• 216 Posts
Joined há 2 anos
Cake day: nov 26, 2020


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?

This is actually not stupid. I also laughed when I first heard about it (5 minutes ago). We focus a lot on managing time. But there are other finite resources we have to manage within each day. * mental energy * attention * physical energy * concentration * frustration * creativity * patience * many more You can only spend so much of each one before becoming exhausted. Spoon theory deals with one of these things - physical energy. And the article is well explained. So it's a good introduction to this kind of thinking. *** You can go much further in this thinking than the article. Think about management. You normally assign tasks to whoever has the free time. But people have different amounts of patience to spend each day. So if one of your people has a lot of patience, you should assign him the task, because he can spend a lot before running out. But if you have two tasks requiring a lot of patience, that guy might run out. So you assign the second task to someone else. It's basically very intuitive. But it's helpful to think about it the same way we think about time. To quantify it.

Democracy in the USA
TIL: Although the USA is not democratic, many of its member-states are. Many of them have far more powerful democratic institutions than Switzerland or Republic of Ireland, and at more societal levels.

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.

The internet, but not just north America
I'm bored of just reading about north America. It's interesting but I'm sure equally interesting stuff is happening on all the other continents. Is there a way to internet, just browse for stories and opinions, but filtering out the overwhelming dominant subject. Lemmy was planning a tagging feature for a while. So posters would always tag language and country. So you could chose to only see things pertinent to your language and region. What happened to that? Americans only talk about a few things. And they all think the same way. It was interesting but I know enough about that now. How can I (easily and conveniently) discover what else is there in the world?

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

Nera and the Mound of Cruachan https://letterpile.com/creative-writing/The-Strange-Adventures-of-Nera-1-A-Tale-of-Irish-Halloween-Samhain-Spookiness Recipes https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/feile-na-marbh-halloween Legend https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/irish-myths-halloween-samhain

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?

24 dias

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.

Paths to democracy
Many territories today are "representative democracies". The "representative" is often thought of as a category, but really it is a qualifier. It is like vegan meat or faux leather. It is a distinct system from democracy. The simplified distinction is that, in a democracy, the people have direct control over policy. They vote on policy, not just on representatives. And they can propose policy too. Another definition: a system where the government does not have the power to make an unpopular law. And if the people demand a law, they can compel the government to enact it. There are strong movements in many countries, trying to compel governments to implement pro-democratic changes, notably in France and in ROI in the past 10-ish years. Overall no real progress is happening. But this is not the only route to democracy. *** # 1 Democracy in one constituency In a representative system, each representative (AKA TD or MP) has one iota of voting power over public policy. He can use this power as he chooses, but it is hoped that (at least sometimes) he will use it for the benefit of his constituents. A single TD can choose to use his voting power democratically. He can create an online voting platform, where his constituents can vote on each measure of policy. He can promise to always use his vote according to his constituency's decision. This is not enough for a democracy. The online platform must also allow the constituents to propose laws. The TD promises faithfully draft them and propose them to the parliament. The online platform must have a democratic voting system like like score voting, and a debating forum too. Open source software already exists for both those things. The same thing could alternatively be done using traditional media, mainly by post. But it would be more difficult and expensive and opaque. The software part doesn't have to be perfect yet, because none of this is legally binding. The system can evolve, and suffer hacking, without huge consequence. But this constituency will be the template, the example, for a future state-level democracy. If this TD is successful, other TDs will copy the scheme, until many constituencies in many territories are democratic. Then it is simple to make the legal changes to convert the entire territory into a democracy. # 2 A parallel democratic government A new political party is created. It will be radical, because its purpose will be to act in the interest of the electorate. It will have a second role, to be a counter-balance against the lobby groups for businesses, by acting as a lobby group for the electorate's interests. Voters can subscribe to be party-members using an the online platform. Then using the same platform, they can decide the party's aims/manifesto collaboratively, at the start of the electoral cycle. They decide on the main campaign issues for protests, strikes, etc. So it's similar to the first route. It requires more organisation, but is also more effective. The politicians will have to enact the will of the members. This shouldn't be difficult for them, because their personal views probably align well with the electorate's views, if they were ever to be good representatives at all. As long as they do that, the party will be a novel and revolutionary thing - a democratic party. If this party is successful and forms a government, then the territory is effectively a democracy. The final step is to enact laws to make that permanent.

