Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
592
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Well, I would argue that depends very much on the basis of your calculations. Closed source software means public services are held hostage after a company winning a contract. In Norway some Finnish company won a contract for some digital system in the health services and later wanted them to ship all their computers to Finland so that they could update their software. In a paradigm were governments commited to Linux and open source software, there would most likely be a lot less overhead in adapting and developing solutions for Linux.

  • Free and open source software are good examples of an alternative to the way we manage labor today. Wanting gay space communism is as much a part of my personality as me liking Star Trek and Linux. Moreso they are part of the same coherent picture.

  • Personal recommendations are not really advertisements.

  • Torrents are assumed illegal and discussion of it likewise by confused parent comment.

  • Elves are pretty much always lowkey supremacists and their tree love/fetish is obviously inferior to the industrious dwarves.

  • I reiterate: All resources are ultimately finite. There is however more than enough for all if extracted sustainably and shared somewhat equally. Under redistribution schemes, the poor stop being poor because having basic needs met increases social mobility. Also production increases because it is in many cases artificially restricted due to the consumers being too poor to buy the things they want and/or need.

  • Resources are ultimately finite, regardless of method of extraction. The poor people would get richer faster with better distribution and research supports basic reasoning that the pie would get bigger if distribution was better.

  • How about no. Sweden has no oil and is doing almost as good.

  • I appreciate you saying this even though I sleep very well at night regardless of downvotes.

  • Yes, many in Norway have wanted to establish a nordic defense agreement, but this is now dead as Sweden and Finland are joining NATO. That being said, individually Finland and Sweden have much more military strength than Norway.

  • I would still be much more worried about the Baltic states being invaded. Even so, there is a reason no major powers have been at war since the invention of nukes, and NATO would not in any way be a pushover without the US.

    I do not disagree on allocating more funds to the military. I even argued that it objectively has been underfunded. That does not change that this man is an asstwat and others like him try to scare Norwegians for their own purposes. I think a scared populace is a dangerous thing, possibly allowing for dangerous ideas to be implemented in the name of security. Recently some hefty surveillance has been implemented in Norway, which I blame on people like him.

  • and has strong incentives to make sure that its neighbours aren't at risk of being invaded

    What do you mean?

  • AFAIK Norway is the only nation bordering Russia that has never once in history been at war with it. This asstwat and other military men have been on Norwegian national media crying for more funds after the invasion of Ukraine. One has to see this in context of Norway having underfunded their military for some time and historically being subjugated by Denmark and Sweden. However, long story short, it is just fear mongering. Russia poses no credible threat to Norway with the backing of NATO.

  • Could not replicate the information I had gotten earlier on Discord for some specific project. Also, even if it did it would probably still be only an API change away from not working.

  • Of course I am not denying that anything possible could happen. That is contradictory to the assumption it was possible in the first place. What I am saying is just that not all that is possible will happen, even if given an infinite time to do so.

    EDIT: Unfortunately, given a setup like this the math says monkey Shakespeare will almost surely happen due to there only being finite variations.

  • Yep! Relatively speaking almost none of them will be picked. The same is also true even if one had a countable infinite amount of machines trying to pick these numbers.

  • Thanks. It was a bit poorly worded, but I do think the original statement is wrong and just wanted to sketch an idea of why.

  • Well no. You can try to count every real number forever and you will miss infinitely many still. Some infinites are larger than others, hence I do not see any reason why "infinite time" would cover "every possibility happening". On the other hand, if you do have a mathematical proof you could refer to, I would be most grateful.

    EDIT: To write out my example, let us consider a machine that picks a random number between 3 and 4 every second. Then there is every second a nonzero chance that this machine (assuming true and not pseudo randomness) will pick, say pi. The range of numbers picked constitute the image of a function from the whole numbers to the real numbers (up to isomporphism), which cannot be surjective. Hence there are numbers not picked even though there was a > 0 chance of picking them every second for an infinite time.