Shareholders need to get comfortable not buying a new yacht

I want Misato Katsuragi to throw beer cans at my head until I cannot remember my own name.

That's some Evangelion shit

not sapping wealth from developing nations like imperial core countries do

Oh, like Wagner Group is doing in Sudan, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, etc.? Good to know they're not Russian. Or are you gonna tell me it's fake news by the mainstream media?

The global south may feel relieved now, but they are merely trading western colonialism for eastern neo-colonialism. I hope they realize that before they can regret it, like Kenya is starting to with China.

I didn't say you lived in Russia. I meant "your side" as in, the side you defend. Meaning Russia, in this case, allegedly.

"Only the US has ever committed war crimes and genocide, my side is perfectly clean! I am very smart!"

Putin is no one's friend but his own. I could go on but I remember your pro-Ruzzia tirades and it isn't worth arguing with bad faith arguments, you'll learn for yourself eventually when, shocking no one, shills like you outlive your usefulness and get disposed of.

https://youtu.be/MfGVB6xADGo?t=17

(yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that)

Don't think that'll work in his favor but then again, he also thought he'd conquer Ukraine in 3 days...

Reverse psychology? Is he trying to make libs think that Biden has been compromised by Russia, therefore Trump wins, which is actually what Putin wants?

It's a major reason why I only watch independent sex worker stuff now. And even then you can't be 100% sure...

What do you mean by this? Are you talking about OP's argument? I don't get it.

I have heard that 20.04 will be supported until 2027.

Only if its support period somehow got extended, normal LTS support period is 5 years.

Also in their blog they said they’re planning to upgrade to Ubuntu 24.04 base OS when that comes out.

Must have missed that then. That's reassuring, in that case.

Ubuntu Touch is not even that up to date, really. It only recently rebased to 20.04 from 16.04 and 20.04 will go EOL next year, while there's still no promises on how they plan on transitioning to the next LTS release (I get that they're a team of volunteers while Google is a massive corporation, but working on what was essentially abandonware to begin with was likely a disservice, as other mobile Linux distros can follow the upstream a lot more closely than Ubports does).

Your arguments are right, indeed, though they are rendered a bit moot when we're in a thread discussing Ubuntu Touch, which is like, 10 times more insecure than any custom Android ROM, since it uses a desktop Linux security model pretty much.

Out of curiosity, how is it wrt messaging apps? From what I remember, the only good one used to be TELEports (for Telegram), but if you wanted to use Signal or such you were pretty much out of luck. Has the situation changed?

That is true, but GrapheneOS is only available for Pixel phones (for good reasons, but still, a lot of people can't just switch phones on a whim).

How do you know for sure your brain is not doing exactly the same thing? Hell, being autistic, many social interactions are just me trying to guess what will get me approval without any understanding lol.

Also really fitting that Photon chose this for a placeholder right now:

GPT-4 also often just fails midway through writing an answer, while I haven't had that happen with Gemini yet (though I need to use it a lot more to be able to provide a fair comparison in that regard).

Just because it's not human doesn't mean I can't show some basic manners. 😅

It seems more expressive than GPT-4 in general and better at itemizing information, but it's a bit worse at keeping track of context and seems to hallucinate more than GPT-4 (but less than GPT-3). I'm currently on the free trial period so I'll try it out for these two months and then see if it justifies switching over (the subscription is the same price so that won't be the deal-breaker). One thing that it's noticeably better at is researching online, probably because it uses Google as a backend instead of Bing lol.

It's supposed to integrate with other services, if you use the Android/iOS app, as it can replace Google Assistant entirely and get access to info from other Google services. However, the app is unavailable in the EU and a few other countries as of yet, along with image generation. Classic case of EU favoritism towards Microsoft and not sanctioning it like it does Apple and Google... It's also rumored that the ChatGPT Android app will get Assistant API integration "soon", but it's also not yet available (anywhere, AFAIK). Presumably, even if that is the case, Google can probably add in deeper system-level integrations, given how it's their OS and their ecossystem.

Gemini Advanced (Ultra) gets it right:

That does make sense. It is a country with a fairly small population, so I begrudgingly have to accept that it has to have some control over this kind of thing, not to overload its public systems.

On the whole I think the concept of countries in general is bullshit but that's a debate best had in another thread.

The thing with the children of migrants being denied residency is truly heartbreaking. Do they become stateless as a result?

I found out about the autism because I am autistic and I was considering New Zealand as a potential country to migrate to until I found out about that. I also found out about the plethora of other conditions that bar you from immigration but it started with my personal search.

I also wonder whether they measure the "burden on the healthcare system" in a fair or ableist/biased manner. Your link seems to suggest the former, but it also excludes ability to pay for private healthcare/insurance, which would preclude one from putting said burden on the public healthcare system and leaves the decision up to a medical professional, who may hold said biases, so...

It includes autism, which really enraged me when I found out. That's one less country in this already progressively anti-immigration world... Well two, because Australia does the same wrt autistic people (and likely other health conditions).

