I think you can find the points on the bones where muscle attaches. And you can judge how big the muscle was. So maybe they have good reason to think these bones were not structural, just decorative, because there was no muscle connected to it.

So that will become a legal document? It will be an enforceable code?

But it’s being drafted in a Libyan-style democratic process?

If so that’s a great experiment. You who understands it, what do you think the western pro-democracy movement (for example the quite powerful one in France) can learn from this?

Yes “ostensibly”. They are “representative” democracies. The “representative” qualifier is because they are not true democracies.

Democracy does remove the ruling class. Its aim is fundamentally the same as socialism.

IMO the only difference between democracy and socialism advocates is the preferred method of achieving a classless society.

Are there any plans to improve vim? it is so close to being great. but most of the key mappings are difficult to reach. i understand they made more sense on 50 year old keyboard designs.

it’s missing a couple of great features like pycharm’s “expand context”.

It just needs a few tweaks to be usable.

You got me. I need to adjust the question.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own? (And not just massacring everybody, obviously)

I like your “bully” analogy. Russia’s problem is that it’s a small bully in a world of big bullies. It needs to steal food from smaller children or it will die. But the top tier bullies are afraid it will become a big bully and a threat if it stays healthy. They are stopping it stealing the food so it will die.

Even more accurately, you could say Russia used to be a bully but is now poor and starving. It needs to steal a dock so it can fish. But the top tier bullies…

If you guillotine them, you will become them.

Just look what happened in France.

Three solution is a democratic regime, where nobody can become like them.

I don’t think NATO is trying to win the war. It just wants to drag it out. NATO needs to be at war all the time. It can never stop being at war.

Really? I thought that was the consensus. What’s the most likely lifestyle?

Google, Facebook or Microsoft can buy it if this is likely. If can’t buy it they can get it banned.

it’s not Russia vs the Ukraine. it’s Russia vs the usa. it’s a traditional proxy war. the Ukraine is just the place where the superpowers are fighting/ravaging.

nobody buys this anymore, right?

They want more money?

They are feigning a funding crisis, pretending they don’t have enough weapons to go around, in order to get more money to make weapons?

I’m not here to answer your question (though TBF most of the other commenters didn’t answer it either) but I’d like to ask you about burnout.

I find that in times where there is a lot going on, both at work and at home, I am multi-tasking all day, juggling many so many different urgent jobs that I can’t think about any of them, think about what I am doing now or doing next, or think at all.

When go to bed I have fought many fires, but have accomplished nothing, and still have just and many frustrating jobs waiting for the next day. After several days of this I am continuously anxious and irritable. My mind is a fog.

Is this burnout?

What helps? Writing down all the jobs in a list and going through them sequentially. Just refuse to do anything not urgent or that someone else can do. But any job that takes less than 5 minutes just do immediately without even writing it down.

Taking a 20 minute nap. Sometimes that doesn’t help, so sit alone in a dark room for as long as it takes for the mind to clear.

Prolonged intense exercise helps. So does spending time in a new place. Talking socially with other people. Maybe drugs, but for me neither beer nor spirits help at all.

But these solutions all consume time. So you need to get through all the jobs first. When you reach the end, you have enough free time to do those things. To heal your mind after the burnout.

That’s an interesting interpretation. I’ve never heard it before. Would be interesting to re-read with this in mind.

Everybody interprets Lord of the Flies the same way - as a dilemma between whether people are naturally civilised/cooperative or naturally violent/selfish.

Here is the first link I found, for example. https://bookanalysis.com/william-golding/lord-of-the-flies/themes-analysis/

Your interpretation is radical.

About NET, that’s reassuring to hear. It’s what I already believe. Ubiquitous narrative of people turning savage in an emergency is just cynical propaganda. I’d like to read more evidence to properly test it though, if I come across any.

They’ve done it before.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own?

It’s a test of whether your view is an extreme view or a moderate one.

That’s what I’m saying. Lack of access to a basic quality of food sounds like deprivation to me.

But this is already off topic.

In the most deprived parts of the world, yes, safe food is just not available. But most of the world does not have these problems.

Nothing mentioned in the article (or my TLDR) is necessarily bad.

Also, there are many many types of food intolerances. It has so many ingredients, you might be intolerant to any one of them.

Probably the salt. You could test if crisps or popcorn or such have the same effect.

Or try drinking lots of water with it.

They probably have separate educational regimes and policies.

Depends what you are talking about. They are different in so many ways. Culture? Language? Diet and agriculture? Politics and regulations? Demographics? There are differences (and similarities) in everything.

Is that happening already? I hadn’t heard about it yet.

