvoted it do.
I guess only OP can clarify what they meant.
Don’t know the context here, but to me it looks like that comment simply suggests teaching self defense to a victim of physical violence. Knowing some self defense is generally a good idea, especially if someone has a higher risk / history of being physically attacked. And if your attacker is a woman of course you still need to defend yourself.
That’s not the same as teaching boys to hit girls, and I don’t think that’s the point the comment was trying to make.
Another point I think I have to make: hitting back is not the same as self defense, it is retaliation, and not something we should teach children.
I don’t see why we would want to gatekeep the fediverse. If more people decided to use it over centralized social media, I think that’d be a positive development.
And as you know, the fediverse is far from homogeneous. I expect there will always be some very big general purpose “normie” instances like lemmy.world, and smaller, more niche ones for specific communities.
I guess the most efficient option would be to have a distributed setup where most households have some local compute, which they make available for others to use when they don’t need it themselves. Kinda like with SETI@home or Folding@home.
Normally I prefer oat milk but for porridge I use soy milk, for exactly that reason.
With these things, it often makes sense to ask the opposite question. Would it be possible for one to not affect the other? Legal and illegal markets would have to be completely separated, meaning money used in one couldn’t be used in the other, and entities participating in one couldn’t participate in the other.
That is obviously not true, so yeah, black markets influence the legal economy.
I think there are two separate questions here.
What I’d recommend: Don’t stick to what you know, you have the rest of your life for that. Try new experiences, keep an open mind, meet new people, visit different places, learn things. And chase your dreams before life has got you on your knees.
Thanks, now I have that acronym in my search history
I would argue that every species alive today evidently found a strategy that works, otherwise they wouldn’t be here.
Perhaps some mushrooms actually rely on being eaten somehow. Or perhaps being poisonous comes with downsides, so it isn’t purely an advantage.
The development of Grok is quite interesting to me. Musk has two competing goals:
Musk seems to be choosing some kind of middle ground. If you look at trackingai.org Grok falls into the bottom left quadrant, like every LLM. Of all LLMs however, it leans the most towards the bottom right.
Believing something and knowing something is not the same.
I don’t believe in god, my father does, we both admit that we don’t know if there is a god.
There are varying degrees of religiosity as well. Some are absolutely convinced, others just don’t want to think that their loved ones completely disappear when they die. I personally know many people who believe in some kind of god or afterlife, who just make that their personal business and don’t bother anyone with it.
I also never said atheists are idiots. I think people who harass others for their beliefs, while not being able to prove that theirs is any more correct, are.
When atheists try to convince others that there is no god. Let people have their faith, as long as they let you have your lack thereof, and as long as they don’t hurt anyone.
I’m an atheist, I do not believe in god. But scientifically speaking, we just don’t know.
Science gives us models that allow us to describe the world. These models don’t necessarily have to be correct, they need to be the simplest explanation of our observations. These models also only describe the ‘what’, not the ‘why’.
So anyone claiming to stand on the side of science, while confidently exclaiming “There is no god” without any scientific evidence, is just an idiot. And mocking religion on top of that just makes you an asshole.
Interessanter als das Einkommen finde ich persönlich das Vermögen, denn es macht einen Unterschied ob das Einkommen größtenteils aus einem Erwerbseinkommen besteht, oder aus Kapitalerträgen.
Not a handful of people, but a ruling elite.
If it was democracy, that’s what we’d call it. But we are not talking about democracy. The post is quite explicit about the fact that after a socialist revolution and before ‘true democracy’ comes a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which is different.
My grandparents were workers in the GDR. They were part of the proletariat, they didn’t have a say. That’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. A government run by ‘socialists’ with a higher standard of living than that of the general population.
I guess either I am just cynical or you are naive, possibly both to an extend.
You believe that there are people that given unchecked power, will know what the common good is and without fail work for it, indefinitely.
I don’t believe that, which is why I think power must always be checked. Honestly, for that it doesn’t even matter if the power itself has corrupting properties.
Regarding human nature. There is plenty of research (for example with babies) that shows that some behaviour is learned while some we are born with.
I like helping animals in need. When did we agree that only the most intelligent/fit animals deserve to live?
I don’t intervene however if it is predator vs prey. Helping one would mean harming the other.
Edit: thought about the predator vs prey thing some more. I guess I do tend to help if one seems much more sentient then the other.