why would anyone ever implement that hare brained scheme? most people that I’ve talked to just want an alternative to bombing the shit out of gaza and killing 21,000 people and like 8,000 kids or whatever, they’re not saying israel should immediately just like, dissolve, and all israelis should be left to die and shit. They probably wouldn’t even let themselves be killed, without a fight, you’d see something more like an impromtu military junta state crop up and increasing radicalization form among it and then on both sides, and you’d just get a repeat of what’s currently happening but probably worse. I don’t think that would ever reasonably happen, even, this is a dumb bullshit hypothetical. Even the people who want the dissolution of israel want it over the course of multiple years, or decades, even, where some jewish guy from staten island that doesn’t even speak hebrew goes back home, and everything just kind of goes back to what might be considered “normal”. The logical follow through of “I dislike it when a bunch of people are getting massacred” isn’t “well now I guess we can’t do anything at all, they can just march in and kill everyone and that’s it. woops. look at what you made us do!”. Most people recognize this, and just want the violence to stop as fast as possible, which is why nobody’s really talking about the long term plans for what might happen after this. They’re too focused on the horrible shit happening right now to propose anything.

No, I get that people type on mobile, and that autocorrect is a bitch. The thing that struck me more was that you hedged your bets like 4 times in the same sentence, against someone calling you out for not having any evidence of what you were claiming, but then you still end up using your claim to extrapolate an argument with what seems like a relatively large amount of certainty.

Also that the sentence was kind of repetitive, which struck me as funny. “probably 100% probable” is just saying the same thing twice, saying that something is “probably” the case is the same thing as saying it’s “100% probable”, and the “100%” part of that strikes me as completely superfluous. “on average strictly” is kind of contradictory, you usually wouldn’t claim something to be “on average” but then also say that it is “strictly” that way, because an average is, you know, an average, it’s an aggregate of numbers, including outliers. So it can’t really “strictly” conform to whatever you’re wanting it to conform to, unless it’s an exact match of the average, or unless you don’t actually mean “strictly” in the strictest sense. I dunno, I give it a C-.

The argument also strikes me as wrong, I would think pitbulls probably do just attack people more ,and with more aggressiveness, than other dog breeds. Maybe not that much more, relative to, say, german shepards, but say, compared to irish wolfhounds, I would think so, yeah. I think if an irish wolfhoud was attacking someone at the same rates, with the same aggression, as pitbulls, we would see them kill a lot more people than pitbulls do. Pitbulls aren’t actually that big, relative to other dogs.

It’s actually probably 100% probably that pitbulls on average strictly bite at the same rates as other dogs…

I’m sorry, but this is a probably 100% probably on average strictly convincing sentence you’ve got, there.

None of the idiots who brag about driving a semi have done any of that either.

That’s definitely not true. People can still have a self-image as a kind of asshole truck driver, and also still use their truck. People make this argument, that somehow these kind of aesthetic qualities have some sort of bearing on who does or doesn’t use their truck, and to me, it just kind of comes across like the only people who are allowed to drive trucks are the people who are acting in socially acceptable ways.

The argument is less about the people who use their truck, and more about the relative frequencies of use for everyone generally. Most people would be better covered by a rental. And then we could also make the argument that our development patterns would encourage the use of trucks far too much anyways.

Edit: wait, did you mean to type semi, or hemi? I kind of assumed hemi, but if you mean semi that kind of changes everything and I don’t know how to respond to that.

I don’t really know if any of that holds true if I already have the game in my possession. Maybe if it was theoretically the case that future software was harder to pirate for some additional drm insanity, but then the neat thing is that games that are just released are harder to pirate and tend to never be on sale, so that’s a kind of automatic balance. Also

There is also the fact that others see you using it and are encouraged to not using alternatives.

what do you mean by “alternatives”? alternatives to piracy? alternatives to the games people want to play?

