Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,627

Joined

2 yr. ago

I use "New" or even "Neue" to distinguish the Nazis that claim to represent Jews and are genocidal towards Arabs, from the Nazis who claimed to represent Arians and were genocidal towards Jews (and Roma, though "curiously" here in the West almost nobody mentions those).

Because the etnicity targetted by one group of Nazis is the "dominant" etnicity of the other, if I don't do this some people confuse my anti-Zionist point with being pro-Zionist, especially given that the Zionists themselves will use Nazi as a form of slander against people who criticize them.

For every random genetic change that did something that turned out to be useful, there were countless ones that did nothing useful at all or were even counter-productive (to get a sense of how many "tries" there were, consider every time every beetle in the World tries to reproduce times how many eggs they lay times several random genetic changes per egg times millions or billions of years - we're talking grains of sand in a beach level or even more, and this is just for one kind of creature that doesn't even reproduce all that frequently - in things like bacteria there are so many reproducing so many times that we actually see evolution in action in a short time frame, for example with the growth of antibiotic resistance).

Then for all those random genetic changes that did something that turned out useful, there are only going to be some were that make enough of a difference in terms of increasing the survival of a beetle till reproduction and way more that didn't make a difference.

You know what happen to all those quadrillions or whatever of tries that went nowhere? We'll never know about them because the creatures in question are long dead (if their eggs were viable to begin with). We'll only ever know about the random genetic changes which did work well enough to give reproductive advantages.

[There are actually a lot of cognitive falacies around how we perceive success because we only really get to know about what worked, not about the countless things that didn't work. A good example is how most people pretty much only hear about Startups that made it big, yet for every Startup that does succeed enough to become widelly known there are tends or even hundreds of thousands that fail and we never hear about, so it might seem that Startups are generally successful when the reality is, in average, the very opposite]

Continuing on the Evolution story, if the previous part of the process worked based on the Maths of "trully insane large numbers", at this point we add an effect akin to compounding interest: even if a genetic change adds a very small increase in reproduction for an animal - say, a beetle with a given random genetic change that did do something useful and gives it a 1% higher chance of successfully reproduce - as long as that trait gets passed down to the next generation, it means (rought) that all else be the same there will be 101 beetles born with that change for every 100 beetles born without it, for every reproductive cycle. This might seems little but as I said it compounds, so for example after 71 generations that will have grown to 200 for every 100 and it will keep growing.

This is how even a random genetic change that gives even just a tiny increase in success of living till reproduction and reproduction itself will, given enough time, come to dominate a population.

And then all those slightly different beetles keep on having the random genetic changes happen (the first part of the process) and those additional changes that did work and gave a tiny bit more success over that ones with just the original change will get the compounding part of the process, so those are the ones for whom there are more and more individuals, to which in turn the same process applies.

TL;DR (but you should)

A beetle with a random genetic change that affected its shell that makes it every so slightly harder to spot for predators in a place that has lots of water droplets on leaves will have more descendants than the rest. Some of those will randomly get additional changes that make that effect even more successful at making the beetle harder to detect for predators thus having even more descendants than the rest. Amongst those, the ones with random changes that make it even better will have more descendants and so on: changes towards looking more and more like a water-dropplet make the beetles with them more successful at reproducing that those without the changes.

Given enough time and enough beetles this is how you go from beetles with a "normal" carapace to beetles with a mirror-like carapace.

Evolution doens't chose anything, it's just one big statistical N-dimensional field of probabilites with local stable minima (points of maximum success at reproducing) and then some random genetic changes might just happen to matematically nudge a subset of the beetle population towards a specific stable minima on some characteristic (i.e. on one of dimension of those N dimensions) but it could've just as easilly and by chance have been a different one, but that didn't happen so we'll never hear about it (it's a bit like the answer to the "Why has evolution made humans that think?" question - "Because if it didn't made us think we wouldn't be thinking about it, and if it made humans look different that different being would be what we think is "human").

Pour encourager les autres

It's not as if Israel or its leaders have to fear suffering any kind of consequences from France on this, whose posture has been nothing more than mild talkie-talkie and who even refuse to abide by an Arrest Warrant from the ICC on Netanyahu (a very obvious wink-and-nod from Macron to the New Nazis in Israel).

With mainly Collaborator politicians in the various governments in Europe (notable exceptions being those in Spain and the Republic Of Ireland), it's open season for Mossad to murder Europeans in Europe at will.

That's an absolutelly natural consequence from in practice condoning and even protecting Nazis going full-on Genocidal and they lose all fear of consequences.

Yeah, the case with antennas is a good point - when I decided to concentrate various things in a Mini-PC in my living room (TV-Box, Router and so on) I actually looked into these router Mini-PCs as an option and the biggest problem was the lack of a proper antenna, so I ended up going with a generic Mini-PC and leaving out the router functionality which remains done by my old router (which is quite decent, just a bit outdated).

