Ah, my friend… I wish I were so romantic as I’ve misled you to believe. Admittedly I’m only prone to fits of it. You are, of course, correct about the need to find a neutral ground that is less prone to bias and more fit for consumption. Lately, I’ve been struck by the need to feel my humanity and express it, wildly. I’m just making the mistake of believing that an honest presentation is enough to convince others that it’s a worthwhile endeavor, meanwhile being reckless in the attempt. A ‘rage against the dying of the light’, if you will allow.

I’m generally more as you self describe. I feel it would almost be too daring to say ‘a classical stoic’, not this new age stigma ridden thin veneer over cynicism with an edgy ‘I don’t give a shit’ attitude. So, apologies if you feel slightly offended at the suggestion we are alike in that way. As for depressing and boring; I don’t think that at all. Having that mental space --detached and analytic-- offers great benefits in introspection, self realization, critical thought, and enables me to safely empathize when it makes sense to do so.

I would like to think that I value your discussion on these topics more than you yet realize. I had an excellent philosophy teacher.

That’s the thing, though. I don’t need to get lost in the nuance and come out of the other side as a ‘realist’ or a cynic. The cold calculation of incalculation… the idea that because we are not perfect judges, we should not judge at all, is sinister enough that it even has a meme: Letting perfect be the enemy of good.

When I do selfless acts - and I believe I have, if my act is seen as an act to my own benefit or with ulterior motive: I feel harmed and wish to withdraw. Why would I reason to live with the burden of seeing the world as so purely black and white that the only good that can come from it is beyond my recognition; because I too must be black and white or risk being an imperfect judge?

I’m not going to tell someone that their willingness to donate a kidney is anything less than altruistic just because there’s ‘emotional baggage’ or they don’t self ascribe properly… I’m simply willing to accept it as a good thing.

Just because the future is unknowable doesn’t relieve me of the burden or responsibility of making active choices that I feel make a positive difference, even if I can’t foresee the outcomes. Should the man that saved Hitler’s life from a crowd of angry people feel responsible for everything that Hitler did after the fact? Can I now cynically use that thought to help no one at all, so that I don’t run the risk of saving the next Hitler? Yet do these same cynics that claim humans only work in self interest not go on to complain that so many are passive bystanders to horrific events? It’s self defeating. I’d rather not be a bystander, because I feel a sense of duty to not be an enabler.

Finally, I don’t have a need to sanitize my discussions from all emotions. I don’t think that’s productive so long as the emotions are genuine and an honest reflection of my state of being.

A sincere thank you for your response. I hope my response is received as well as I intend.

You mean… mothers breastfeeding feeding their children? You mean men who find big rocks and throw them into water from heights to make a big splash? Do you mean people who donate their organs to other people? Do you mean the many artists, scientists, teachers, and basically everyone else that gets their ass out of bed every day to then put a smile on their face for other people, despite feeling existential despair inside because the last shred of reason for being has been invested in someone or something else, so they keep moving? Robin Williams?

I think we have very different ideas of what self-interest is. Namely, I think that you have confused the idea that one must suffer, or at least feel nothing, or it’s not altruistic enough. That one should not enjoy acts of love, kindness, caring, giving, art, exploration… or they’re secretly solipsistic. This isn’t the condemnation of the world you think it is. This feels like a projection of an internal insecurity onto the greater portion of humanity.

I think most people have been guilty of thinking this at some point. Rather than feel threatened by my words or that I’m being critical of you and only you, I would ask that you do what I did when I once thought this very thought… think on if you’re really willing to live the rest of your lived experience with this thought at the forefront. Not everyone gets this one right, but it could have consequences on your ability to actually ‘enjoy’ another human being without needing something from them to do so.

Wonder if this could be used as a way to synchronize time and what the caveats of that would be. Aside from detecting these signals reliably, couldn’t we have something like a relay setup alongside GPS where we could leverage LPT’s for keeping the most accurate time? Maybe that’s too much or what we already have in place is simply easier and more reliable.

You’re not kidding. There are no words to describe. Just the set of circumstances that made this possible leaves me speechless.

Are the thieves with plenty of money to burn in the room with you, right now? Can you point them out? Where did they hurt you? Was it actually EA or Ubisoft but you’re scared to let us know? Was it Paradox’s DLC scheme, or Total War? Are they the ones who really hurt you? It’s ok. You’re in a safe space. The AI generated loot skins can’t hurt you, here.

The movie was alright, not too bad, not too good, and I could go either way in watching an extra hour when seeing it again.

That sounds kind of like a console, no?

Edit: I mean, if the intent is gaming and only gaming, it feels like there’s a lot of overlap. Only the PC would have less support for more freedom.

Just enable the sqlite3 USE flag in /etc/portage/make.conf.

Sorry, wrong distro. I’m assuming Arch can use portage or something if you want.

So, just to be clear, that ‘something that can’t be overcome’ is… checks notes capitalism?

