Cethin

It’s convenient to place my phone on at my computer and it’s just always charged. It is a little less efficient, but if you’re running a heater anyway then technically they’re both lossless (though gas heat may be cheaper for you if you have gas heat).

I was hoping that they absurdity would make it clear, but obviously it wasn’t clear enough, because some of these people are crazy.

That was sarcasm.

Hey man, cis doesn’t mean anything besides you identify with your given gender at birth. Just like male/female are useful terms for communication, we have a term for that. In fact, cis isn’t even just for that. It’s just Latin meaning you’re in the same side of something. For example: cisalpine, meaning on this side of the alps (the side of Italy). No reasonable person would be offended by the term. It’s been used for over 100 years in this way. The only reason to be offended is if you’re told to be offended.

-sincerely: a cis-gendered man

Just call me a normal normal normal normal because I’m tired of being called a straight cis white man.

It also (hopefully) makes them consider why they only agreed with them before they said murdering women and children was bad. At least, we can hope that some are that self-aware.

It means properly educated and trained, and also the weapons were stored in armories, not at home, and organized into regiments and ready to be called up for active duty. Essentially, what the national guard is, with less organization between groups.

I did not mean regulated by laws. I meant that home gun ownership without any training or organization is not part of a well regulated militia, so it is not protected by the second amendment. Random people just owning guns at home is not “well regulated” by any definition.

Yep. Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread, isn’t a binary. What gun control? Background checks? Magazine restrictions? Firing mode restrictions? Barrel length restrictions? Round size/energy restrictions? Education, training, and/or storage requirements?

90% of people may agree that we need something, but they likely won’t agree on what.

It’s not a stretch at all. That is one form of gun control. The real number must be higher if just that one form is 90%, and there are many more methods and options.

We won’t agree on where to stop, but almost everyone wants some gun control laws.

Gun control does not mean no guns. It means it’s more controlled. I think the definition could (though never does or should) even include a requirement to own guns.

With proper education, sure. Maybe 1000 rounds is a bit much though.

My opinion is you should have to put in a certain number of hours of range time with your weapon (per year probably, not just one time) in order to have it. You should also have to demonstrate knowledge of maintanace and proof of proper storage available for it, especially if there are younger people in your house.

We require a license for a car, which has utility and is almost required in the US. We don’t have anything like that for guns for some reason. Why not? The 2A specifically states “well regulated” so it should be fine even with the most generous interpretation.

Everyone doesn’t need guns in order to raid an armory. Hell, if it turns to that point, some armories will likely be given over. Also, if it gets to that point, foreign aid will provide weapons and munitions.

I agree with some responsible gun ownership, but the 2A does not say what people usually think it says. (We have a professional standing army, so a militia isn’t required for the protection of the state, and a well regulated militia is not home gun ownership and storage.) It also wouldn’t be enough alone to fight our military. Most insurgencies don’t start incredibly well armed. You get to that point over time with good strategy.

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who supports people being allowed to own ICBMs, nukes, RPGs, etc. Even the most fervant 2A people agree reasonable limits apply.

Also, does “support” mean they support it being legal or support it happening? You can be in favor of it being allowed without agreeing with people doing it.

To an extent, but it isn’t a replacement. Talking to random strangers online is not the same as talking to real local people.

That sucks. If I were you I’d try to move to somewhere more dense and it could help you out. I know, easier said than done. You can try applying for jobs online and maybe get lucky though.

Good luck out there!

I’m willing to bet one of the largest factors is the isolation we now live in. We used to have third places on every corner, we interacted with our neighbors, and public transport made us connect during commutes. We also relied on talking to people for most of our news and information and generally just were forced to be part of a community, or multiple.

Now we drive alone in a car to work, drive alone back to our house that’s isolated from others and don’t speak to neighbors, we have no third places left, and we get all our information from the internet or TV. Most people don’t have a community larger than a handful of close friends. We can’t organize and we don’t see the struggles other people are going through or help each other out. There’s no social bonds, and everyone only looks out for themselves.

I order to progress, we need to figure out how to form communities again. We need to be able to organize. This is all constructed to keep us thinking about ourselves as an individual rather than the collective us. We think about what I can do, which is pretty minor, not what we can do, which is almost anything we want.

In reality, they just couldn’t reasonably add the same markup, so they shifted to other products. Also, fuel efficiency standards based on weight made it more profitable to sell larger vehicles, so they had another reason to shift. We really got fucked from every side.

I’m not the person who brought git up. I was just stating that work is work. Sure, git is doing something useful with it. This is arguably useful without the work itself being important. Work is the thing you’re complaining about, not the proof.

This solution is designed to cost scrapers money; it does this by causing them to burn extra electricity. Unless it’s at scale, unless it costs them, unless it has an impact, it’s not going to deter them.

Yeah, but the effect it has on legitimate usage is trivial. It’s a cost to illegitimate scrapers. Them not paying this cost also has an impact on the environment. In fact, this theoretically doesn’t. They’ll spend the same time scraping either way. This way they get delayed and don’t gather anything useful for more time.

To use your salesman analogy, it’s similar to that, except their car is going to be running regardless. It just prevents them from reaching as many houses. They’re going to go to as many as possible. If you can stall them then they use the same amount of gas, they just reach fewer houses.

Compare this to endlessh. It also wastes hacker’s time, but only because it just responds very slowly with and endless stream of header characters. It’s making them wait, only they’re not running their car while they’re waiting.

This is probably wrong, because you’re using the salesman idea. Computers have threads. If they’re waiting for something then they can switch tasks to something else. It protects a site, but it doesn’t slow them down. It doesn’t actually really waste their time because they’re performing other tasks while they wait.

Let me make sure I understand you: AI is bad because it uses energy, so the solution is to make them use even more energy? And this benefits the environment how?

If they’re going to use the energy anyway, we might as well make them get less value. Eventually the cost may be more than the benefit. If it isn’t, they spend all the energy they have access to anyway. That part isn’t going to change.

Proof of work is just that, proof that it did work. What work it’s doing isn’t defined by that definition. Git doesn’t ask for proof, but it does do work. Presumably the proof part isn’t the thing you have an issue with. I agree it sucks that this isn’t being used to do something constructive, but as long as it’s kept to a minimum in user time scales, it shouldn’t be a big deal.

Crypto currencies are an issue because they do the work continuously, 24/7. This is a one-time operation per view (I assume per view and not once ever), which with human input times isn’t going to be much. AI garbage does consume massive amounts of power though, so damaging those is beneficial.