bouh @ bouh @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

966

Joined

2 yr. ago

Starfleet is not anarchist. There are admirals. There are federation laws and judges (1st directive, in strange new worlds, laws against eugenics). Those laws and positions of power are decided on a federal level. How do you do that in an anarchist organization?

I fail to see how a federation can not be a representative government (because different worlds have different political systems, representative democracy is the only one that can make them all on an equal footing).

I certainly don't know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.

If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.

The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.

It's a federation, which means it's a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.

Well, there's Hitler who did exactly the same: publish a book, try not one but several coups, still get named chancelier legally. In France we like them too: we have 2 Napoléon who did the same thing. It almost happened another time in 1958, but the man they put in power was reasonable for once.

While this is not worthy of ww3, defending nato member space is something nato can and should do. Whether the strike is intended or not, nato is legitimate to defend the area to prevent a strike. More than legitimate in fact.

French constitutional court is allowing ministers to vote in the parliament if their resignation has been accepted. It's a fun combo because it involves all 3 powers : executive, legislative and judiciary.

Ha ! Turns out I'm right after all : radioactivation can happen with all type of radiations. But neutron activation is the lowest energy one.

You are right that it's probably a contamination for the book though, and not directly an activation (although carbon can be activated and will be found in the book).

I know quite a bit about radioactivity thanks to my studies. I was sure all radiations could activate something, but it turns out I was wrong apparently because I can't find anything but neutron activation.

I'm pretty sure alpha, beta and gamma rays can stick to a particle, often bringing it in an unstable state that will force it to release something to get into a stable state. That's particle physics. And that's why we call them ionising radiations : because they turn atoms into ions. But my memories are definitely fuzzy, and it was not were I was the best.

Those radiations may only activate for a too short time to be useful maybe? I don't know.

Thanks for the precision. Still, the result is the same I'm sure.

Well, maybe explain my confusion then, instead of being an ass.

Marie Curie studied radioactivity with pure and very active materials with no protection. The radioactivity of the notebook is indirect radioactivity, that is material that becomes radioactive after being exposed to powerful ionizing radiations. It must be noted that the notebook may not be deadly radioactive. And if it will be for 1500 years, it won't be deadly for 1500 years. For reference, bananas tend to be radioactive too. And you are exposed to ionizing radiations when you take the plane.

Chernobyl had two reactors burn iirc. Most of the radioactive material was in the reactor, but the fire made smoke out of radioactive materials. The quantity of smoke, in kg, that go out was significant, but it got diluted in the atmosphere and spread. Which means there wasn't so much dust, in mass, that got in any one place. The dust is also not only uranium, but a combination of uranium and materials that were contaminated like the notebook. With the rain, the dust was washed and distributed more, and with the time, materials become less and less radioactive.

Both the book and chernobyl are not dangerously radioactive. But because of the nature of radioactivity, care must always be taken.

The title mention god with a capital G, which means it's the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.

What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.

During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.

Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.

In the middle of this are the liberals who don't care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that's what the church doesn't let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It's against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?

It's not science that made religion recess. It's bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn't go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It's a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.

I must be clear that the problem is not that it rakes time to do the things if you have the right recipe to do them. It takes time to find it when you make a mistake.

The good way is simple: you need a system that's well updated, so debian stable is not ideal and that was my first mistake. You need to use Proton on steam, or heroic game launcher for gog. And that's it.

The setup for these things is straightforward, simply follow a guide for your OS.

Things got better and better in the last 2 years, and they're still improving. I would argue that today Windows is not better. People learned how to install graphic drivers on windows, and any setup on Linux now is not harder than that.

Windows forced me to update to a version that has advertisement in it. It has built in network calls in the start menu. I would have to pay a licence and make an account, something I avoided for years. Sharing file on a private network is insanely hard to do and very buggy.

Now I'm not a Windows admin, but I'm a Linux admin, so there are many, many things I know how to do on Linux and not on Windows.

This made me realize that there is a bias: when something doesn't work on windows, the something doesn't work, or you only need to find how to hack it to work. But when something doesn't work on Linux, it's Linux that doesn't work. That's a double standard. The same kind of work or problems on Windows is ignored.

There are so many things today to help people use Windows, like classes, professionals, help desk, it's everywhere, for everyone, yet it's somehow considered easy to use windows. BTW any organisation that made the move did saw it happen. I mean that many organisations moved to Linux and gave the support and formation for it to work, and it worked.

My brother, who want nothing to do with computers if he can, asked me to install Linux on his domestic laptop. It's not an everyone is doing it yet, but there's definitely something.

Forcing everyone to stay connected will make pirating it harder, and that will drive many, many people away.

Playing on Linux for a year now. I wouldn't say it was flawless, but a lot has to do with me learning how to do it correctly. Like using steam and heroic game launcher, trying a different version of Proton or wine, and it's beginning to be very easy now that I have the right recipe so to say.

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.