unlucky

I don’t think it’s unlucky just stupid. In bdsm we have something called RACK (risk aware consensual kink) where before a scene or activity you have to study risks, anatomy, and physiology as deeply as you can and then do negotiations with your partner where you discuss all the risks and establish safe words and alternative non-verbal cues, and everything that could go wrong and the protocol that will be followed if it does go wrong, while changing things and substituting some aspects with others that would achieve the same goal but more safely.

You also generally don’t participate in extreme activities with a new partner especially if someone is inexperienced.

I’m starting to think that no place is left that isn’t turning into a shit hole.

It’s hypocrisy. When the morality and logic behind your ideas is inherently flawed then hypocrisy is fair play and sometimes even a necessity for survival.

In the long run I don’t think it would matter that much. They would just move it elsewhere potentially in someone’s else backyard but the infrastructure will still run by you and the effects/consequences are still the same. A nice looking backyard doesn’t matter when everything around it is on fire.

Well the thing is no empire truly fall. They leave behind, a seed, a catalyst for the next empire. If not destroyed then you’re still in the cycle and hope becomes temporary.

I call it the grow-explode-grow theory

A powerful kingdom turns into a tyrannical empire. Empires grow and exploit others till they collapse due to too much power concentration and fewer people benefiting from it. Then smaller kingdoms and republics are built on the ruins of empires. The cycle repeats. It depends on which unfortunate part of the cycle you happened to exist. Also with modern globalisation and capitalism it seems the different parts of the world are now in sync with each other which makes “the empires” even stronger but their eventual collapse more detrimental.

Working is not giving back to society when most of us work for corporations and millionaires who’s entire purpose is to exploit said society. This fact might have been less obvious than it’s now especially when young people don’t feel their work is respected or appreciated in this system anymore.

It’s not that society inherently sucks but it has been plagued by systems of oppression and exploitation for so long that it needs emergency surgery.

Is it me or does this feel very 18th century vibes with a 20th century nationalist flavour?

Invading people homes and locking them up, forced displacement (“deportation” ), setting up “return hubs” which to me sounds awfully similar to a slave trade route resting spot. I thought it was established that mass human trafficking and raiding homes are bad.

But it’s gorgeous

I don’t believe LLMs are inherently evil. They can in some situations be the right tool to use. Unfortunately they came in a time where technical literacy was already declining and was also pushed by greedy corporations and investors. It’s no the tool but rather how or by whom it’s being used that’s the problem.

If we start treating it like the auxiliary tool it’s instead of the primary developer, writer, and manager, it becomes just another tool to support the process instead of replacing human skill and critical thinking. Just like how the computer and calculators did not replace professionals but made them more efficient, or how the internet and stack overflow didn’t replace problem solving and critical thinking but made the process faster and gave you time to focus on more important tasks.

Coming back to OPs analogy, cars aren’t inherently evil but it’s the culture associated with them. With the right adaptation, technology, and infrastructure they can be a very amazing tool without replacing walking or human skill. If you’re concerned about the environment we can find sustainable solutions (EVs), if you’re concerned about loosing the human aspect you can find a human-first solution (infrastructure that rewards walking and public transport for short travel but allows car for long-distance or in emergency).

The issue is not with the technology itself but how we’ve been using it and how greedy individuals are pushing the unhealthy version for their own benefits despite a healthy adoption being possible.

I miss when ceasefire meant no fires for a while now it just means let the media forget that people are dying for a while

I have a 5 years old laptop and was planning on building a home pc but I can’t afford this shit now. I’m still planning on it but now I have to wait till I save enough money to even be able to enter a store.

It must not be a bluff. If Putin doesn’t accept my proposal, the UK and France must send troops into Ukraine.

I agree but unfortunately it’s not happening at least for now.

War would be costly, but sending weapons to Ukraine is straining Europe economies and what would Europe do if Putin is on the verge of victory?

Unfortunately people don’t usually tend to plan for the long run especially when the outcome is not fully known yet. That’s why when we have the knowledge and technology to mitigate climate change and a lot of diseases, we have done so little compared to what we could be doing despite that the cost is lower than the total cost of damages in the future. If people in power think the cost is too high right now to be worth it, then the change becomes too slow, this is true especially when these people are of the older generations where the future outcome won’t effect them like it would do to younger generations.

People are willing to change if it makes sense.

True but that change faces high resistance from some groups and the system itself, and thus sometimes it’s decided that it’s not worth the backlash, the risk, and the cost even if everyone will benefit at the end.

I’m not saying change doesn’t happen what I’m trying to say is that it’s slow, hard and face resistance which only discourage it if it doesn’t have short term instant results. For representative democracies war doesn’t make since since the damage is short term while the benefits are long term which is the opposite of votes depends on. On the other hand, dictatorships don’t care about votes it only cares about the benefits for the rulers, therefore if they will have direct benefits they can just go for it.

