thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

595

Joined

2 yr. ago

Would have been much better if they just pasted the (probably quite short) script into the readme so that I can just paste it into my terminal. I have no issue running commands I can have a quick look at.

I would never blindly pipe a script to be executed on my machine though. That's just next level "asking to get pwned".

It's terrifying that this seems like a reasonable explanation

I just can't see how an incompetent (and thereby less productive) populace benefits the oligarchs, other than the whole thing about wanting people to be easier to manipulate.

I mean, if the country has fewer competent people, businesses relying on competence will eventually start hurting. That obviously includes these people's companies, which are the source of their all-important wealth.

I just honestly cannot comprehend what the end game is at this point... like, how does this even benefit anyone at all?

I seem to remember seeing a comic about the moment in an RPG shooter game where you walk into an area and notice lots of cover - you know shit's about to hit the fan.

Looks like Alabama was inspired...

I came here to point out exactly this: If you only shrink the ball, without reducing its size, well... you're gonna have problems carrying the ammo.

As a DM, I think I would let them both shrink and reduce the mass, and wait till they fired the weapon before invoking "conservation of momentum" and declaring that the cannon ball drops to the ground after about a meter.

You keep saying this "power vacuums do not exist" line, and I'm wondering what you mean by it, because it's used to refer to a phenomenon that we can observe everywhere, all the time.

Do you mean that the situation in which no person or group has the power to control the people and resources in a region has never existed? Because that's what a power vacuum is: When no person or group has the power to make and enforce a set of rules in a region.

The first example that comes to mind of a power vacuum is when the substitute teacher leaves the fifth graders alone for fifteen minutes, and comes back to find the class playing "tag-but-the-floor-is-lava" on the tables. Of course, the fifth graders have an internal hierarchy, so they've already established some new norms and rules with some unofficial leaders to bout that have filled the power vacuum left by the teacher when they left the room. Regardless, this serves as a great illustration of the concept of a power vacuum: When the teacher is in the room, they are the centre of power. When they leave, the students take on the role of making and enforcing their own rules, thereby filling the power vacuum created by the absence of the teacher. The short in-between period from when the teacher has left until a new set of rules and enforcement mechanisms has been established is typically referred to as a "power vacuum".

Saying "enforcement never prevents any crime" is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they've incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.

If you're talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.

Yes, it's been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.

You say they're arguing against strawmen, but do nothing to refute the arguments or show why they're strawmen. Let's say you have what you want: Rules but no rulers, direct democracy, and government but no state (please explain the latter in more detail).

The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job. A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven't ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you'll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I'll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.

These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn't agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven't even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.

Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to "rulers" or "the state" (i.e. the bureaucracy).

I seem to remember that what the EU did to good effect last time this asshat was president was to place extremely directed tariffs/taxes on specific goods from Trump-friendly areas. Essentially saying "we're going to toll oranges from this specific county in that specific swing state in order to drive a couple specific producers out of business", and then did that across the country. The advantage being that WTO agreements allow you to answer tariffs dollar-for-dollar, so you can respond to wide-reaching tolls that amount to X USD (e.g. tolls on the entire European aluminium industry) with extremely hard-hitting tolls on very specific producers.

We should be doing that again. Don't touch the wider American population, but put all our weight into hitting hard against cornerstone businesses in pro-trump counties. Make them regret voting this guy in thinking it would better their economy.

At this point I have a hard time believing that anyone can buy a Chinese product and then talk about there being a "secret backdoor" in seriousness.

Come on: We all should know by now that if it's Chinese, there is more likely than not some way for Xi to use it for something other than what you want the product to do. There's nothing "secret" or "back" about this door. It's more like an open front gate with landing strips and a "welcome home Pooh bear" sign.

Completely unrelated to the meme: Whenever I see this picture I just can't help thinking about how it must have felt to be literally Elvis in that moment. It's honestly an awesome photo in the way you can tell that this guy feels like the king of the world right there.

In this specific context it is quite relevant that they're an atheist, and therefore presumably relatively sceptical of religion in general. That's a bias colouring their response that they're disclaiming that they have.

There do of course exist (far too many) people out there that objectify women, but that's not what this post is about (at least the way I'm reading it). I can definitely relate to the situation where some random woman will do some mundane everyday thing, like put on a purse or let down her hair, and my body just decides to react to that.

It has nothing to do with objectifying women, and of course I don't make a point out of it, but just push it out of my head and move on with my day. The point of the post is that it's funny and relatable how the body can just decide to send a puff of hormones around your system as a response to the most mundane things, even though you know that it's wildly inappropriate. I'm sure you've experienced the same thing at some point?

We're interpreting this comment very differently. The way I read it, they're saying that the oils and microbes that occur naturally on our skin are largely beneficial to good health, which means that there are downsides to removing it.

That shouldn't be controversial. It's not saying "never wash", but rather pointing out that excessive cleaning with soap can negatively impact your health. There's plenty of evidence that that's the case.

Of course, you should be washing your hands properly, there's also plenty of evidence that not doing so causes disease. I think the major point here is that it's not black and white. Excessively washing your whole body with soap can very well lead to dry/cracked skin and skin infections.

As he points out in the video, people that use shampoo regularly will quickly get very greasy hair if they don't wash their hair with shampoo in a while. In my experience, it's directly related to how often you use shampoo- I only use shampoo about twice a week now, and my hair gets less greasy than it used to when I used shampoo more often.

What? No? The way I understand the comment at least, it's suggesting that males are more socially solitary. There's plenty of evidence suggesting that women, from a biological perspective, are more heavily tuned towards socialising (e.g. are more adept at giving and recognising subtle social cues, and maintaining larger social networks).

If that is the case, it makes sense that the men, who likely maintained smaller social networks within whatever group (family, tribe, etc.) they came from, would leave that group and integrate with the women group, rather than opposite.

set -e

I actually enjoy this part, where I've written some intricate code of sorts and get to spend some time writing a memo that explains how it works.

I usually don't even end up reading them, because the process of writing a good memo will make me remember it.

I'm impressed by how many good forklift-stories there are here, I never would have guessed how much crazy shit you guys go through! But this one wins the prize- that sounds sketchy as fuuuck..