No I'm not. I asked if anyone likes Windows. These people presumably have no opinion, it's just a means to an end. The closest thing I think you'll get is "I liked Windows 7" or something like that.
Those replies corroborate my point, if you think about it. They would have had an opinion if they had seen the alternatives. They would at least wish that Microsoft stopped doing these annoying modifications. I would know, because I have a rather large circle of friends who use only Linux or BSD.
One compelling theory for why we have not encountered intelligent life is that any sufficiently advanced civilization will eventually stop exploring the universe and immerse themselves entirely in virtual reality, to the point that they harness the total output of their star for computation, and disappear.
Relativity means that the Star Trek vision of a galaxy spanning society is probably an incoherent fantasy. Why pursue expensive, dangerous, and disappointing adventures in the real world when you can conjure any conceivable reality with perfect verisimilitude?
Working on my own kind of metaverse I've grappled with this issue, and that is why I hope to use it to improve physical space endeavors as opposed to replacing them. This really started for me in two places: the newer one was when I pitched to the department of education for a grant program a software I called Meta-Education Environment for Simulation and Gaming (MEESG), aimed particularly at assisting in training of high-risk vocations (such as high voltage-systems repair)... but after I thought about it, I realized that the earlier inspiration was the VBS simulation I trained in the military and how I noticed the benefits directly (later leading to many hours of Arma2/Arma3 playtime, the civilian version of VBS).
So the main fight I see in the future is those who think (similar to the article) all this immersion effort is vapid and superficial. I don't think it is, and for more than just training, but also for rapid iteration in a simulated physical space that doesn't waste actual physical resources until a better product is developed. Ergo, I feel there is hidden value in the virtual space yet untapped in the wider market for combining fun and relaxation with teaching valuable things about the real world.
Just for example, I have been adding my local flora/fauna and edibility properties and medicial properties to one of my gameworlds recently, which could help me accelerate my learning of that particular real world thing but also make the gameworld more fun and interactive.
An even darker take, if some renegade member of an advanced alien race does decide to spend a lot of resources on exploring the universe, and gains the means to do so, the other members of their species may very well plug them into a simulation while they are sleeping and make them think they are exploring the cosmos.
Unless a species is completely post scarcity, there is a strong ethical argument to be made that this is the correct thing to do, versus spending a lot of resources on "mere exploration",
Or they could have just hired a competent architect who would quit as soon as the owner make them design something like this, but then you’d still end up with this
That’s a good place to start building intuition, but it can also distract you actual understanding.
What that visualization really is is a bunch of arbitrarily bounded Fourier transforms of little windowed slices of a piece of music. The true Fourier transform of a time bounded piece of music is a single unbounded function over an infinite frequency spectrum.
Here's a little function that I use pretty often when I want to install a package but I'm not sure what the exact package name is. Give it a keyword and it searches apt-cache and dumps the results into fzf.
function finstall {
PACKAGE_NAME=$(apt-cache search $1 | fzf | cut --delimiter=" " --fields=1)
if [ "$PACKAGE_NAME" ]; then
echo "Installing $PACKAGE_NAME"
sudo apt install $PACKAGE_NAME
fi
}
I have a similar one for Homebrew, with the ability to preview package info and install multiple targets:
# ~/.config/fish/functions/fbi.fish
function fbi -a query -d 'Install Brew package via FZF'
set -f PREVIEW 'HOMEBREW_COLOR=1 brew info {}'
set -f PKGS (brew formulae) (brew casks |sed 's|^|homebrew/cask/|')
set -f INSTALL_PKGS (echo $PKGS \
|sed 's/ /\n/g' \
|fzf --multi --preview=$PREVIEW --query=$query --nth=-1 --with-nth=-2.. --delimiter=/)
if test ! -z "$INSTALL_PKGS"
brew install $INSTALL_PKGS
else
echo "Nothing to install…"
end
end
But all of that labour could have gone into building actually productive assets or infrastructure that meet some of the many real needs that exist in the world. This is a terrible allocation of resources, barely better than him paying them to go into the desert and dig a giant hole and then fill it in again.
I don't the Jeff Bezos personally is the problem, but he and his peers are symptoms of an economic system with very messed up incentives.
Can you be more specific, in particular where you think he’s calling for that? For example, he’s praising young people for voting en masse which seems like the polar opposite.
I'm curious what is being enforced, from your perspective.
I'm familiar with the social conservatives who believe that what the US gov't is doing with regards to marriage amounts to an infringement on their rights. Not sure if that's the argument you are trying to make here.
I’m broadly referring to the project of modern progressivism, a tidy summary of which could be: ”We will have an ideal society when we rid ourselves of the unintelligent in our way.”
