He’s not talking about the communist manifesto, he’s talking about Das Kapital. If you don’t care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it’s all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you’d at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.

The unmodded experience absolutely isn’t a casual game. Due to the semi random nature of the game I actually rate it harder than dark souls.

It doesn’t have the same roadblock encounters souls games have but you can learn how to pass them in the souls games. However in Noita you need to learn the systems and then use your knowledge of the systems to bypass the problems in a more dynamic way. For example I wanted to carve a path through lava. Usually I’ve done it with a freezing spell, but I didn’t have it. Instead I had found lava to blood spell, so I turned parts of lava to blood which then reacted with the rest of lava to create volcanic rock, which I then dug through.

For a more casual experience I recommend using mods for whatever gives you the most trouble, because there’s a lot of that can give you problems. You can learn at your own pace because it does get easier the more you get used to the systems in the game.

I definitely recommend experiencing Noita, it’s one of the most unique games I’ve ever played. It’s so unique I actually have a hard time putting it into a specific genre. I usually just call it a roguelite Metroidvania. It starts out as a roguelite but the more you play it the more it becomes like a Metroidvania where there’s usually a specific mechanic preventing access to other areas but there can be multiple solutions to the mechanic and your solution depends whatever things the roguelite aspect of the game gave you.

Because putting them together in most physical sports would push women out of the highest echelons of that sport. Just look up what female MMA fighters and female tennis players have to say. They literally can’t keep up with men. Serena Williams and her sister boasted that they’d beat any man outside the top 200, Braasch (then #203) took the challenge and on the day of the challenge played a round of golf drank 2 low ABV beers before easily beating both sisters

Probably the most detrimental thing you can do for women in sports is to get rid of the women’s league. Most “men’s” categories are already open for women, so you should ask women why they don’t want to partake. The answer is what female athletes already say, they’d get absolutely dumpstered before they even get close to the top. Of course the less physically demanding the closer men and women will be, but for most sports the physical differences make women’s leagues necessary.

If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it’s super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.

What? The leds that go in the bulb sockets take 3W so the RGB ones going into the case probably take like 1.5 to 2W. RGB led strips seem to take 8W per meter. We’re talking about 5m of led strips and 25 individual lights and still not hitting 100W.

I don’t put RGB in my cases so I don’t know what the trend is. If it’s to turn your PC into a Christmas tree then I can understand 100W not being enough.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

I don’t think it’s impossible but I do think it leads to the suffering of pets because most animal owners aren’t capable of taking care of their pets right now and they’ll be even less capable when they need to follow a relatively strict diet for their pet.

However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

About that specific person? You do nothing. You can’t force people (or animals) to live a different life. What you want to do is get a societal shift. Educate people so they’d willingly switch and over time (if it’s reasonable and I do think going more vegan is reasonable) society will shift away from eating animals and those people will disappear with time.

You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question.

If would argue if humans were strictly carnivorous the question would be much easier, because then eating meat is our nature and we would die if we went vegan. The reason we (and dogs) can go vegan is because from a dietary perspective we’re both omnivores. For example with cats there’s no question, they’re biologically not adapted to plant based diet. Their entire diet would essentially be supplements and they get next to nothing from eating plants.

Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist,

I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person.

And these are the examples why I have a problem with Veganism and why I think Vegans like you are a detriment towards people going more plant based with their diet. Because you’re all about moral superiority, absolutes, guilting others for their lifestyles and assuming the worst. You won’t change peoples mind if you call them a piece of shit. You also won’t change their minds by not compromising on anything. And this “all change must happen instantly because we demand it” message is just childish behavior.

If you’re serious about getting people to eat less or no meat you can’t expect instant results. You need to let people change their minds instead of trying to force them to change (and that includes trying to guilt them into changing). Also you can’t change everyones mind but you need to change enough to for society to change over time. It’s a process and it needs to be treated like a process. Don’t force people, educate when you can and hope people change. After-all (hopefully) nobody forced you into becoming a vegan.