Mind you, this one also wouldn't work for me because I'm using 4 Ethernet ports (1 for the external connection and 3 internally) whilst this one only has 2 (a weird choice for a router).

IMHO, this isn't really better than just getting an SBC with 2 Ethernet ports and WiFi and put it in a box with an antenna), a setup which suffers from exactly the same problem as this one: not enough Ethernet ports.

The very example I provided comes with an mPCI-e slot to install a WiFi card of your choosing.

Also they have SIM card slots so you can install a data SIM card and set-up a fallback configuration that switches to it if your landline internet connection goes down.

Whilst that's a nice slogan, in Electronics "open source" doesn't mean anywhere as much as it does in Software because it's generally just knowing which components go into the circuit, which is but a fraction of the work (laying out the board is a massive chunk of work, in some cases most of it, and at high enough clock speeds circuit design is an art in itself).

Mind you, I like the Orange Pi and Banana Pi guys, and the idea of an SBC designed for being an open source router is pretty appealing, though nowadays maybe pfSense would be a better choice than OpenWrt.

Finally this thing having only 2 ethernet ports + WiFi makes it little more than a regular $70+ SBC board + a box - something easy enough to put together by any technically inclined person - which isn't exactly exciting.

So, how is this any better than the Router Mini PCs you can find in Aliexpress (random example)?

What's funny is the expectation by so many here that a guy "unwaveringly supporting" people mass murdering children for their etnicity would have the Morals to not pardon his own son when he can do it at no cost to himself.

Like all other sociopaths only considerations about "consequences" drive his choices.

One more reason to, when having the choice, prefer GoG over the rest.

That "solution" suffers from the problem that requiring hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to get informed about and agree to do something all in the same time period (it won't work if some do it now and others only later) is incredibly more hard than it is for a few tens of people or maybe a couple hundred to as individuals swarm the sales venues and take all the tickets to resell them for more money.

Or putting things another way, it's a mountain to climb for large numbers of people to organise and stop scalpers (and that, only for a while, since if people stop doing it the scalpers will return), whilst in the current commercial environment scalpers appearing is a natural outcome.

This kind of thing usually requires changing the structures that make scalping so easy, rather than hoping that somehow (magic?) hundreds of thousands or miliions of people agree to do something.

PS: Yeah, a cultural change would be it, but expecting it to just happen and all at the same time (given that early adopters of that practice won't actually see any upside until a large enough mass of people have adopted it and they'll start giving up if too much time goes by whilst they're refraining from buying from scalpers and yet scalpers keep going because so many others are still doing it) is highly unrealistic.

The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it's many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.

A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).

Actually I just checked GoG without going through a VPN (from work) and I see the same "Lowest price in the last 30 days before discount" information, so maybe GoG just does it for all of Europe or maybe even always.

In other words, I don't think is going via na IP in that specific country that's doing it.

Guess I've just chosen the right country to point my VPN to then :)

In my country, to crack down on tax evasion by small businesses people can give their tax payer number when they buy something (say food at a restaurant) and a copy of the receipt automatically gets passed on to the taxman (there's a lottery on those and people can get some money from it, which is how the State incentivises people to do this, plus you can get some tax discounts on some kinds of expenses such as medicine).

All this to say that the idea of the taxman getting a copy of an itemized receipt for sex work services is just delicious.

PS: Around here sex work is unregulated, meaning not illegal (though profiting of other people's sex work is illegal) but not explicitly legal and regulated.

Here in Europe they're forced to show the lowest price of the last 30 days and I was looking at some games in GoG and for several interesting games their Black Friday "discounted" price is €15 whilst the lowest price in the last 30 days is €10.

So the Black Friday "discount" is in fact 50% more expensive than the previous time that game had a "discount" which happenned not even that long ago.

Yeah, runs on Linux fine (my experience was running it from Steam), looks good and is defintelly a shooter.

Turns out it's not really my kind of game because it's a succession of set-pieces (a sequence of fully fledged 3D areas were player progression is mostly linear) but for those more into the shooting and less into exploring or building angles it should be good fun as it's definitely all about the shooting your way through enemy strongpoints (not really about defending from enemy waves).

And let's not forget their "Western Values".

The places I know were they do cook stuff using volcanic heat (in Peru and the Azores islands which are part of Portugal) they do it by digging a hole in an area were the ground is hot from volcanic heat and putting a pan cooking in it (they cover it all to keep the heat).

So it's more a local technique for cooking for free that then evolved into a couple of traditional dishes.

Never heard of trying to roast stuff on the output of a geyser.

The amount of effort to obtain the female-impressing rock by the crow is far less than by the human, thus indicating that the crow is the wisest of the two.