snek_boi @ snek_boi @lemmy.ml

Posts

49

Comments

430

Joined

4 yr. ago

It seems like you really don’t like it. What makes you say that?

Interesting. I didn't know that. So, just to clarify, her husband stopped her from paying her taxes?

Gotta ask if those hips are still avoiding paying taxes https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/shakira-stands-trial-spain-alleged-tax-fraud-2023-11-19/

Ah, this is why I love Lemmy.

I'd say the fight against entropy is an attempt to retain specific expressions of energy in the system. The expressions of energy are assemblages that have created order. And yes, as you said, the creation of order has a cost: greater global entropy.

In case you're interested, this way of looking at entropy and life comes from Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What's the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

After reading what I have posted, it's totally fair to believe that I do not find beauty or inspiration in nature. However, I can give you some reassurance.

How? Well, I actually I find the battle against entropy amazing and inspiring. A while ago I was sipping tea while my dog nestled next to me, and I was moved thinking about how we make each other so happy. I am also moved by people, people who look beyond their belly button, people who are kind, people who are good at what they do.

It's not just that we're doomed to accept brutality and appreciate tiny slivers of beauty. There's actually steps that we can take to support life. For example, we can become a part of an assemblage that we like. Sometimes that assemblage is a group of friends, a political group, or an organization. You know you're in the right place when your incentives align with that of the group. There's an alignment around shared values, shared goals. Your atoms are keeping your structural integrity. Your cells are keeping you alive. Your thoughts are aiding you in problem solving and connecting with others. And your friends are connecting with you.

There's quite a bit more to this, so if you're interested in this way of understanding the world, you can check out Prosocial by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and psychologists Paul W. B. Atkins and Steven C. Hayes.

Cordyceps fungus

Holy crap. This gave me the creeps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis This opened the door to the broader category of parasitoids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid

Prion diseases

Truly scary stuff. I vaguely knew that genetic problems are a thing, but I didn’t know the specifics. Thanks for sharing this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

I agree that there’s a layer of human subjectivity in this whole discussion. Within that layer, I think it’s okay to get a gut sense that nature is brutal and grotesque. My goal is to avoid romanticizing nature.

Once we’re able to avoid our human bias of romanticizing nature, we can take the discussion to another layer, a layer that could be called more objective.

For example, we could talk about entropy and evolution’s attempts to fight against it. We could talk about evolution occurring at multiple scales and dimensions simultaneously, such as atomic structures, cells, and multicellular organisms. These are examples of assemblages, and they expand the possible behaviors of the parts. In other words, assemblages make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

So, how does entropy, evolution, and assemblages connect with our discussion? Well, brutality and grotesqueness can usually be translated into the language of entropy and assemblages. Killing someone destroys an assemblage and increases entropy. Torture and trauma reduce the probability of an organism exhibiting variation in their behaviors. They reduce the emergent properties of the assemblage.

Is it always better to choose the language of entropy and assemblages over brutality and grotesqueness? No. Context matters. Again, if the goal is merely to avoid the romanticization of nature, the brutality and grotesqueness layer is appropriate.

Ouch. Looked it up. Its brutal. https://enviroliteracy.org/do-lions-eat-their-prey-alive/

TIL lions eat some prey alive because it saves the lions energy. They avoid spending too much energy killing a prey that is difficult to kill. Instead, they incapacitate (but not kill) a prey and start eating right away.

I agree. The boundary can easily become diffuse or even silly.

However, there’s a reason I asked what I asked. My ultimate purpose is to show that existence is not perfectly designed, that sometimes it is brutal and grotesque. Unfortunately, people often retort saying nature is brutal and grotesque because of humans. So, by focusing on non-human nature, I’m sidestepping the retort.

Pinecones are indeed beautiful. However, they are decidedly not one of the greatest arguments for the existence of an intelligent higher power. In fact, the whole claim about pinecones having the Fibonacci sequence is false https://youtu.be/1Jj-sJ78O6M

Additionally, I wouldn’t think that cones having nice shapes are an example of nature being brutal and grotesque. But I suppose you wanted to make the opposite argument: that nature is perfect and beautiful.

Ouch. Rape. Sometimes gang rape. Bloodied female. Sometimes drowned female. https://misfitanimals.com/ducks/how-do-ducks-mate/

Awful.

Here’s some I know:

• Dolphins rape other dolphins https://theconversation.com/dolphin-sexual-politics-gets-the-tabloid-treatment-6063
• Praying mantis females often eat the head of males they have sex with. Some spiders do that too, like the appropriately named black widow spider. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_cannibalism
• Mass extinctions have occurred in the past, way before humans existed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
• Genetic mutations often lead to inviable offspring or awful conditions (I don’t know specific examples off the top of my head)
• Parasites can take control of insects and lead them to drown (also don’t know examples off the top of my head)

Long ago I had a friend who claimed something similar. In front of the camp fire, he claimed he was feeing spirits inside of him and that he became possessed. He gained attention from the group for about a minute. At first they asked if he was okay. He continued to act possessed, so they stopped being kind. They yelled at him, made fun of him, imitated him….

I sat next to him and quietly asked if he was okay and needed anything. I didn’t really know what his reaction would be because I didn’t know him. He was a friend of a friend. Still, I told him that him and I could leave to take a walk and talk. He didn’t respond and simply stared at the fire. He ignored us for the rest of that night.

The following morning, he decided to act ignorant. “What happened? I don’t remember anything.” The group was pissed at him and barely talked to him. He hasn’t been invited to anything ever since.

This whole thing was very unfortunate. It’s a memory of mine that is painful. I understand back then we were teenagers. Teenagers explore their identities, sometimes in cringy ways. That’s normal. But still, the event isolated him from the group. And if I talk about this whole incident to anyone who was there that night, they still resent him.

I suppose this is a long answer to your question. If someone claimed they had a vision of the vehicle crashing/exploding and everyone dying, nobody would believe them and they’d be in for a tough time.

Already happening https://youtu.be/evSFeqTZdqs

Don’t judge a book by its cover

Oh. Shoot. I’ve bought those in the past. So they’re lying about being flushable, I suppose.

Others have talked about the ultimate measure: your GPA. However, for you to get that high GPA it can help to:

• Train your relational frame skills.
• Develop good learning habits through Tiny Habits or something like that.
• Develop a good relationship with your thoughts and emotions through something like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or the Healthy Minds Program or any program designed to improve your relationship with your thoughts.
• Internalize something like Make it Stick or another book that teaches how to learn quickly and well.
• Internalize habits of mind such as Harvard’s Project Zero’s Visible Thinking Routines.

We share the goal of making the world more private. I’m not trying to be cheeky or mean. I’m genuinely curious. Would you be against reading to learn how to talk more compellingly?