Senal @ Senal @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

225

Joined

2 yr. ago

The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.

Citation?

Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.

I was genuinely asking because it wasn't (and still isn't) clear that that's what they meant.

The dairy farm thing makes sense.

Other than cat milk, possibly? I've honestly no idea.

But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ¹ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ² variations.

¹ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

² Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ¹

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

"It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's wrong".

I think it's more "It's not libre / free as in freedom so it's not open source, don't pretend it is".

The "wrong" part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn't to gain some advantage. I'm this case community contributions.

There's not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you'll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i'll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we're clear, faith isn't proof, in fact its definition is almost universally "belief, in the absence of proof"

Lots of people believing also doesn't equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that "would or would not allow" something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there's any confusion, i'm all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the "organised", it's important.

Also the "religions are just socially acceptable cults" train.

It might seem like I'm on two trains but in reality it's a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it's basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn't addressing any of the points so I'm not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it's unintentional, I'll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with "belief" in a being.

One of those things is a "being"/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or "construct".

Also the first "quote i used" was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

So you'd be good with phrases such as "God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time" to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people's shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn't make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

"God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

vs

"Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

That's reasonable

it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I'd imagine that's why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

Sure, but I'd wager that pales in comparison to the gain from being able to conveniently 'default' users to the options that grant MS access to the largest amount of data.

In addition, a somewhat plausible excuse to then hide away the ability to turn off all of this 'guidance' under the pretense of looking out for the end users.

This is the telemetry and monetisation equivalent of "we have to ban encryption to stop the criminals and terrorists, won't somebody please think of the children" only much more successful

ah, apologies, i wasn't implying that your 'source' was weak, it was clear you were stating a personal opinion so no 'source' needed.

I was using a slang term : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weak+sauce

I was implying your argument was weak, built on a shaky foundation of personal opinion stated as universal fact.

To me this reads as:

< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >

< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >

"Not going to explain because it's obvious"

Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce

Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

"by a wide variety of men"

I imagine your ability to definitely determine parentage, i'm assuming through observation and research, got you moved to somewhere your observational talents could be better employed ?

No point in wasting that kind of talent on the streets fighting the statistically high percentage of 15 year old bodybuilding thugs and their mothers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVhlJNJopOQ