While that is possible, I’d seriously doubt it happening. Wagner’s run at Moscow seemed like the best opportunity for that to happen, but it just stalled out. I’m still surprised Prighozin, stopped his push short of Moscow. I was not surprised afterwards when an airplane he was on suffered “technical difficulties”. But, between the failure of Wagner to remove Putin and them now being rolled into the Russian military, I think Putin has done a lot to consolidate his control over the armed forces, exactly to prevent that outcome.

Ya, it could happen, I don’t believe it’s likely.

The big ones for me were a frequent, sudden, urgent need to pee and getting up multiple times a night to pee. I also drank a copious amount of water. Like, the whole “eight glasses a day” thing which used to be popular was confusing to me, as I’d drink that much in the first couple hours of the day. I finally went in to the doctor and got a blood test and my A1Cs were well over the “welcome to Diabetes Land” number. With diet, exercise and drugs I’m well controlled now and caught it early enough that I still have good feeling in my feet. Given my family history, and all the shit I ate in my younger days, it’s not really a surprise. I just have to be more careful now, but I have discovered an enjoyment of climbing because of it.

Really, if you have any family history of diabetes, start visiting your doctor on an annual basis and getting a blood test. It’s simple, and catching it earlier is good for preventing problems with neuropathy in your feet.

While I like the sentiment, unless the EU is interested in a WWII style total war and invasion of Russia, Putin is never going to be held to account for the invasion of Ukraine.

The Russian government (Read: Putin and his cronies) are not going to agree to hand Putin over to The Hague. Even if the current war ends on favorable terms for Ukraine, that is never going to look anything like the German or Japanese surrenders. At best, this war ends with Russian military exhaustion and withdrawal. More like the end of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. There will be no push to Moscow, no mass bombing of Russian factories or cities. Just Russian soldiers packing up and going home, leaving death and devastation behind for the survivors of their invasion to deal with.

Any negotiated peace is going to look pretty similar. It will stop the death sooner at the cost of giving Russia something it’s willing to accept. That’s the way negotiations work. If you want to force the other side to accept your terms, without any compromise, that’s what war is for. Since it seems neither the EU nor the US are willing to engage in a direct confrontation with Russia, then the only choice to end this war early is compromise. And Putin facing accountability is almost certainly not going to be on the table.

Wait, I’m conscious enough to have questions? So, now what?

The one argument for a multi-magazine setup would be ammo versatility. E.g. One magazine holds FMJ or the like for soft targets while the second holds armor piercing for hard targets or explosive/incendiary for anti-material. It’s not a great argument for it, and it’s probably why we don’t see it all that often. But, the good idea fairy is a regular visitor to the arms manufacturing industry.

Ya, AI as a tool has it’s place. I’m currently working on documentation to meet some security compliance frameworks (I work in cybersecurity). Said documentation is going to be made to look pretty and get a check in the box from the auditors. It will then be stored in a SharePoint library to be promptly lost and ignored until the next time we need to hand it over to the auditors. It’s paperwork for the sake of paperwork. And I’m going to have AI spit out most of it and just pepper in the important details and iron out the AI hallucinations. Even with the work of fixing the AI’s work, it will still take less time than making up all the bullshit on my own. This is what AI is good for. If I actually care about the results, and certainly if I care about accuracy, AI won’t be leaned on all that much.

The technology actually it pretty amazing, when you stop and think about it. But, it also often a solution in search of a problem.

Coming soon:
Assassin’s Creed: Long March

Which, might not be the worst game ever. The politics of it would be interesting though.

For the ones they own or have a contract with, probably. However, there are two problems with that.

1. It will do fuck all for the AI models which are just scraping the internet and which have no contractual agreements with the blog (e.g. all the big ones).
2. It’s a fixing a problem the blog hosting platform created. They likely have a data sharing agreement with some organizations to make the scraping easy for those organizations (e.g. direct content database access). So, they are like the mob, offering you “protection” so long as you pay them not to break your shit.

deleted by creator

AWS seems to be cratering as well: https://downdetector.com/status/aws-amazon-web-services/

And Google, why not?

Location: ~87% of respondents are from Canada

As others mentioned, this would be an interesting data point to validate. I’m not familiar with the server side of Lemmy, but does the server provide any logs which could be used with GeoIP to get a sense of the relative number of connections from different countries? While there is likely to be some misreporting due to VPN usage and the like, it’s likely to be a low enough number of connections to be ignored as “noise” in the data. Depending on the VPNs in question, it may also be possible to run down many of the IP addresses which are VPNs in the connections logs and report “VPN user” as a distinct category. This would also be interesting to see broken out by instance (e.g. what countries are hitting lemmy.world versus lemmy.ml versus lemmy.ca etc.).

