thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

602

Joined

2 yr. ago

What surprises me most of all about the whole thing is peoples inability to respect the fact that other countries are not subject to their laws.

I mean, our politicians and ngo's do put political pressure on other countries politicians to e.g. respect human rights, not execute gay people, etc. but we don't go storming embassies or expelling diplomats over it, because they are operating within their own countries laws, not ours.

But this goes even further: This is like if some guy in Iraq, or Iran or Pakistan were to break some law that only exists in our country (say a guy marries a 13 year old), and the government in his country condemns the action, but explains that it is legal in their country to do that, and we STILL storm their embassy and expel their diplomats.

Can't they see that the majority of the population here, and the government, agree with them that burning Qurans is a mean thing to do, and that we don't agree with the message being sent? They should be angry at the people burning Qurans, not the entire country...

I've always thought of it as referring to the scientific leap that discovering quantum mechanics was: A massive leap that completely changed the ruling paradigm of the scientific world.

I thoroughly enjoy being able to design my own feed, and not have some corporation shove stuff down my throat in order to keep my engagement up. The past couple times I've checked facebook (primarily to check events) I've left again almost immediately, because I'm so put off by the way they shove stuff in my face just to find out what I'm interested in. I've even noticed that if I spend more time looking at a post from some source (no clicks/interaction, just reading text on an image) they start funnelling more of that into my feed.

I can definitely, at least in part, see that a domestic oppressor is "better" than foreign troops, and I'm not trying to sa that "this is all the Afghanis fault" or anything similar. The troubles and tragedy in Afghanistan are very clearly largely the fault of foreign governments the past 50-ish years. What confuses me is all the people willing to risk so much to get out, or the people that appreciated the freedoms they had when they were not under Taliban rule, not being willing to take the same risks by fighting the Taliban and preventing them from getting to power in the first place.

I guess it comes down to this: They had ≈20 years to build up the education and political systems, as well as the military strength to withstand the Taliban. As long as western forces were deployed, there were plenty of Afghani troops and police risking their lives to protect those systems. But once western troops left, so many of them threw down their weapons and fled. I have a hard time understanding why.

I have to admit, it kind of shocks me that so few people in Afghanistan were unwilling to fight the Taliban when they knew just how bad they were/could be. People were desperate enough to try clinging to the exterior of planes when western forces were leaving, but not desperate enough to fight back. I don't know, it's tragic and confusing at the same time.

The thing is this: You wouldn't have known what kind of activities you enjoy unless you had been exposed to a variety of them at some point. I absolutely think part of the education system's job is to expose kids to a wide variety of activities, help them push their boundaries regarding what they think is fun, and experience mastering different things.

I don't know about your education system, but it seems like there may be a too one-sided focus on some sports. I remember from my time in grade school that we were exposed to pretty much everything from hockey/football (the kind you play with your feet)/basketball to dance/gymnastics/weight lifting/track and field, etc.

The thing about university "requiring" people to work more than 8 hours is this: It's not a human right to become a system architect, physicist or engineer. Universities typically don't require more than 8 hours per day, but a lot of studies in practice require more than 8 hours if you want to be able to get through them. Relaxing the requirements for passing a degree would mean less competent professionals leaving the universities, and I don't think anyone getting on a plane or going into surgery wants that.

Yes, but also: In a lot of professions you have a lot of freedom regarding when you work. I'm browsing lemmy now, and getting to work at around 10, but I worked late on Friday, and I'm probably going to be answering some mails after dinner today.

I think this is just going to become more common: Not paying people for for the time they are at work, but rather for the job they do. That means that if you prefer to work 9-5, thats fine, but if you prefer to leave earlier or start later, and get some of your work done in the afternoon/weekends, thats also fine, as long as you get the job done.

I very much enjoy having that freedom. Even though it means I may be expected to pull longer days every now and then, it also means nobody questions me for leaving early when the weather is nice.

Better chance of getting home before dark in winter at Northern latitudes.

Cries in living at 62^o north

To be fair, @d00phy did say that

They also started actively working to stop folks jailbreaking. That part, I thought, was too much. Just tell them they void the warranty by jailbreaking and refuse support.

I think it's fair to void support for someone that goes ham in the terminal and breaks a bunch of shit, at least if you explicitly state that doing so will void support. You have root access on your macbook, but I assume the average person using it knows more about what they're doing than the average person jailbreaking their phone (which was pretty much anyone as far as I can remember). Also: If you tell support that you opened the terminal and typed a bunch of stuff and now your macbook is broken, I assume support is likely to tell you "tough luck..."

I can definitely see them leaving macOS alone though. I can't imagine anyone would buy a macbook to use for development if they don't have root access, while, as far as I know, nobody buys iPhones or iPads to develop anything. If they do it would only be for testing purposes, which I assume should be fine without root access, as you're developing for an end-user that doesn't have root access.

I agree that it's reasonable to refuse support to someone who breaks certain terms (i.e. rm -rf /* ... "pls help me apple support!")

I also agree that actively working hard to prevent me from having root access to a device I buy is going too far.

Ahh, that makes sense. How did you go about doing that? It's not like you have a terminal to mess around in on an iPhone? Is the reason I haven't heard of it in a while that it's harder/impossible in newer iPhones?

Also: Why would apple prevent you from having root access? The way I see it, when I buy a phone, just like a pc, I should be allowed to do what I want with it.

I don't get why people are downvoting you? You're literally asking for "devils advocate arguments" and saying your immediate reaction is to oppose this.

Come on people, be better than just downvoting a legitimate question from someone who admits to being uninformed.

Some of the manufacturing is moving back now though. It may be too little too late, but I have some hope that we can become less dependent on authoritarian pariah states in the coming years.

In Norway we have the stereotypical Norwegians "Ola Nordmann" and "Kari Nordmann". Ola and Kari were quite common names a couple generations ago (not so common now). "Nordmann" literally translates to "Norwegian [person]", but is also a not-too-uncommon last name.

We typically talk about them if we're describing something or some situation and what the stereotypical Norwegian would do/think.

So from urbandictionary: Basically edging yourself for an obscene amount of time, in order to "become one with one's dick, in a meditative, trancelike state" (paraphrasing). The urban dictionary article was actually a quite funny read.

Close, but not quite. One cubic meter of air at atmospheric conditions is about 40 moles, or 575 grams. Let's say 600 g to be generous.

Wind moving at 250 km/h (cat. 5 hurricane) contains about 1.5 kJ of kinetic energy per cubic meter.

If all that energy is used to heat the same air, it's temperature is increased by roughly... 3.5 K.

Now consider the fact that kinetic energy scales as the square of velocity: for a normal windy (say 15 m/s wind), we only get a temperature increase of 0.16 K, which is practically immeasurable.

For these calculations I didn't even consider the building, which has a massive specific heat capacity compared to air.

In summary: Because the thermal energy required to increase temperatures appreciably is of a completely different order of magnitude than the amount of kinetic energy in the wind, the fact that a building isn't heating up is not a solid argument that only a small portion of the kinetic energy in the wind is being lost when it hits the building. In fact, even if all the energy was lost, you wouldn't even notice the temperature change, unless you were in a cat. 5 hurricane, in which case the building is probably already gone.

Still going on, I'm keeping myself slightly updated by reading the reports from the Critical Threats Project.

Don't know about Saturday, but "lørdag" comes from the Norse word for "washing day" because the vikings were surprisingly hygienic for their time, and bathed/washed themselves once a week.