Sure. It’s what they do. They exhaust and weaken their economic competitors through endless war, and force them all to fight against each other.

But why the sudden flip, where M Macron et al were eager to make ties with Russia, and then they weren’t? Why was Russia suddenly disinterested in it, as the article says?

How exactly did the USA convince Ukraine to stop peace talks with Russia? How can we be sure that one government was popular and the protests against it were a sham, but in the other case the government was unpopular and the protests were real?

There’s a lot more that needs to be explained, for this all to be convincing. I don’t know how to find all this information, but maybe another journalist will come along with the missing pieces.

It all sounds believable. It’s just a new way of thinking about it. Which part do you find strange?

Thanks.

There’s something missing from this explanation. I can’t put my finger on it. It’s flawed somehow.

It just feels like it doesn’t make sense. There is another piece of information we need. But I don’t know what it is.

That all sounds fair.

What I’d like to learn more about is this story of the USA blocking Russia and Ukraine from negotiating a truce. I think has been an element of the war, but I haven’t heard enough about it to be sure.

Well the most common and effective way of destroying local cultures, is to force the people to speak the common language.

For example in France, the UK, and many other places, there used to be many local regions, with their own languages and strong local cultures and loyalties. The rulers wanted to kill the local cultures, so that the people would have no local identity. This stops disloyalty or independent thinking or independence movements.

They did this by forcing their subjects to speak a common language.

This policy was perfectly effective.

A province speaking its own language can easily maintain its own identity and push for independence. Without its own language this is more difficult, even if it keeps its own customs.

I think I’ve been too vague. So I can elaborate about these policies in the UK or France, if you like. For other territories (Spain, Italy, etc) I believe the same thing happened but I’m not the expert.

How was your Samhain? Did the rain wreck it for you?

Which war?

The one in the Ukraine is the global headline at this instant.

He “almost killed” them

This is not even a real assertion. It is trolling.

It is designed to be provocative, but irrefutable.

The word “barbaric” doesn’t really mean anything, so if you try to disprove the assertion, she can just say that she meant something different by “barbaric” and you haven’t really disproven anything.

So you can waste all you energy with a watertight argument. But it’s effortless for her to defeat your argument.

There’s no point in even reading this type of thing.

Intelligence? Is that what they like to call it? Sounds like an industry made up by people who are not very bright.

Interesting. After getting more familiar with the French system, I am starting to think the market-based system is the best way. Or at least, it’s a good start. The perfect system in probably fully state run. But it’s so difficult for incompetent governments to create. A good market-based system is easy and quick, and works fine, as an interim solution.

I guess it depends what you mean by “progressive” though?

In paper, the democracies in the world are Ireland, Berlin, Switzerland, California. IMO in practice they are also the most progressive.

I’m not sure they’re really the same question. Be careful of making a false equivalence.

Your questions are very loaded. Most people would answer “there shouldn’t be ANY racism at all!”

In that case, if the questions are really equivalent, everyone’s answer to the original question should be “there shouldn’t be any censorship at all” or maybe “there should be complete censorship for everyone”.

But I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. Therefore the questions are not equivalent. This is too simplistic.

Because you’re taking a very technical rhetorical stance, I’ll try to answer the same way.

Racism is a damaging thing. There’s no good side to it.

Censorship is also a damaging thing. But it can sometimes be a necessary evil to prevent worse evils. There is a sweet spot where it prevents more damage than it causes.

Racism is a natural feature that arises in groups of people, but censorship is a political measure. So if there is a damaging amount of racism in lemmy, censorship can be used to reduce it. While there is no underlying racism problem, then censorship causes its harm while producing no benefit.

These things are hard to measure, so censorship is normally a matter of very careful consideration.

This part of the solution is not even my idea. It’s a widely-used and working scheme. I’ve rented in many places with different regulations, and this is the one that works well.

I guess the TDP is funded from the interest on all the money it is storing. But maybe it’s tax-funded. It could be either.

That all sounds delicious. I’ll have to wait til somebody imports these culinary techniques to Europe. I guess our insects are probably just as good if prepared right.

I guess this food is very cheap, so it could be a much tastier alternative to the tofu- and corn syrup-based economy that’s providing for Europe’s food-poor.

From some quick research this seems to be the kernel

Something is either A or not A; there is no third. sweet, not sweet? green, not green? The determination should lead to determinateness, but in this triviality it leads to nothing.

it is said that there is no third. There is a third in this thesis itself. A itself is the third, for A can be both + A and - A.

Every concrete thing, every concrete something, stands in multifarious and often contradictory relations to everything else, ergo it is itself and some other.

Is that it, or close enough?