All that said, thank you for sharing. These sorts of exercises can be interesting to understand what a population looks like.

It’s not just speed, CGNAT is a near complete “fuck you” to self-hosting. You can work around it with a VPN endpoint “in the cloud”, but that still means you are reliant on someone else’s computer.

And nothing of value was lost. Sure EA has published a few gems in recent years, but as a developer it’s all sports games and Battlefield. The talent isn’t at EA, it’s at the developers they have been supporting. If we’re lucky, the leveraged buyout will result in anything good owned by EA being sold off for parts and the worthless husk of EA saddled with the debt and left to go bankrupt.

Who know, maybe the license to make Star Wars games will go somewhere that isn’t dead set on fucking it up as hard as possible to meet the Christmas season deadline.

Harm was going to happen no matter what you do in the trolley problem. There is no situation where harm does not happen, but there is a situation where you directly are causing harm.

Yes, exactly. By taking no action some amount of harm occurs, had you taken action that harm would not have occurred but other harm would have. Ultimately, this is analyzing the extent to which a person is willing to allow harm via inaction versus cause harm through direct action.

Almost none of them actually having a real world application…

Like many thought experiments, the Trolley Problem is an artificial situation intended to isolate certain decision making points so that they can be analyzed. Yes, reality is messy and we often have more than two options. But having this sort of analysis ahead of time can make the real problems less complex to consider. It is also useful for looking at our philosophical frameworks and where they break down.

Personally, if I could go the rest of my life without hearing about the trolley problem that’d be great actually.

The Trolley Problem is a tool for examining our beliefs. Throwing it away because it is imperfect and uncomfortable only leads to a blindness of self.

One of the issues the Trolley Problem explores is people’s differing willingness to allow harm versus cause it. And that can hold even when the level of harm caused by inaction is significantly higher than what is caused by taking action. E.g. If your personal philosophy dictates that killing someone is always wrong, does it hold if your inaction causes 5 deaths, 10, 50? What if we start tinkering with the people dying? Would you kill a 90 year old man to save a train full of children? The Trolley Problem is really just a starting point to examine that dichotomy between causing harm and allowing harm and just how permeable the line between them can be when you start changing the conditions. Attaching other moral choices to the problem is one way to use the problem to explore a set of beliefs.

Choosing not to act is still making a choice and may still result in a negative outcome. It’s the classic trolley problem. While you may not cause harm through an active choice, your inaction can still lead directly to a negative outcome.

Well, to me, it seems pretty paradoxical, almost in the same Rousseauesque line of “I’m forced to be free”.

That’s fair, but it’s either we force all people to exist or no one ever has the opportunity to make a choice. An unfortunate fact of life is that a lot of things will happen to you, without you having a choice. Some of that will suck, some of it will be fantastic, much of it will be somewhere in between. You will never get to choose everything which happens to you, all you can choose is how you react to it. Pain and suffering is valid, but so is joy. If you choose to focus on pain and suffering, that’s up to you. But ya, that’s kinda the response of the angsty teenager.

Sorry but you distorted my words. In no moment I said “everyone needs to die”, and I challenge anyone accusing me of that to point out where I said this.

Fair enough, that was me getting absurd.

What I’ve been saying throughout this Lemmy thread is how humans are inherently evil (as per Hobbesian philosophy, not out of hatred misanthropy)

This one would be fun to expand one. Though, fair warning, I tend to dive into moral relativism and will put Hobbe’s philosophy up as an appeal to authority and his idea of some “state of nature” as just a “noble savage myth” wrapped in fancy language. Speaking of “noble savage” style myths…

No other lifeforms developed nuclear warheads, no other lifeforms shrug off when children starve.

Ok ya, we have fancier ways to kill each other, but the idea that animals don’t is complete bullshit. Wild animals which have too many young will kill or abandon the extra young to conserve resources. If you’re an old enough fart, you might recall people quoting Planet of the Apes (the one without CGI), “ape don’t kill ape”. Except, that ya, they do. Primates are known to kill and eat other groups of primates, even within the same species. Competition for resources and all the brutality that entails predates modern humans and it predates cities and agriculture by a long way. Sure, we have absolutely raised it a to terrifying scale. But, we really aren’t that different from our stick wielding forebearers.

Even Earth herself isn’t eternal, for the Sun will engulf the Earth as part of its transformation to Giant Red.