Iran may not have been colonized but their democratic government was overthrown by the US and Britain to prevent them nationalizing their fossil fuel supply.
I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran has been able to use their oil wealth for their own democratic civil development.
That's not really what happened. The Shah was the ultimate authority in Iran, and he asked the Prime Minister to step down, which was his legal right. The Prime Minister said "No thanks, I'm the boss now", at which point the US/UK helped the Shah assert his actual legal right under their existing rule of law.
Can you tell me - if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?
That's quite the re-writing of history there. The Shah removed Mosaddegh from power in 1952 but re-instated him almost immediately due to pressure from pro-democracy supporters. The Shah was then exiled after a failed coup attempt by one of his Imperial Guard colonels effectively leaving him powerless.
The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.
> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?
Regardless of Johnson's behaviour and incompetence I'd hold my nose and throw my support behind the Prime Minister. Such autocratic behaviour should not be tolerated. I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.
> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.
Curious why? Would you hold that position even if the monarch has present widespread support from the population?
Do you think something has changed to make that form of rule more objectionable than it was in the past? I.e., do you have an equally negative view of historic monarchies?
I wouldn't go around and label myself an anti-monarchist but I'm surprised that that's a contentious position? Yes, of course the people should strip all power from their monarchies/monarchs/aristocrats in a democracy, because democracy is about sovereign power originating from the people or whatever, not from divine right or right of conquest or tradition or something. And yes, of course historic monarchies are at least equally objectionable! As a rule I'm pretty sure they exploited people a lot worse than at least the present-day monarchies we tolerate for whatever reason!
If the monarch as a person has present widespread support from the population they can probably do the aristocratic equivalent of a gofundme to keep living in their pretty palace if that's what the population wants, and then get elected to normal political offices like a normal person. If the monarch as an office has present widespread support I'm going to quietly disagree with the population and in the case of the UK at least roll my eyes a little.
> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies
I guess Charles taking Bakr Bin Laden's (the half brother of Osama Bin Laden) money is not enough to outrage the English enough to strip him of his powers. But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.
The thing is he has no powers. Even if/when he becomes king the "powers" of that role are purely ceremonial, even if enshrined in law and what paltry bits of a constitution we have in the UK. As another commenter here suggested, if the monarch were to use one of these powers (that they historically agreed not to use) then they'll endanger the privileges afforded to them for merely being the "royal family". They'll happily put up and shut up so they can roll around their estates in their Range Rovers and tweeds accompanied by their close protection unit.
> But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.
But they're all quite useless, and many of us already realise this.
To label the protestors "pro-democracy supporters" is an interesting take. To me, it would be like labeling the Jan 6 protestors as pro-democracy supporters. The people protesting for him were the nationalists and the islamists, and some socialists. Not pro-democracy folk. Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.
Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?
> The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.
Mossadegh was on the path to maintain his all-encompassing emergency powers for the rest of his life, if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos. I just can't understand what this has to do with democracy.
> Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.
Going to have to insist on a citation for that claim.
> Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?
That's not how it works in the UK. In a general election it's traditionally the leader of the winning party who becomes prime minister, the electorate know this and it generally works out fine. The government of the day can still have their policies and legislation challenged in the houses of parliament (simplistically speaking).
Admittedly, what is anachronistic and anti-democratic are the current shenanigans going on to elect Johnson's replacement where the electorate have no say.
> if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos
What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?
My source would be Iran Between Two Revolutions, but that's just going from memory. Maybe I'm confusing some other party, but I am fairly sure it was the National Front.
> What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?
No, the goal wasn't boneheaded, but the policies he implemented towards that goal were boneheaded. Nationalizing your #1 and basically only source of revenue which is propping up your society, when you don't actually have the ability to continue operating it by yourself, is boneheaded. Thinking that the British would stick around after you nationalized their assets(one mans nationalization is another mans theft) in order to help you figure it all out, is bone headed.
Likewise, rural people deserve freedom and to not be serfs to local lords, but at the same time, just setting them free
and thinking they will be able to manage the land as well as the centralized administrator immediately is boneheaded
> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?
If it really that were to happen, I suspect UK would become a republic in a few weeks. Parliament is sovereign in England and all the powers that the Queen has left are under the understanding that they are never to be used.
Depends which people. The quantity of meat that many Americans eat is absurd and probably unhealthy.
I fully agree that there is a future for meat, but it’s got to be smaller amounts of higher quality, pasture or otherwise sustainably raised meat.
The way I eat meat these days is more as a supplement. A ham hock simmered in a large pot of soup. A single chicken breast in a large stir fry with a bunch of vegetables. It provides a huge amount of flavour and enjoyment, I’m able to afford to buy the best quality, and I’m convinced that it’s a healthier nutritional profile. I think it’s also a lot closer to how most people ate meat historically.
