I actually have heard people espouse that view, but I haven’t gone further than that as it’s usually coming from people who don’t really want to debate animal ethics.

It’s technically related since someone might believe that creating life and avoiding death is more important than any amount of suffering. It makes endorsing factory farming and anti-abortion logically consistent. But it’s a technicality because I don’t think people have really thought that hard about it, ergo I agree with you it’s nonsensical.

I thought their first and even second paragraphs are reasonable. They were not advocating for forced abortions or post birth abortions. I’m not clear on your objection.

Also just generally in this thread, I’m seeing the pro life camp being boiled down to “anti choice”. Sure, that isn’t untrue. To restrict abortion rights is to restrict the choices of women. And to put them at medical risk in some cases, and to potentially bring a child into a world of misery.

But if you’re starting from the premise of “it’s hard to say when life starts, we have to pick an arbitrary point, and I pick conception” then it’s logically consistent to call it murder after that point, and it’s reasonable to weigh the abortive rights of women against the morality of murder in that context.

To be clear, I don’t think life-worth-protecting starts at conception. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just wish that us in the pro-choice camp acknowledged the problem as not so simple.

I have the problem that I give off a vibe as an onlooker. I’m not trying to be judgmental but I guess I ooze it.

Edit: Your case makes me chuckle. I used to love watching IT struggle because I got rid of default desktop and quick launch icons. Finally we have all learned to search.

I can’t even get past Donald’s statement which is absurd to me. What actually has “intrinsic value [in the] universe” and what difference does it make if my experiences are “intrinsically valuable” or not?

lol finally a balance to https://www.conservapedia.com/

Can you help me understand the image? The turning lane here is foiled by more than two-ish cars, but that’s still better than the one car it would take to block the right turners otherwise.

Can you summarize the gist of it? I keep seeing this claim and it is extremely non-intuitive.

Supposing it’s true, how is it we’ve magically arrived at the optimal number of lanes as of the uttering of the statement?

If it’s a basically linear function where the lowest traffic is near-zero lanes, is there an implication that mass transit would be built in tandem with lane reduction, or does everyone just get more miserable?

Edit: I’ll add that what I’ve heard is that more people choose to drive until the misery-equilibrium is reached. So roads will always be as busy as they are now because they are at their max tolerable level of drivability. That seems plausible for some roads and for some finite number of lanes, but not generally applicable.

What can then happen if someone narcs to the judge?

I haven’t decided yet where I am on the spectrum between “zero obligation to work = utopia” and “humans need to have something to do”. But you made me chuckle sardonically at the realization that people living off dividends and interest are functionally the same as a welfare queen.

I’m just brainstorming here, but do layoffs pave the way for hiring new grads at entry level wages, with more cutting edge knowledge?

Sure, that overlooks the loss of tacit knowledge that keeps the company running. I haven’t actually figured out yet how large companies can keep packaging out their senior employees that glue their disorganized systems together with undocumented knowledge.

Agreed. I participate as a thoughtless investor trying to maximize the growth of my savings but I hate that I have to even bother. Extra work, some guilt or anxiety around whether you made the right choices, and more complicated taxes. I think it’s horseshit that I’m effectively obliged to play in this casino the ruling class set up, just so my money retains its value against inflation.

I’m not against my money being used to grow businesses. But then just let the bank deal with it and pay me a fair interest rate for lending it to businesses. I still haven’t been given a good answer as to why the stock price of a company should have any effect on its day to day operations or revenue generation.

Oh man what is this? Something about this guy makes me automatically agree with you that he’s a great villain.

I take your point that tech advancement without social progress can go awry. Automation replacing jobs at too rapid a pace feels like a very real threat to me right now. Maybe I’m biased by the last century where tech either lessened inequality or at least raised the standard of living for everyone, even if disproportionately applied across the population.

But yeah since tech advancement is accelerating, it seems more likely society will be unable to keep up.

I think it’d be more than incremental. Any place used use copper could likely have the gold upgrade. That’s all your wiring in your house and the EV market, maybe plumbing, heat pumps, and electronics too.

The headache would be all the power grabs (durrr it landed near my country so it’s mine) and the capitalist machine taking forever for the means of manufacturing to lower the cost of finished goods via genuine competition.

Right but how many years of greater evil parties are you willing to endure while you establish this non-evil party?

Yeah somehow that got worse over time. I remember one version actually let you select multiple windows in the taskbar and choose to horizontally or vertically tile, and if you knew the magic sequence, you could do it for just two not all.

What do you propose?

That’s pretty good actually.

Fascinating thank you. Brings me back to ArcMap training days. I wonder if they have some data layer for “local population acceptance factor”.

Oh no! I thought it accessed some YouTube API that exposed the dislike data, but of course even if it did that, that data wouldn’t have dislikes from people that don’t have the extension!

The point is I’m now even more heartbroken about the loss of the Neutral video’s balance.

I’m a beginner to intermediate level home desktop user of Linux. I think I represent a small or at least low priority class of people with complaints, but for me it’s that it’s been confusing to learn how the distro is glued together.

I find sometimes things are handled in pre-systemd ways, sometimes with systemd, and sometimes custom scripts. Basically it is mentally hard having something on the system that duplicates functionality and not knowing which I should use to not clash with the vision of the distro maintainers.

Actually this is really a complaint about distro documentation not systemd. If you know of any documentation about the design decisions behind any major distro, I’m interested. Not forums where people piece together how to fix things, or wikis that document findings on how things behave in a distro. Something from the maintainers like, “Here’s are the scripts we added that are above/beyond the base distro (if Debian based) or above/beyond POSIX”. The only place I’ve seen this is Linux From Scratch.