Speaking of things we have no choice about, this is one of them. Given the vast expanses of interstellar space, there’s a good chance that this really will spell the end for humanity. On the upshot, we’ve got a few million years (maybe a billion or two) before the Sun gets hot enough to make Earth uninhabitable (assuming we don’t speed that one up ourselves). If we figure nothing out in that time, we’ll be long dead before the Sun goes Red Giant. At the same time, humanity went from the first powered flight at Kittyhawk to humans walking on the Moon in the span of a single human life. We’re a clever bunch and might just sort something out. I like our chances and would love to give us a shot.

Yes. Then, Science was hijacked by capitalism, becoming something sponsored by capital goals, one which sees people as cogs in the machine because “profit must go up”.

Science has always been beholden to economics and war. Capitalism didn’t change that. Again, you’ve latched on to a mythical past. It didn’t exist. Leonardo Da Vinci invented a lot of stuff, much of it was designing better ways for one idiot with an upgraded stick to kill another idiot with a less upgraded stick. Even early hominids were working on better ways to gather resources and kill each other. It’d be great if we can ever change this, but until we sort out some sort of technological singularity (probably itself just a utopian myth), scientific work will take resources which means it’s part of whatever economic theory is currently being used. Economics is always trying to find a way to distribute finite resources in a world of infinite wants. Every economic system has advantages and disadvantages. Capitalism is just getting its opportunity to display its disadvantages at the moment.

Yes. And, on one hand, this improved quality of life (= less physical suffering). On the other hand, it empowered capitalism so people became increasingly reliant on a system that seeks to perpetuate their slavery (= ontological, invisible suffering).

Given what came before (feudalism), I’ll take capitalism and it’s “slavery” (so edgy) any day of the week. Seriously, for anyone in a first world country, sit back and look at the embarrassment of choices and riches you have available to you today. Go to a grocery store, buy a pineapple and eat it. You have now done something that would have been considered the height of indulgence in the 18th Century. Go to your bathroom, take a shit, flush. This would have blown the minds of most of humanity prior to the 19th Century (some really rich Romans wouldn’t have been all that impressed). To me, this exemplifies the weakness in your philosophy, you are quick to validate suffering but refuse to validate progress, joy or anything positive about existence. There are many, many good things in life but you refuse to recognize them, or seek to minimize them. The philosophy is so caught up in the negative, it fails to recognize the good, only calling it “less physical suffering”. And I call that bullshit. The good things in life are good, not a reduction in suffering. The default state is not suffering, you only see it that way because you choose to.

Improving human condition also means avoiding suffering from future generations: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422788/

I’ll have to apologize, I’ve only made it to the end of Section 4 of the linked paper. It’s getting late and I’m getting pretty deep in my cups (one of humanity’s best, early inventions, booze). I do plan to pick it up in the morning, it’s an interesting read. But this is starting to sound suspiciously like the eugenicist movement of the early 20th Century. The authors also seem to recognize this and are doing a lot of “no really, we’re not those people”:

More troublesome is the realization that, as mentioned, many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide, etc.

Ya, let’s have a critical look at China’s One Child Policy and then come back and tell me how great your policy is. Or, you know, what Eugenicists got up to in the early 20th Century. It might just be that the reason “many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide” is because it always seems to turn out that way. But who knows, maybe the authors really do have A Brave New World planned and I just haven’t read that far yet.

Population growth is already slowing (something the paper mentions). Access to education and birth control already started bending that curve. In fact, most first world countries are already facing shrinking populations. No fancy “don’t have kids” push needed. The economic consequences of this are going to be a “fun” ride and may lead to the sort of suffering the authors are hoping to avoid. Or not, managing a shrinking population may not be an insurmountable economic problem. Japan is kinda doing OK, after all. But, so far is seems that the most effective method for long term population control is less eugenics and more first world development.

To try and sum this all up, I’d note that you seem to be arguing less about anti-natalism and more about the harms of unconstrained capitalism. I’m all on board with the latter, less so the former. We need more socialism (at least in the US). Modern capitalism is broken and that’s only going to be solved via higher taxes and greater wealth redistribution. Even people who believe wholeheartedly in capitalism should recognize that the level of wealth accumulation, rent seeking and regulatory capture have created distortions in the market which are not healthy for capitalism. We’ve entered a new Guilded Age and it’s time to break out the monopoly busting hammer. But, let’s leave the Eugenics in the dustbin of history, it wasn’t good the last time, it won’t be good this time.