Unfortunately unreadable for me, it's requiring me to subscribe to FT. I wonder if it's related to being in a GDPR-abiding country.

Unless you think the point of feminism (for example) is to make men second class citizens. That’s just not a thing. It’s a rhetoric created by assholes to get ignorant people on board with their continued grossness.

I think there may be some radicals who genuinely wish for that, but those don't represent the entire movement and usually only pay lip service to the cause where it aligns with their personal beliefs. They should be ignored.

Funny, but that's Bard AFAIK.

For CRDTs I know of rust-crdt, as I have worked on a research project using it, but it is a lot lower level than you probably want. It might be useful if you're reimplementing that DB or part of it in Rust, though (if that is your plan).

Bone-hurting juice? In your lemmy? It may be more likely than you think!

Not just to enslave workers, but to perpetuate the status quo in general, imo. Same thing for reproduction benefits (not talking about birth control or planned parenthood but rather things like subsidies that are specifically for parents). You need people alive if you want to control society and make profit, after all. Not that non-capitalist states aren't guilty of this as well, though. Society relies on people being alive in general and individual choice isn't given as much priority as "the common good" (whatever it might mean to a particular society varies).

Chances are if you do get banned you can just ask customer support to unban you

AFAIK they went a step above that and whitelisted the particular heuristics that WINE was tripping up in their anti-cheat so that Linux users would stop getting banned after a while. Not sure how effective that was, I personally never got banned though. Short of actually supporting Linux, that's probably the nicest thing Blizzard has done recently lol.

Yeah, I've read that comment. I don't agree with what he said in general but it's undeniable that there are plenty of scams to lure rich people, typically americans, to poor countries under the guise of adopting children from underfunded orphanages when in fact there are far grimmer ulterior motives behind them.

Brave doesn't seem like an ethical option to me considering the company's past record and the current owner's personal views. Techincally speaking, it is probably quite good though.

If this is your opinion, then it is only reasonable for those of us who do find value in society and humanity to ignore your opinions on how those things should work. Your statement is, in essence, a resignation from those groups.

I agree.

I spend about 10 hours a week at the gym pursuing activities that (best that I can tell what you mean by “suffering”) cause me suffering. I am better for it.

Well, that is your choice. If you genuinely enjoy those activities and believe they improve your quality of life, then I can't say that they consist suffering for you. Suffering can only be broadly specified in general terms, but to be specified in more granular terms, it varies between people and one person's definition of suffering may be wildly different from the next. Some people actually enjoy being professional soldiers and getting involved in violent conflicts. Others practice violent and radical sports and enjoy it. For those people, those activities do not classify as suffering. For others, they would.

And since the consequences of having children is good, at least net good, there’s not much of a choice to make.

In your opinion. Since for me they aren't, my choice is different from yours.

At most, I simply have to avoid the sorts of abuse that would cause them to turn out like yourself and believe absurdities such as “human extinction is a goal one should pursue”.

Except, as a parent, you can't really prevent that 100%. Perhaps not even 50%. The world takes twisted turns and your child might end up suffering such abuse at the hands of events or people you have no control over.

Because these sorts of genetic issues are exceedingly rare, and the people who have them and know they have them would have a very different attitude which you do not present.

The attitudes people have differ between people, because people's mindsets, experiences and personalities are all different. I don't think I'm making a radical statement here.

Moreso, I’ve spoken to such people as yourself in person before, and the “conditions” they specify would be jokeworthy except that they’re typically friends or at least acquaintances I wouldn’t want to be blunt with. “My grandparents have diabetes!” and such. WTF.

What one person sees as a joke, another might see as something quite serious. It all depends on their own viewpoints and past experiences.

For example, although I should not be giving personal examples and opening myself to comments on my own character, due to some trauma I have with having been medically abused by hospital staff as a child, I have paralyzing, crippling phobia of needles. Getting the COVID vaccine, for instance, was a major psychological ordeal for me and I only ended up getting it because of the duty to society and public health (if it was something that affected just myself, I wouldn't have). Having diabetes would mean getting regular, if not daily, insulin shots or blood sugar tests (depending on the type of diabetes), so that would quickly devolve into a miserable, fear-driven life. Fortunately it isn't something I have to deal with at the moment and I take as good care as I can to ensure it won't become an issue in the future, but there are worse things, which are unavoidable, that can happen.

I live in an absurd world populated by absurd people hellbent on making certain it won’t be populated at all anymore.

I fail to see why that is absurd at all. It's as valid a viewpoint as ever in my opinion.

Are you talking about pain (the sensation)?

That is merely a component of suffering. That should be avoided imo, but it isn't the only thing that should.

It can’t even be said that pain should be avoided, since discomfort is often associated with worthwhile, and ultimately pleasant, activities.

I struggle to find such activities. I'm not stating there are none, just that I can't remember any off the top of my head.