You will only get war when the government no longer cares about it’s citizens and their votes (US), or the ideological and strategic benefits are too good to pass (Israel) or there is absolutely no choice.

many countries have accepted but

True but I believe it’s more of a survival decision for some countries. For example where I live the government accepted refugees only because it meant they would get aid money and donations. For some western and European countries I believe it’s their aging population. The pension system became too expensive when you had more older individuals and less young people of working age. Immigration was a temporary fix to delay the eventual collapse of the welfare capitalist system due to the changing demographics.

some European countries have allowed a flood of migrants resulting in an increase in crime and fears that the cultural identity of the country will be changed.

This is my point. Even when lots of people accepted it still faced backlash and resistance from day one that has only increased ever since. This delayed establishing better systems and laws to allow integration and benefits for both native citizens and immigrants only making the situation worse and as a result hurting genuine hard working people who were willing to integrate.

It’s also worth noting that there are no strict rules when it comes to politics or sociology but rather a general tendency.

Your English is very good.

Thanks I appreciate it.

Reality is much more nuanced but on average for representative democracy keeping the status quo is the safest policy. That’s why change is painstakingly slow in any direction. This is usually because the masses are either too polarised and/or fragmented that any change would cause too much heat. And/or people generally do be afraid of change and what the future holds. It’s simple human nature, that’s why we like to hold onto old items and why we enjoy nostalgia.

A representative democracy must be in touch with what people want

That’s an ideal scenario but personally I believe the modern systems of democracy in western societies are objectively too flawed for this scenario to occur and even when it does I don’t believe it’s sustainable. That’s why I think direct democracy and direct participation should be more ingrained in the culture.

What you say is idealistic and I do agree that it’s a good idea but reality is not a simulation and it’s definitely far from ideal. Politicians will always choose what’s best for them not for the people, sometimes that may align but it’s not a rule.

Putin won’t submit to Europe’s threat of war because he knows they’re bluffing and it’s true. European leaders have no real intentions of going directly into war. War is a too much of a big risk for European governments. If you don’t get every citizen in your country on board with war then you risk discontent which is not good in a representative democracy. You also risk tanking the economy and with the current global situation in the last decade I don’t think there’s anyone left who is willing to or even can absorb the shockwaves of a such major event.

The increasing popularity of far-right parties in Europe is causing centrist parties to adopt some of their policies.

This does prove my point. The far-right feeds on fear and what’s more scary than change. Be it economical change, demographic, cultural, religious, political, or even aesthetic change. They all share the same populist line “everything right now is evil and we need to do things the old way”. That’s how they recruit members. And usually people go with it until it’s too late.

P.S. I apologise if my writing is a mess it’s too late rn and English isn’t my first language.

Dude do you seriously think people in power would solve this like mature adults? Representative democracy encourages maintaining the status quo since that’s better for votes than the risk of changing it. Dictatorship on the other hand encourages slow drainage and exploitation of resources and displays of power that’s how you prevent coups and foreign interference and keep your position.

In both cases it’s not the in the interest of governments to find the best solution that would benefit all parties.

For god’s sake can corporations and governments stop trying to control and survey people do the job of parents and society. If parents are not doing their job then you need better awareness and education not to take over.

Living in a third world dictator I have mixed feelings about the rise of surveillance cameras. They feel a little bit safer especially alone in quite areas but they also feel dangerous knowing the government knows where I’m. I think there was once a sweet spot where enough cameras existed to make the streets slightly safer but also enough blind areas to not feel the big brother eyes watching constantly.

P.S. I don’t actually endorse any amount surveillance and I know what I said sounded like a slippery slope I was simply sharing my feelings on the matter.

Do few graves really matter when all the homes around them are leveled out probably with dead bodies in them. (I don’t know if this particular area was evacuated or not but in other places civilians where bombed inside their homes)

I think it considered self-hosting as in self-hosting services/software but not the hardware.

I’m currently using a VPS for multiple reasons. Hardware is kinda expensive where I’m currently living. And due to CGNAT I would need to setup a tailscale node or VPN etc somewhere else anyway. Also home internet isn’t reliable at all here and I may need to access my stuff when outside and regardless if my internet is acting up or there’s a blackout.

Although in the future I’m planning on migrating to a dual setup where my core server lives at home and the public front (along with some smaller services and apps) is on a VPS.

Sure fossil fuel was necessary for some time but the only reason we kept going and still dependent on it despite the technological advancements and available alternatives is because of big corporations and some politicians who benefit from the industry (either financially or politically).

We could’ve stopped contributing to climate change some time ago but we choose not to. We can even do it today but we won’t. Change has been painstakingly way slower than necessary because some rich people decided it was not worth the effort.

It’s amazing what humans can achieve when we work together. We stopped using Chlorofluorocarbons and found viable alternatives when we decided it was worth the effort. We’ve eradicated smallpox ffs and we could’ve eradicated more diseases if we choose to.