Before I was born, there’s this… nothingness. No fleeting happiness, but also no suffering. There was no pain, no angst, nothing but the nothingness. Then I was pulled, without the ability to choose positively or negatively… now the blame is on me: “you really feel that existence is that horrible, there’s a solution for that at your nearest tall bridge”. Why should a person have to go through the painful to opt-out, risking failure?

Because there is no other way to determine what that choice would be. If you don’t exist, you cannot opt-in. So, the only way to give people any choice is to force them into life and let them opt out. Sure, it’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the only one which provides a choice.

Were/Are David Benatar, Philipp Mainländer, among other thinkers who extensively wrote about this subject, eternal “teenagers”?

Yup, I’m willing to stand behind that statement. It’s entirely possible to be well educated and still be stuck in teenage angst.

Are the scientists who’ve been tirelessly reporting on how human activity is endangering all lifeforms, and/or those who reported about microplastics everywhere, and/or those who tried to report about the consequences of Industrial Revolution, driven by “teenager angst”?

Ah going for the absurd now? Pointing out problems is very different from the edgy “everyone needs to die” philosophy. Quite the opposite, really. Fixing problems requires identifying them. If the goal is complete human eradication, identifying problems and putting forward solutions is counter productive. Scientific advancement is the reason we have so many people on the planet. Prior to the late 19th Century, diseases like small pox and bacterial infections were doing a bang up job of suppressing the human population. And then we came up with the germ theory of diseases and vaccines. So no, I won’t put scientists down as full of “teenager angst”. Maybe some of them are, I certainly don’t know them all. But, working hard to improve the human condition seems a pretty far cry from “why don’t we all just die?”

Oh, found the nerve. You’re sitting around dressed in black on black listening to some “edgy” band I’ve never heard of, right?

And yes I’m ignoring the folks who commit suicide. They aren’t the people arguing for others to not have children or for the end of all humanity. They are completely beside the argument about anti-natalism. We’re talking about your philosophy here, do keep up. If you’re arguing that humanity should be ended, then you really have two logic options:

1. Go on a mass murder spree, reducing the population as fast and as much as possible.
2. Go find that bridge. At least your suffering will be over and you will have reduce the human population by one.

Hanging about for some misguided sense of “I need to convert the masses” is just the same sort of messianic bullshit every cult leader engages in. Convince the dupes to follow your bullshit, while never actually following it yourself. And much like the crap from cult leaders, the philosophy is bullshit. There may be some nuggets of truth and useful ideas buried inside it, but it’s wrapped up in enough shit to render the whole worthless. Its a philosophy which has latched on to the same thinking as the guy on the corner with “The End is Nigh!” written in large, dark letters on a sign, ranting about whatever form of doom is en vogue. Those guys have been hanging about for millennia, none of them have been right. But hey, maybe the next one will be the ticket.

Yup, the world’s got problems. If your solution is “give up” then you’re part of the problem. The world gets better when people choose to fix it. But that’s hard, usually slow (including moving backwards on occasion) and requires effort. Giving up is easy. The hardest part is maintaining the flexibility in your shoulders to keep patting yourself on the back. And that’s all this philosophy is, it’s giving up with excuses to justify it to yourself. it’s a short-sighted view of the world, hyper-focused on the things which are bad.

If you really feel that things are that bad, instead of giving up or killing yourself (seriously, don’t do that. It improves nothing), find a small corner of the world which you can make better and go do it. Plant a tree, at least the world has one more tree now. Help troubled children, the fact that you are able to waste time arguing on the internet with idiots like me proves that you live an absolutely charmed life compared to many, many people, go make one of their lives a bit better. Go create something, the world needs more art. The time you just wasted on my trolling could have been far better spent on learning to paint or just rubbing one out. I mean, I get it, arguing with idiots on the internet is like masturbation, it’s fun at first but really you’re just screwing yourself. At least with real masturbation you get a refractory period to go do something useful with a clear mind. Give up on giving up, and make the hard choice to make the world better. Sure, you’ll fail a lot. That’s part of what makes it hard. But the successes are worth the effort.

you have a bit of teenage angst of your own left unresolved.

Seriously? You can do better than that. At least try to put more effort into the insult than “no, you”. Something like “brain-washed” or “child-pilled”. Or is that “natal-pilled”, what is the appropriate “-pilled” insult here? Even “neo-lib sheep” would have shown some imagination. Also, I’ve pretty much set you up for a whole host of insults over my masturbatory habits and things being “hard”, let’s see you really pound something out here.