Define suffering so we can be on the same page.

A negative experience which causes physical or psychological distress to a person or group of people, often for extended periods of time or with lasting effects after the experience itself has stopped (ie. trauma).

Pretty meaningless, and in the context where people actually want to exist (and for others to exist), somewhat misleading.

Saying this statement is meaningless is the same as saying philosophy itself is meaningless, but it can be a valuable tool to help us define our values and offer a base from which every other aspect of life can be evaluated more precisely. I don't see how it's misleading at all.

Please, read my palm. Tell everyone what my beliefs are.

That statement was more hostile than I intended it to, in hindsight, and I see how it might be hypocritical to complain that you are lumping all "young liberals" (as it seems) in the same strawman when I ended up doing the same to you. I was quite offended by the transphobic comment so I reacted in an emotional way. Sorry.

I believe you follow some conservative beliefs (from an american standpoint) pretty strictly and that might be the bias shown in your arguments towards traditional values and against modern, sort of more "extreme" or what you perceive as catering to emotions rather than rationality (which I think they really aren't, but even if they were, emotions are a part of life, if you value life, surely you'd value emotions too?). My critique to that is that conservatives often fail to see that their own positions and points of view are similarly coming from an emotional, and not rational, place, as they react to change by clinging to traditional views "because that's what has been done until now", without any actual rational reasoning for them. Like you yourself said, just because a lot of people follow a given ideology doesn't make it right, the majority might be wrong, it's just the majority. The same could be applied in this situation.

For instance, you might see having children as the rational choice because that's what humanity has done since it began existing and due to it being a necessity for the continuation of the species, but is that not your natural, biological impulses speaking for you? Is it truly rational, logical thought? Why does humanity have to keep existing? You might have arguments and answers to those questions and that would make them rationally valid, but "just because" is not a rational answer.

We’re on a public forum. Though my comment may be the literal reply to yours, it isn’t necessarily true that I am speaking to you and only you. I’m speaking to others in response to what you’ve said.

Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your argument.

But I’ll drop another rule on you and see what you make of this. Adoptions are about the children who need someone to care for them, and not for the people adopting who want to gratify their need for a human pet. If you’re doing it for yourself, you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. Therefor, the only people who should adopt are those who do not want to, but out of a sense of duty.

And if people accepted that rule, then we’d have no discussion at all about adoption in this thread. Because adoption can no longer be a substitute for having one’s own children.

I somewhat agree, in the sense that, from a moral perspective, if you're adopting just to satisfy a desire, without any good intention to help the child being adopted, you're just as evil as if you've had a biological child for that same reason. That might be where you disagree with me though.

I don't think people in this thread are advocating for adoption from a strictly selfish point of view, they are merely acknowledging that, in the face of wanting a child to take care of, adopting a child who was neglected seems like a more morally sound choice than having a biological child, in those circumstances.

It can’t adapt to this. Society ceases to exist if there are no people, so saying “it can adapt to no one performing the process by which people create their replacements in the world” is dumb.

And why does society have to exist? Society and humanity have no inherent value. The value they have is the value we, as rational beings, give them. If we collectively determined that they should exist no more, they would cease to exist.

Your society is dying. It doesn’t realize it yet, and by the time it does nothing will be possible to do about it.

I don't mind it. That alarmism doesn't scare me. Remember I follow VHEMT, hence that is my end goal (at least, I'm doing my part towards that).

But I’ve measured, and accurately.

That is precisely what my question was targeting. You've measured (and you have every right to your measurement as the expression of an opinion), but who's to say you've measured accurately? What qualifications do you have to make such a statement of fact?

If you wanted or needed to do something in your life, and you were in a car wreck and broke both your legs… would you think it sane for someone to say “now you should never do that thing again, you’ve experienced trauma!” ?

I would. That is how I try to act in my daily life: avoiding things that have caused me suffering in the past, as much as possible. That is how I try to achieve a comfortable and happy life, by avoiding what has broken that comfort and happiness in the past.

This is a nonsense statement. Until the person exists, by definition they can have no say in anything because they do not exist. Therefor it is not necessary, and even irrational, to speak or think about whether someone has a say in “being born”.

It may be from a pragmatic point of view, but abstractly/philosophically speaking, it isn't. When we make a moral choice, we have to think of the future consequences of that choice. From that point of view, we have to consider that the person being born will have no concept of the meaning behind their future suffering and will try to attribute such meaning to the ones who decided for them. People desire, naturally, to be in control and being born is the one action you have zero control over. That is also a reason why people seek religion: to justify and give meaning to their existence.

None of the people in this thread, and few of those (1 in 10,000 or even fewer) who are childfree are childless because of that reason. You don’t have the Tay Sachs gene, and your receding hairline’s not comparable.

How can you make such a blanket statement when you don't know any of us personally?

Perhaps, but whereas flat earth has no rational basis for existing, this one does, in my opinion. You might not agree with me but, you know, that's why people have different opinions.