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.

Reading this, it reminds me why we need the myth that we are savages at heart. Authoritarian rulers tell us that we are savages, and we need them to control us. Look up the words of Macron for example. The idea is of people being naturally violent, society being fragile, held together only by dominant police force and oppressive ruler. They brutalise us only for our own good, because they love us, and we need them. As society starts to move towards democracy, we will see these images fade. They won't be needed any more. We will start to see ourselves as naturally resilient, stronger than our rulers and independent from them.

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.

If the global military were a country, it would be the fourth biggest emitter in the world, ahead of Russia. NATO member states, for example, already spend 17 times as much on the military as Russia. Adding solar panels to a military base is easy to do, but does nothing to tackle the main challenge, which is fossil fuel consumption by military jets, ships and tanks. For now, there is no alternative, green fuel that can be produced at the scale needed and without triggering unacceptable social and environmental consequences

It’s health and safety gone mad
> UPDATE: Advice on safety measures is changing constantly and since publishing this resource, CLEAPSS has issued new advice including a recommendation not to carry out activities that involve blowing. Blowing. How did somebody get the notion that blowing is too dangerous?

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.

TLDR: lots of salt and artificial flavourings. But a lot of interesting chemistry goes into it too. There are annealing steps, and many other processes I don't understand.

Traffic accidents
You can have an argument about what is the cause of most crashes, or of an individual crash. But it's unanswerable. Journalists usually choose the wrong question, so that it is unanswerable. So the issue seems difficult and complicated ... and interesting. Normally there is an obvious boring answer. In this case, you can just do statistics on the problem. Assume the cause is bad junction design. Then make an algorithm which answers "which features of a junction are correlated with which types of accident". Then make the assumption that the cause is bad cars, bad people, bad behaviour, etc. You'll find all the answers that way. You'll find that it's almost impossible to crash a modern car. ABS, parts reliability, and modern wide tyres. A certain generation remembers cars which just lost control or handled unpredictably or skidded in the wet. They believe in endlessly tweaking car design for safety. This is obsolete thinking. But the policy-makers of this world are (usually) the old. For example some people say that speed kills. It's based on an observation that stopping distance is correlated with speed. This is wrong. You need to gather statistics on how fast people travel versus how often they crash. You make a plot shownng speed versus rate. You control for different vehicle, road, and person types. This plot tells you the range of safe speeds. So what's true in the elementary physics is irrelevant in sophisticated problems. You probably find that the safe speed depends on the type of driver, and is generally much faster than the posted limit. Which is what everyone intuitively knows anyway. You could approach it a different way. Correlate rates of accidents with rates of speeding tickets. If you could show that people who get speeding tickets have more accidents, you'd have a decent argument that speeding tickets are justifiable. All this is still myopic. It focuses only on accident rates, forgetting things like utility and enjoyability. For example speed, throughput, flexibility, and other things are just as important as safety. Finding the safest possible solution is the easy part. Then you have to decide if you want it or not. This journalist is complaining that others are looking at the issue wrong. Well he is wrong too! *** If I can give a personal opinion, I think this is a weakness of schooling. People readily accept explanations like "stopping distance is proportional to speed squared, so reducing speed reduces crash severity", which is quite a difficult technical argument. But something like "to find the causes of accidently you find the correlation between each accident type and each factor", people can't grasp that. They ignore that type of insight. That's because some percentage of people study physics or applied maths as teenagers, so physics thinking has penetrated society. Other types of maths like statistics economics and probability, are not understood. So society is deaf to the insights and benefits they could provide.

