eulenteufel's comments

>> It'll be fun and games until you're the elderly Asian person whose skull has been bashed in.

> German and European descendants have essentially nothing to do with this phenomenon.

You might want to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostock-Lichtenhagen_riots

Sure if people want to be treated differently go ahead. But observing some women wanting to be treated differently (this step can go wrong!) and then applying that treatment to other women is a whole different thing.

> I’d say everyone is for people of both genders being treated equally.

But this is not true, historically, and still today. Most people in (in some cultures) may be for treating genders equally in a lot of aspects, but I don't have to go very far on the web or IRL to find people who are not for equal treatment of genders.

But for everyone who does want to treat genders equally, learning about unconcious bias should be helpful. Learning about unconcious biases enables you to question your behaviour in order to actually treat genders equal instead of just agreeing that they should be.

This is one observation I had that I think relates to this question:

When people I love do things I don't like it might annoy or anger me, but I will still regard them with compassion and try to understand their motivation. This doesn't mean that I won't draw consequences but that my positive attitude towards and my understanding towards them goes beyond behaviors that I can understand on first glance.

With myself I often catch myself harshly judging me for doing or wanting things that are in conflict with how I think I am supposed to behave, even if there might be good reasons for my behavior deeper down. In contrast to other people who I love I am not yet able to keep the positive attitude and a willingness to understand for myself. This makes it difficult to investigate my own behavior even though it probably benefits me on the long run.

That I do show this behavior towards people I love makes me think that "loving myself" should also contain this behavior towards myself. This is just one aspect that I think "loving myself" contains. There are possibly other aspects of love to others that are also applicable for myself.

"Loving myself" is certainly a feeling I have felt before and to me it feels quite similar as love for other people feels.

It's nice that there is a workaround, but passing build options is not something that should require a library. There should be a well documented standard way to do it.

I'll consider flakes usable for packaging software when they support passing options. The respective issue [0] has been closed unfortunately. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what flakes are meant to be (a more formalized standard way to define nix packages and apps), but a lot packages in nixpkgs have a plethora of parameters that as of now can not really be mapped to a functionality in nix flakes.

[0] https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/2861

The quote is kinda wrong in that point 1 and 2 are mixed up. Branches are just pointers to commits. Commits contain a reference to their history. It's only kind of incorrect because in praxis branches are used to refer to a history (a sequence of commits). But it's also misleading once you have to do anything more complicated than just commiting/merging.

When I started out using git I was working with the same assumptions, but I was perpetually confused. Git became a lot easier to use once that misunderstanding cleared up.

Maybe it's just like that for me but I think we might be doing newcomers to git a disservice by explaining the basics of git in this simplified manner.

> and it’s the responsibility of society to fix the failures that led to that loss of motivation.

I kind of agree with this statement, but there is not a lot of places where there is significant effort spend to help people who have big problems (especially in the US).

Pain and suffering will be part of anybodies life. Often suffering can even have a positive effect longterm. But people who want to kill themselves often see pain/suffering to an amount so great that it only makes them more miserable over time. We as a society can try to help these people, but all in all we really don't (at least where I've been).

I am convinced that a society which doesn't want to commit the resources to help the people who need help must not forbid these people to choose to kill themselves if that is the only solution they can find by themselves. Administering death is not a treatment option society should choose, but the people themselves should be allowed to do so.

If people get good help a lot of them will choose to keep living.

This is known as Universal approximation theorem[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theore...

Imagine an author trapped in a little black box who is forced to respond to your request of impersonating Mt. Everest or a squirrel. They'd also not display a consistent personality. Personally I think the argument in your comment shows that LaMDA impersonating a sentient AI does not show us that LaMDA is sentient, but it doesn't prove that LamDA is not sentient.

Matrix multiplications are linear. Modern neural network methods usually make heavy use of nonlinearities. You could also say that quantum mechanics is just matrix multiplications, but look where it got us.

The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle.

This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse.

The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now and it's good and healthy that corporations get push back for not respecting privacy.

Finally a website that gets dark mode right! ;D

That's hard for me to understand. I'd take 'crucial to the enconomy' to mean 'positively coupled to the rest of the economy' or 'the rest of the economy would be worse off/less efficient if this financial instrument were to be outlawed.

Why does this follow from 'makes a lot of money'? That seems like a very complicated question to me.

>They understand how the above instruments are crucial for an economy even though they are not end-user products like Twitter is.

Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough.

Can you recommmend any resources to understand the importance of financial instruments to the economy?

Anodyne 2 has a unique enjoyable story and is not very violent.

The tremolous fork is Unvanquished.

> it's already completely undermined by mail in voting

This keeps coming up but is not generally true. See my comment from another thread [0]:

I don't know how it's done in the USA, but in Germany voting by post has to be carried out before the day of the election. The actual postal votes are stored and only opened on the day of the election. After somebody send in their postal vote they can go to the public voting office and declare to invalidate their postal vote. The people counting the postal votes will get a list with invalidated votes and remove these envelopes before the votes are opened. The person who invalidated can then either do another postal vote or vote at the ballot box.

So in Germany postal voting is secured against selling votes.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843447

Paper ballots requiring a lot of work is the whole point. This makes tampering at scale a lot more difficult and a lot easier to detect.