They already do that, it’s just invisible to the naked eye, and is only identifiable to other AIs, which can pretty easily classify between real and fake. Adversarial networks.

The distinction between what’s real and what’s fake, as always, will just end up coming down to who has the most resources, and who has the luxury of constructing their own reality. It’s an arms race, both algorithms need active maintenance in order to supercede each other.

If you even use the software you are supporting them.

How?

A good chunk of that is going to be because the 90’s was around the time when digital tools became accessible, good, industry wide things, and we haven’t had a kind of big musical innovation since that point, as far as the technology itself goes. That transition probably happened more noticeably in the 2000’s, but you could tell it was happening over the course of the 90’s for sure. The music industry has also not changed that much, we’re still very much living in that reagan kind of neoliberal huge music label era, but that’s kind of been around forever, so I kind of doubt that’s been a major change from the 60’s up to now. You could maybe say that streaming and the internet has changed music, and it certainly has, because now there are no gatekeepers, everyone listens to everything, and lots of artists put out like, a 10 minute single that changes styles six times so it might be propagated better online, instead of like a 90 minute experimental album. But then, there are more room for both of them, because people are more easily able to find what they want, and the latter was never gonna be mainstream anyways.

If I had to point out a larger genre shift, there has definitely been a large mainstreaming of rap and this kind of “pop country” more recently. You had those in the 90’s, kind of infamously, but hootie and the blowfish does not really sound like modern country through some cultural progression that I don’t really understand because I’m not brushed up on it. NWA and Tupac do not sound the same as modern rap, which has been getting a lot more of a “soft” kind of vibe, which I’d probably attribute to the influence of like, kanye, and maybe some lo-fi stuff like nujabes, and maybe just a mainstreaming of the genre at large. The subject matter has shifted, the tone has shifted, and the music itself has changed. Those genres would not sound the same, relative to their 90’s counterparts.

The biggest thing I can think of that probably makes 60’s and 70’s music sound out of place next to 90’s music is probably how hair metal got killed by grunge, which I couldn’t really attribute to any one reason in particular. There’s a pretty clear line between your rock acts, which have been going forever, and your later metal acts, and that line still exists with grunge, but grunge marks a kind of tonal shift. You’d also have to ignore the whole of disco and club music, that motown shit from the 70’s and 80’s, which died out pretty hard, but most everyone does that anyways, so who cares. I don’t know if I’ve heard many 70’s or 80’s stations that actually play disco, certainly, not in proportion to how popular it was, usually they just play like. Stevie wonder, from what I’ve heard, shit like that. Or MJ. The thing you could probably derive from disco, from the 70’s and 80’s into the 90’s, would probably be like, drum and bass, and eurobeat, stuff like that, and then you’d get stuff like daft punk later on which has a pretty clear connection to disco generally.

I dunno, this is all to say, shit has substantially changed in almost every mainstream genre I can think of in the last like, 60 years, from the 60’s. Some stuff has remained pretty similar, and some stuff has had an almost cyclical nature, but that’s just kind of the nature of music, I think.

It’s just sort of kind of like a slightly more advanced form of spam, or trolling, or really fucked up propaganda/news. The integrity of the ideas and the evidence itself is more what should be evaluated in an argument anyways, rather than the source, and I don’t think like, evidence, generally, like, evidence in general, proof of things in general, is going anywhere anytime soon. I don’t think AI is advanced enough to break encrypted p2p communication, so I don’t really think there’s much of a chance that shit just gets totally wiped off the internet and you start seeing like mass memory hole type shit. It’s more likely that you end up seeing mass disinformation campaigns. You know, like what we’ve had since forever, where you get the population to do it to themselves.

really omega level convincing stuff, there.

Pretty much anyone who claims they get to rule over me and not provide people with a service.