Ah the utilitarian approach. You’re just one species away from saying it’s okay to kill people because most people eat meat. Afterall the math problem is exactly the same for people, except people eat even more meat so from a math point of view it’s even more logical to kill a person than a dog. I’ll walk you through this conundrum.

You can choose to say it is okay to kill people who eat meat and good luck talking about the ethics of killing people.

You can choose to say it’s not okay to kill people, but now you’re not treating life equally because now a human life is worth more than the dogs life. So what’s stopping me from saying that the the dog is worth more than the 4 animals who get killed?

And if you want me to prove the dog is worth more than the animals I’ll just ask you to prove that a human is worth more than the dog. If you can’t prove that you’re back to saying it’s okay to kill people.

You can’t solve this problem through utilitarianism and then talk about ethics because utilitarian solutions often end up being unethical.

So the ethical thing is to send my dog into the wilds to die? Or have it turn into a stray dog gang with all the other dogs “ethical” people let go, and then kill them because they become a menace to society? Or is the ethical thing to let them eat us?

You got it because it’s not the US telling Ukraine to fight for the last man, it’s Ukrainians deciding to fight for the last man. If they believe they can achieve something more who are we to question it.

Opposing sending more men into the meat grinder just means you’re in favor of Ukraine surrendering to Russia, who are now the actual fascists.

But you can read the source code and get an understanding of whether it is collecting private information or not. You can theoretically also fork the code and make your own version of Lemmy where you’re ripped out the parts that collect private information. Can you do any of those things with Reddit? Absolutely not. You have no idea what exactly Reddit collects and even if you did you have no control over that collection.

What you’re doing is questioning the privacy aspect without putting in the effort to check if your questioning is valid. Nobody is preventing you from reading the source code. And if you don’t trust anyone else running the instance you can fork Lemmy, make whatever privacy changes you need and host your own instance. That goes beyond the capabilities of the average user but that’s the catch with privacy, if you can’t trust others then you have to learn more to get by without others.

The desire to not let people live in your place while you’re at work is in fact entirely illegitimate and selfish.

I guess I should’ve specified. I don’t think it’s rent-able. It’s more than a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere with more than 100 year old plumbing (hint, no plumbing), no internet outside of mobile network which is also very flaky since there aren’t many cell towers nearby, water comes from a nearby well which limits the amount of water you can use because it’s not a deep well and the list goes on. It’s not a modern house that’s going to just sit empty, it’s a relic from a different era where the main value the house has is of sentimental value. If it was to get sold the next “owner” would most likely tear down the house and turn the entire plot of land into agricultural land.

If it was a decent apartment somewhere where people would actually want to live I’d absolutely “rent” it out. Not take any profits from it, put a bit to the side in case something breaks and if they leave without breaking anything they get their money back.

This is why nobody listens to people like you. Someone has a legitimate grievance trying to do what you want them to do and what is your response? Completely ignore the grievance and go “I can’t believe how fucking stupid you are, just do the thing.” Really helpful.

Right, so tell me what is the course of action?

Perfect is the enemy of good. You’re not at home while you’re working and if you do full time then a third of the day you’re not using your home, why don’t you let others use your home while you’re not using it? You’re also putting your individual needs above giving someone else shelter, the only difference is where you’ve drawn the line.

I don’t consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?

I think as long as I don’t rent it out it’s acceptable to own it. It’s just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I’d even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don’t live in should be taxed extra.

Yeah, it’s not about monetization. I think for content creators the biggest limiting factor is the user base. If you make a video but nobody sees it then what’s the point of making a video? You want people watching your creations and the more users a site has the more likely you’re going to have people watching your video. So a real suggestion would be something like video visibility which is kind of a hit or miss on Youtube since the magical Youtube algorithm pretty much throws only clickbait.

As a thought experiment let’s say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title “this may or may not be made by AI”. Is the released image art or not?

If you say the image isn’t art, what if it’s revealed that it’s the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it’s not made by AI? If not does it mean when people “make art” it’s not art?

If you say the image is art, what if it’s revealed it’s made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?

The way I see it is that you’re trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn’t real art. I think since we’re the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn’t matter. After all if you’re the artist taking the photo isn’t the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.