I fear this is a problem that may never be solved. I mean that people of any intelligence fall for the mind’s biases.

There’s just too little to be gained feelings-wise. Yeah, you make better decisions, but you’re also sacrificing “going with the flow”, acting like our nature wants us to act. Going against your own nature is hard and sometimes painful.

Making wrong decisions is objectively worse, leading to worse outcomes, but if it doesn’t feel worse (because you’re not attributing the effects of the wrong decisions to the right cause, i.e. acting irrationally), then why should a person do it. If you follow the mind’s bias towards attributing your problems away from irrationality, it’s basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Great article.

You’re absolutely right, but the average person does not think like you. Most people don’t ever think about stuff like this.

And so you currently have a very “high-level”, rational view of technology, that makes it amazing specifically for you.

However, you either disregard or lack contact with people that are (vastly) different. When looking at a technology in relation to the world, like you want to know about in this topic, you have to view the effects on those different people from you as well. And what other people in this thread said is simply observable and happening. A very small percentage uses the internet/technology like you do. The overall effect on the population is not solely amazing.

This “directly” distinction you’re making is not very relevant.

Usually “direct” would mean that without it, it wouldn’t have happened. Yes, whatever broke the glasses would’ve happened without the glasses as well, but it likely wouldn’t have resulted in a scratched cornea. So yes, the scratched cornea is a direct effect of having worn glasses.

Exactly the same, just that I don’t use a screen protector either.

This thing has been dropped so much that I think it’s just undestroyable, the new Nokia 3310

Also I don’t think it’s worth the effort to teach my parents yet another messaging app, like signal.

My friend, just set up Signal on their phones, put it in place of the Telegram app and watch them not even notice anything changed.

Actually, we see the world in

Why do you have to reduce it to one? Isn’t it simply all at the same time to varying degrees?

Even with the external mind it’d be irrelevant. As long as we have no way of knowing the future or being able to predict it, having or not having free will is observed in exactly the same way.

Kerbal Space Program with mods
Cities:Skylines with mods
Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition
Dota 2 (I would be playing against and programming my own bots for it)
Trackmania with all current maps

For the markings, I’ve seen such a small cart that just had an adjustable wheel on a pole at the side. Since the pole was fixed length, they just kept the wheel near the outer road border and thus kept the distance always the same, keeping the marking in the middle.

Totally fair. Sounds fun :)

Honestly, why not ask Discord support? It’s literally their problem they’d want to fix most likely :D

I just kinda wonder why when you’re in a browser or node, you wouldn’t just do

const json = {...};
json.friends.filter(f => f.age >= 18);

why learn another language when you already literally got the language to process JavaScript Object Notation right there.

https://jqlang.org/

I’ve been using that for all my JSON extraction and processing needs. Let me automate a bunch of my builds for JS stuff for FoundryVTT https://gitlab.com/foundry-azzurite/pings/-/blob/master/build/build.sh

If you use it in the web version, I have LULs, a script which makes all Lemmy links that point to a different instance which you encounter while browsing, to point to your instance.

In the context of cold random approaches, women almost never do that. They don’t need to, because so many men are approaching them that they simply don’t have to do the work. Why would you risk rejection when you can just chill and be approached and thus get guaranteed interest? They just mostly pick out of the approaches they get. Gender roles might be theoretically dead, but practically, they’re very much alive.

One of the indirect ways is simply looking at you and looking friendly. That is them indirectly approaching you by showing you that you can approach them. How to make sure that is their intention is almost impossible because different people have different mannerisms and you don’t know what the person you’re looking at’s mannerisms are. They might just generally look at people and look friendly. For someone else, they might look but look bored and that’s their face for them wanting you to approach them. Or someone looking at you but quickly looking away when you look may be wanting you to approach (they were just embarrassed for staring), but they might also just think you look weird and that’s why they stared.

Approaching someone is not wrong, but it’s almost impossible to know if someone wants to be approached unless you approach them. It’s a paradox without a proper solution.

If you don’t initiate, you rely on others to give you what you want. If you approach yourself, you’re making what you want happen.

There is no “role that never needs to initiate”. Women have always been initiating, just less than men and maybe in a more indirect way. If women want something, they also make sure to try and get it.

In the end, the only thing you’re doing is not taking responsibility about your own happiness.

I see, that’s probably something only Americans would generally understand :D

What do the numbers mean?

Little common luxuries, lots of nature, lots of silence, freedom from most things. It’s a return to a more ancient, simple way of life.

For some people this represents extreme comfort and serenity.

For other people they don’t understand why you’d give up having a warm shower readily available (or similar things) and are annoyed the whole way.

Have fun finding out what’s yours! :D