The problem is that these two things aren’t, you know, unrelated. You say, the health insurance people, right, and I would generally agree they can go fuck themselves, but I think if we kill a bunch of them, the power vacuum will probably just fill itself with the exact same shit, while people slowly get radicalized and possibly become nationalistic because everyone’s getting killed by a foreign government, you know, especially as the government that’s getting bombed to shit starts cutting propaganda about it. You need to actively be providing an alternative that people will flock to, when you go and kill these people, otherwise, you’ll just be eliminating infrastructure in the form of people, and you’ll be turning everything into a dark age political radicalization hellzone.

More than that, drones are bad at constructing infrastructure, but they’re really good at destroying it. If you’re tearing through a housing complex to kill a terrorist, you’re going to make a lot more disillusioned people out of those who are now homeless. It’s really epic how people don’t understand this, and don’t understand how people might not look kindly to a military occupation generally, especially one that isn’t helping much to build out their infrastructure, or, maybe more importantly, position them in a way where they’re actually well off in the global market, since that’s something they have to worry about now in a neoliberal, globalized society. And then instead everyone’s just like, yeah, well, they don’t want our help, but they’re still a threat, let’s kill everyone, and then we can save the little girls that are never going into the classroom again after they’re fucking dead.

I hate this place, bro.

Ahh, the taliban, or the brave mujahideen fighters, of course, are being religious fanatics again! Who could’ve guessed! I’m sure when I look into this comment section, I’m going to see lots of people doing historical and contextual analysis, and maybe even some religious analysis, as to why this is the case! I’m sure I won’t see bigotry directed at muslims in general for being the victims of politically conservative radicalizing oil wars! I’m sure everyone will have a totally rational opinion on this!

It’s both none of my business, and being a dick isn’t an effective way to get them to change. I dunno why so many people kind of have that as like, a default response. I guess it makes sense to get mad when someone you care about “chooses” to self-destruct, but people are complicated and delicate machines, and they require better maintenance than the nuclear option, and ultimatums.

I think part of why people have this sort of desire for everyone to have agency, they have this narrative, is because it’s the only way that they’ll be able to keep dealing with all these shitty things in their life. It’s like a really bad survival strategy, or something, people become kind of fucked up and then they only function if they have this dire sense of internal pressure at all times, that they’re responsible for everything that happens in their life. It’s weird, and I don’t really get it.

So he’s basically just a liberal, right? Similar expansions of the police and increasing militarization happened under thatcher and reagan. He might call himself an “ancap”, but he’s probably just gonna be the same as them, in practice, since we live in a globalized economic system. No call from me on whether or not he’s going to be worse or not as bad, but he just seems like he’s basically the same as them ideologically.

Also fucked up is that fat doesn’t = bad. I dunno when this came about but you can be unhealthy and skinny as well, and you can be unhealthy and jacked. I won’t say that, kind of along the lines of a bodybuilder, it’s easy to be healthy and be fat, but you can do it. Sumo wrestlers. You want that subcutaneous fat, and not that visceral fat, and you wanna have good cardio and heart health.

Part of the reason why people become super fat is because they enter a kind of death spiral where they don’t believe they’ll ever get better, and then they eat more, because what’s the point if you’ll never get better at all. Part of the reason why they think they’ll never get better is because people are constantly telling them that’s the case, and that they’re at fault for being the way they are, when usually people get really fat through some childhood trauma or mental disorder. I’m not gonna blame someone for that, or demand they “take responsibility” for it. Especially if them “taking responsibility” for it just ends up making them eat more slop.

It’s really not that complicated. Positive reinforcement and active help is a lot better in these situations than demanding that people be held accountable for being so fat, or that it’s their choice, or whatever. I don’t really care to argue the semantics of philosophies of “free will” or whatever, I’m just saying people need to not be dicks to fat people, because that’s more productive to making them be healthy.

God I hate how our options are between shit and shit like every time. I just want RC cola internet, instead of pepsi and coke, is that too much to ask? I want kirkland signature internet, that’s what I want.

