The whole point of inmutabiltiy is that, even if the system breaks itself on update, you just rollback to a working image. I’ve had issues with bazzite, but never once have I lost a system with it.

Oh boy, they weren’t fuzzy. Some film outclass the clarity and sharpness of modern OLED, even when it was for B category low budget movies, just that most people watched a 4 week old piece of film in bumfuck middle of nowhere cinema. With a scratched up and badly calibrated focus lens and dirty and deteriorated film over a dirty screen.

Anyways, the biggest problem that physical media solves is not the number of pixels, but the bitrate. Tons of information, specially about color, is lost to streaming compression. Pixel density equation means that the quality of what you see is rarely distinguishable between 1080p, 2k and 4k, depending on how far away you sit from the screen and how big it is. For the typical seating accommodation at home and commercial theaters, you won’t notice a significant change within FHD and UHD. However, you can definitely tell the difference between the 10Mbps 4k (down to as little as 2Mbps if your connection sucks) that you get from Netflix¹ and the steady 32Mbps that Blu-ray can give you.

¹: BTW, it doesn’t matter how fast your internet connection is, the data transferred can get to you at as high speed as you want, but the bitrate of the video file inside the container that the streaming services give you is usually hard capped rather low anyway.

A single sentence can be a paragraph, but you need to not be brain damaged to understand that, so I don’t blame you.

Being part of a minority really highlights how horrible some sport’s cultures can be. If you are a gay or female fan of any sport you have to pick your social circles like navigating a minefield. Lest you end up in the homophobic “let’s lynch the gay guy” or the “gang rape the only woman here” fan-club.

Sure, the vast majority of sport spaces are not that extreme, but it only takes one, and unfortunately they are a pretty much non-zero number. Sometimes just watching a game alone in you living room can expose you to casual homophobia and misogyny depending on the commenters.

The proponent is a rather successful and rational investor. This was satire, meant to evoke the idea that, if AI was all that the con men are selling, it would collapse the economy. It is not and everyone knows it, but the point is to highlight the idiocy and try to wake up people to the absurdity. I see it akin to what “a modest proposal” was. To nudge the most radical AI ideologues into understanding the dead economy and ghost GDP concepts. If the economy becomes detached from human reality, it will crumble and collapse.

Isn’t it ironic? The only Microsoft product that makes money consistently is based on Linux.

Intelligence is not reduced to producing speech or complex reasoning. Hence why calling LLMs AI was always disingenuous.

Intelligence is an extremely complex and multi factor phenomenon. With a wide range of definitions, dimensions and degrees. Your cat is intelligent, some ML models are very intelligent. But, so they are certain blobs of fungi rhizome. A cluster of neurons in a petri dish, and a few hyper specific automation scripts can also be intelligent. An LLM can display intelligence. But that doesn’t mean it is conscious or that it is AGI, or that it can be classified as a person.

Those are all entirely different things.

On one hand, yes, sure, fuck those people, 100%. On the other hand, remember that those people are encouraged and most likely exist only because of disinformation propaganda campaigns designed, promoted and delivered by the same bus load of people. So, you know, perspective.

KDE literally comes with a manual. Hitting f1 almost anywhere will give you a help tool that explains everything in detail.

Just want to remind everyone that the point of this scene is that Draper is an unstable and insecure man that is actually obsessed about how everyone around him are perceiving him, all the time. So this line is just stupid bravado, because he thinks the phrase projects the image he wants others to have of himself. He is lying because he actually thinks about what others think of him constantly. He works in advertising ffs.

My problem with Spotify shuffle was that it always ended up throwing a similar order of songs. The same group of songs would end up in the same general position on the playlist every time. It’s not random, and it stands to reason that people doesn’t actually want real random order. But it was super obvious, noticeable and quite annoying to hit the same songs at the same time on your walk every single time. They even admitted publicly that their shuffle function sucks.

In what I’ve seen, the best masons are on construction sites planning the work before hand. The inexperienced and newby masons mix mortar and carry bricks around. The top elder guys lead the prep work planing when and where stuff needs to be for what is being built. But once the machine starts mixing the cement all those guys do is lay bricks.

They don’t shovel, they don’t mix mortar, they don’t carry materials. Just laying brick after brick until they run out of materials or the construction is done. It’s quite mesmerizing to see a good contractor working efficiently, rare but fascinating.

One of the saddest things I learned from working with convict’s mental health was that an alarming amount of child abusers weren’t pedophiles. It was a crime of opportunity, not desire, for most of them. And that sort of fucks you up, because most people want a neatly ordered world, however, bad people will do horrible things regardless of whatever neat little boxes society wants to create to put them into.