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?


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.

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.

Solving the energy crisis using bitcoin
In an electricity network, most of the energy is used just in the effort to stabilise the voltage. If you want to save power, you don't start with reducing demand or increasing supply; you start with making the grid more stable. The biggest instabilities are caused by fluctuating demand during the day and night, and fluctuating supply due to unreliable wind and solar power. There are three well-known solutions; 1. regulate demand with variable-rate tariffs to encourage users to consume less during peak hours 2. create an energy-supply market where the price changes second-by-second to match the fluctuations. This compels suppliers to continuously match the demand. 3. Whenever there is excess energy, either store it or burn it. Water is pumped up dams or water-towers, and batteries or flywheels are charged. *** But there are two more options: Creating hydrogen using hydrolysis, and mining bitcoin. Hydrolysis is very inefficient. The whole hydrogen economy is much more wasteful than any alternative, for several fundamental reasons. But if the electricity it is using is free, then it could make sense to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen can either be burned again at peak times, or bottled for use in engines. Bitcoin is always overlooked, because it is considered a failed project. It didn't fulfill the dreams people had for it in the beginning, so now it is considered useless. The trick is do find the right use for it. Bitcoin can solve electricity's problems, and electricity can solve bitcoin's problems. But can together become much more useful and stable. *** At peak times, computers can be turned on to mine bitcoin. They must be left on for at least 15 minutes because of how mining works. Occasionally the power company will win a bitcoin, which wan be stored or exchanged for Euros (or Rubles) or used for trade. This is an efficient use of surplus power - reducing wasted energy, stabilising the grid, and earning money. It is more efficient because does not require building more power stations, or water towers or other wasteful structures. It can be done anywhere using cheap hardware. *** Bitcoin's biggest problem is the same as the power grid's biggest problem - the energy that is wasted to stabilise the currency. Every 15 minutes, a new block is mined. This means that a new coin (new money) is created and all the global transactions from that 15 minutes are processed. This works similarly to the energy market. The suppliers who are willing to spend the most electricity on Bitcoin mining will win most of the new coins. The most successful miners consume vast electricity in this effort. This is controlled by the "difficulty" parameter - how much electricity must be consumed (on average) to create one new coin. When the difficulty goes up, it requires more electricity to win a new coin, so it becomes more expensive and less profitable. Imagine a new miner enters the market, who has access to free electricity at certain times of day. He turns on many mining machines and starts earning coins, and pushes up the cost of mining (the difficulty) for everybody. Now it is not profitable for the other miners anymore. They are forced to stop mining. All the existing mining businesses will stop. The world will stop using its electricity for mining, except for the excess grid energy. This also pushes down the price of mining equipment, making is easier for the power company to buy more. *** Bitcoin has another crippling problem. It is controlled by its miners. A majority of miners can control everything about Bitcoin. They can change any rule. Bitcoin is the global digital currency. Usually they choose to do nothing. Historically, efforts to solve bitcoins problems have failed just because the miners did nothing. Bitcoin is a new technology with diverse unexplored power. It would be a very useful thing for a few governments to gain control over Bitcoin. They could solve all its existing problems (like the block-cap and the mining algorithm) and have a hand in its future development. *** Bitcoin is a very useful tool. It is irreplaceable as a economic tool. Finding a large-scale use for Bitcoin is very important for the future of the world. But that's out of the scope of this article. In summary, power companies starting to mine bitcoin at peak times has these outcomes: * Crash the Bitcoin mining economy. Solve the global scourge of bitcoin miners wasting energy. * Stabilise the power grid without the need to expensive infrastructure. * Generate money for the power company. This money can be used to buy Russian gas for example. * Create a legitimate use for Bitcoin. * Gain control over Bitcoin and its development. This is a very valuable project. We need to start it now.

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.

Immediately after Michael Collins agreed with the UK to partition Ireland, he immediately initiated a secret campaign for an invasion of the new Northern Ireland by the IRA.

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?