You know, on one hand, I do want to like. I have been looking into some cool space stuff more recently, and it seems like spaceX and starlink have been doing pretty well, relative to musk’s other business ventures, like X (no relation to spaceX, of course, which is great branding), and maybe tesla, which I kind of hate on the basis that they suck. But on the other hand, I wonder about how much of that is due to musk’s involvement, or if it’s just a factor of right place right time. I don’t think venture capital capture and attention capture from the balding manlet CEO of tesla, channeled towards reusable rockets, I don’t think any of that hurt, it was probably an advantage to those organizations, even if only like, by a small amount. But then, I dunno how much his mismanagement of these projects, and of most of his business ventures, have ended up hamstringing them in the long run, with unreasonable demands of his employees, and over-promising, and higher turnover rates than would probably be necessary. You know, I’m posting this from starlink internet, because I live in a rural place. Would that have happened without his idiocy? I’m inclined to say probably, but I’m also inclined to thank that guy that invented fertilizer, maybe even if he also invented mustard gas or whatever that story was. Which isn’t really to say that musk invented anything, or what have you.

Basically what I’m saying, is that I think it is probably a good thing, if you have gotten to a point where you can look at someone who’s “fucked up” history, and you can spin that into a good thing, even not by their intention, or even if it’s removed a causal step or two, it’s a good thing if you can spin their shit into gold. Probably. I dunno, it’s reassuring to me somehow, among the sea of situations that are the exact opposite where some guy’s cool idea gets taken by a soulless venture capital firm and drained like a vampire for investor hype before it’s discarded as useless vaporware. Mistakes into miracles.

My phone doesn’t have a headphone jack. Despite this, I used a pair of shitty wired IEMs every day when I walk my dog. I don’t really think bluetooth is all that bad, it works for me most of the time, except on my oldass car which I bought one of those bluetooth to radio short throw transmitters that plugs in the ciggy lighter and it gets really staticky when it rains, but my car’s speaker system wasn’t doing wonders anyways so I don’t think it matters that much.

No, I don’t have a problem with bluetooth, but I still think it’s probably worse for most every application I could think of, compared to an aux jack. The amount of time I save by having my phone automatically connect to my car compared to plugging in my phone is basically nothing. Takes about 3 seconds for my phone to connect, takes about 3 seconds for my phone to get plugged in. Same with regular headphones. About the only thing I can maybe think of is a wireless speaker, but I tend not to use those very often and you could probably do that over wifi in most applications. That, and the cost of bluetooth is just always gonna be higher than an aux jack, or a wire. Shut up about DACs, too, I don’t care. A cost of like 4 bucks for a usb-c to aux cable is going to perform about the same as your pretentious 500 dollar usb-c to usb to usb powered DAC to aux port chain you have going on because of “noise”. That’s insane. It’s insane to carry that shit around in your pocket all day.

Headphones, you’re paying more for worse quality, basically every time, and this will hold true for every device. Plus there’s always the fuggin batteries and the little stupid case, and I’m not paying more for a new pair of shittier headphones when in 3 years my bluetooth headphones can’t hold a charge because the manufacturer didn’t program anything for a trickle charge to preserve battery life.

I dunno, this makes me mad, phones not being 16:9 makes me mad, phones not fitting in my dainty little hands makes me mad.

You know I think the way you eliminate that is less by relying on the frequency of use, and more by relying on the merits of the argument being had itself. A good part of this is gonna be calculated on whether or not the tradeoff of having an aux jack is worth it. For the consumer, this is needlessly stupid and there are like no phones now that have one, you have a limited selection and that sucks, but in terms of the actual core technology I really can’t see why you wouldn’t have one. The idea that it wastes the 2cm³ of space is kind of a poor argument, imo, when we’ve been switching from palm sized phones with bezels and home buttons, to phones that now stick out of my sweatpants pockets and have hole punch cameras and like four cameras on the back and somehow have less features. None of the market makes a lick of sense, right now, it all seems like manufactured demand and monopoly to me.