So now we are quoting Korzibsky. Remember that its development, Bateson for example, has as a consequence of the ontological limitations of sensible experience, that one could say the territory is ultimately inaccessible to the mind. Why bother with it thus, since the hypothetical tree only exist because the mind has thus elaborated it and put it in the hypothetical forest to make it fall by sheer will of the model, based on previous sensible experience. A falling tree has to be observed and mapped, in order for a mind to conceive a tree that falls unseen. Its reality cannot be asserted but post-hoc, after observing evidence of its fall. Or ex-ante, by predicting its hypothetical fall by way of a priori evidence.

Or perhaps consider the Bonini’s paradox whereas a model as complex and specific as the reality it represents would be impractical and useless for science. To delve and insists on a science that removes the human is folly. The models we create exist entirely within the limits of the mind. Or as Brudilliard puts it:

Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: A hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory.

The model precedes reality. In fact, what reality we can think about if there is no thinking mind to model it? To question what reality would be without a human to think it, is circular idiocy. Suggesting to remove morality from the model requires one to create a thinker without morals, a non human, effectively an alien, that would not be any more real than the moral one. In fact, it would be further removed from reality, as the observer doesn’t exist but on the map. What reality can be attested by a meeple that stands over a map?

To remove morality you have to remove humans. No humans, no politics and no science.

You can’t argue with that. You either have morals and science, or you have pure objective amoral reality but no humans.

Objective truth is an oxymoron, to have objectivity you have to remove the subject. Thus eliminating the dichotomy entirely and making the argument collapse. To have true-false value arguments and statements, you need subjectivity and a frame of reference. This is a logical constraint, without anyone to observe and judge the truth, there’s no objective reality to be judged. Minerals and crystals, despite our best efforts, do not elaborate moral judgements, and they definitely don’t conduct science.

It works if it weren’t unethical doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.

The notion that we suck at choosing the good genes is entirely misled, even if it is just sarcasm. The final question is also morally misled because science and the notion of truth is not amoral. Science, without humans, doesn’t exist. And humans are moral beings (constrained by social and moral considerations).

Eugenics is one such field which notions cannot be true because its axioms are inherently unethical. “It works” is not an isolated amoral argument. If it needs the morals of a society to be radically altered to work, then it is not science. It is just racism in a lab coat. The case of dog breeds, for example, doesn’t support eugenics. On the contrary it dispproves it.

We have genetically altered dogs (and many other animals) by selective breeding in ways that, according to eugenics, should’ve eliminated inbreeding and genetic defects. Guess what? it hasn’t done that and actually might have made it worse. Historical analysis lead us to the idea that running wild with eugenics will always lead to genocide, regardless of which genetic traits are selected as the best, eugenics is genocide. So, it cannot be severed from its ethical considerations. Science cannot exist devoid of ethics.

It’s really not, when you really go down into the actual numbers. Are the differences significant? yes, do they matter? most likely not. Because even if they are significant, it says nothing about their magnitude, just the likelihood that they are caused by the independent variable.

What this means is, sure, there are genetic differences that correlate significantly with common social categories of race (scientists use ethnicity, because of eugenics), due to continental size selection pressure, which is very broad and non-specific. However, this brush is actually so broad that it doesn’t contraindicate common treatment at all. An individual person could or could not be hypersensitive to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, for example. This has been found to have some pharmacogenetic correlation with some ethnicities. But if you were to alter treatment to one ethnicity assuming that they are more likely to have this genetic difference, you would lose far more patients than you would save. Because the correlation exists, it is significant, but it’s magnitude is not very large. Instead, we have individual tests that are far more straight forward and will tell you with higher degree of certainty than ethnicity whether someone has or does not have NSAID sensitivity. There’s also no basis to decide to whom to apply this test, based on ethnicity, either. Because all and any ethnicity can have NSAID hypersensitivity. So, we just do the test to everyone and every single patient gets the question “are you allergic to any drug?” regardless of ethnicity, doctors just don’t think about ethnicity all that much if they are doing evidence based medicine and are not blatant eugenic racists. That’s is how useless of an analysis category race is in science. Genetically speaking, large masses of people are actually not that different from each other that it grants much differential treatment. You rather treat the individual.

There’s an entire TikTok side, not just one influencer but several, that have centered their accounts around random chat apps where they ask north-americans if America is a continent, for comedy. Now, this is truly just anecdotal, however. I’m talking about several influencers who pump dozens of this kind of videos each, every day. Every video has 2 or 3 video chats, sometimes multiple people per chat. There’s so much content that they are their own hashtag and tiktok sphere, of videos making fun of north americans for not knowing basic geography.

You have to be the worst scumbag on the planet if a patent troll looks decent standing next to you.

Seriously though, lane narrowing is more effective at speed reduction and traffic calming than speed bumps. Both, even, are better for particularly stubborn stretches of road.

This does a much better job at reducing car speeds, and it is also vehicle size agnostic. People on SUVs feel far more threatened by narrowing lanes and will absolutely slow down. While they will plow through a speed bump because they can’t feel them with their emotional support tank’s suspension.