“Ah you think depression is your ally? You merely adopted the depression. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t see optimism until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but unrealistic idealism!” - Me… and… most millennials, probably.

That’s nice. But… what’s that got to do with the price of fish? Or the price of tea in China?

I’m going to invite you to another angle, and it’s one with a premise that people are still scratching their heads over – forewarning: no matter how honest or objective you try to be about these subjects, this is one of those things where you can’t have a public discussion about it and come out unscathed. Even if people don’t really have a formed opinion of their own. All well.

Natural selection is still taking place. It was never about “idiots” dying off. That’s a bit of a misconception. So let’s drop that rhetoric – even if you wish to keep that opinion. Remember that people can still have plenty of children before doing something terribly stupid and then dying as a result.

In fact, natural selection is in overdrive and stronger than ever. Once you try to grapple with that you’ll need a few more pieces to see a more clear picture of why I believe this. Now, for you down voters: I’m not advocating an idea here --even natural selection-- or stating facts so much as trying to understand and communicate the way I see things. If you can’t understand the nuance in that, then feel free to continue – the button is below.

I’ll begin by addressing the drivers of modern natural selection in the order of what I believe to be the most impactful. Beware that none of this is to discredit or find fault in either men or women – but the concept of natural selection, and all of its woes, are directly tied to having successfully reproduced.

1. Women now have more access to information and communication tools than ever, and that’s a good thing – as are women. I shouldn’t have to state that I believe these to be good things, but here we are. Women are, now more than ever, demanding more value from life at all angles. Including, if not especially, men.

2. Social Media. All these things are tied to my first point. Women, especially younger women, have a better idea of the sorts of things they desire to the point where it will even cause them to feel a decline in their well-being for not having access to it. This may help inform them in a way that they develop other life goals or objectives, rather than participating in a less than desirable relationship.

3. Family Traditions: Less women are being forced into marriages, whether the marriage is arranged or simply obeying their families desire to marry as the families see fit. Self agency – good.

4. Everything else. There are many more drivers – including things not related to women, I just covered what I believe to be the top three – I feel I need to state here again, none of this is to blame or find fault in anyone – man or woman, or anyone else. It’s simply an attempt to try to make sense of the world around me.

Why I believe the above can be evidenced by a couple of simple metrics: a steep decline in birth rates across most of the world, and the male loneliness epidemic. This may not fit comfortably into the idea that death is the main driver of natural selection, but as I’ve already stated, I never believed that it was. Whether natural selection is the correct model to fit this world view into or not and the unpopularity of that model; that would be a different discussion altogether and I’d rather just fit this into the framework of the discussion than have a disclaimer before every sentence for internet points, as I feel I’ve already had to add too many.

I’ll humor this, even though I’m tired of answering this same question. I’ll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we’ve established the basic concept, let’s break some of it down. If there’s $100 in circulation, it doesn’t matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that’s called a healthy economy. If people buy ‘too much milk and the prices go up’ then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can’t sell it for less, you innovate. If you can’t innovate, or sell for less, then you can’t compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn’t cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn’t realistic anymore, but that’s due to capitalism failing – the underlying principals of the example still hold true.

I always thought I was one of the few people that saw Eve as the libertarian dystopia that it is. I certainly thought I was the only one that held it up as a ready example of what libertarianism looks like when fully executed – now that I think about it, this must be a more popular idea than I realized. Complete with nullsec monopolies and everything. All this in a space that features no scarcity other than real-estate. The end game of libertarian ideals in the Eve example ends in monopoly and the accumulation of absurd amounts of power into the hands of few select individuals. What’s striking is how well run things are on the fleet level, only for the corporate leaders to often be wasteful, populist, of questionable moral fiber, and generally irresponsible – albeit not as a rule. They also have a penchant for casually destroying those that disagree with them. It stands as an excellent example.

On this note; given that it’s suspected that Earth has only a good ~800 million years or so left, that may not even be enough time for another sentient species to emerge with enough time to become technologically sufficient enough to … avert extinction – much less undo some of the damage that we have done. We have to grapple with the idea that if we fail as a species, we’ll be the only and last sentient species on Earth to have emerged. Or as I like to call it: Get filtered, nerd.

There actually is an array in any POSIX shell. You get one array per file/function. It just feels bad to use it. You can abuse ‘set – 1 2 3 4’ to act as a proper array. You can then use ‘for’ without ‘in’ to iterate over it.

for i; do echo $i; done.

Use shift <number> to pop items off.

If I really have to use something more complex, I’ll reach for mkfifo instead so I can guarantee the data can only be consumed once without manipulating entries.

Either use a straw or only fill one side? Is that cheating?

Great. I have plenty of money and hate contributing to society in any meaningful manner – I consume only. I’ll manage the crop pickers from my phone, though. When do you start?

The Buddhist then pulls a gun out from beneath his robes and points it at the hot dog vendor. The vendor exclaims, ‘I thought all Buddhists were peaceful!’ The monk then says, ‘Every monk carries with him his inner piece.’