smooth_jazz_warlady

Ironically, as a Linux user, I have a special Windows VM setup that borrows a GPU from my host and so can run games just fine, but with regards to anticheat-protected games (a major reason it exists in the first place), it sees far more use testing games for other people than playing games I actually like. Most of which don't work, incidentally, as anticheat that blocks Proton tends to also be pretty bad about VMs as well.

~~Whether this changes with the revelation that Destiny 2 knows when it's being run in a VM and does not give a shit, we'll see.~~

I am not sure how you ethically kill someone who doesn’t want to die.

On principle I don’t object to scavenging, I find it repulsive but just like how if you ate your parents when they died nobody would be hurt per se collecting road kill or something is not unusually cruel. Just creepy and gross given the lack of necessity.

How do you feel about "this animal has to be culled for the good of the ecosystem, and incidentally makes good eating"?

Where I live, Australia, we have the issue that kangaroos have few predators (dingoes and wedge-tailed eagles have to attack in groups to even bring down one (plus both are rare nowadays and prefer to poach farm animals now anyway) and the predators who could have soloed a kangaroo, like thylacoleo, megalania, and quinkana, are all 40000 years extinct, give or take), but they still breed like animals expecting to meet their end to some manner of predator. So in place of the predators that would usually keep their numbers down, hunting quotas are used to keep their numbers at an appropriate level. And as a side effect of this, a large amount of kangaroo meat enters the market, because they're not exactly small animals and they're perfectly edible.

We also have issues with feral pigs, rabbits, cats, camels and horses (among other animals, most of which are either too small to eat and/or have horrible fucking toxins in their flesh) that should not be here at all, given the horrific amount of damage they do to the native ecosystem on account of evolving in a far more competitive environment. The end goal is that they all fucking die, so it's not a totally sustainable business to hunt them for meat, plus the pigs and rabbits are disease-ridden (some of which we gave them in order to achieve the objective of total eradication) and the public has issues with eating cat meat, but we could totally do the same with the camels and horses, at least until the feral populations cease existing.

Okay, source I used was a little out of date (was looking at 2015 numbers, oops), but even the 2022 numbers disagree somewhat. OECD claims 77, CIA claims 78.

That's very interesting, thank you

Maths understander here, in 2042 they'll be 60, not 62. Also the average life expectancy in the US is around 77-78 years, i.e. enough of a difference compared to 60 that you could more or less fit (and live to see) a grandkid/great-grandkid's entire childhood in there.

Although that 79 years figure is Life Expectancy at Birth, in practice it tends to be longer for most surviving adults older than a certain point, mostly because the lower ranges of the chart hit their allotted moment and pass on for whatever reason, leaving the remaining average higher still

~~Of course, with calculus living rent free in my head rn thanks to the uni course of the same name, I'm wondering what that chart of "current age vs expected remaining age" looks like, and where the point of "ageing faster than your remaining likely time grows" lies~~

Edit: source turned out to be a little out of date (although they always tend to bicker a little on the exact number), corrected for it

I generally go with trans woman/girl (I refuse to acknowledge that I'm getting older), but mostly because I feel like that broad classification covers a fair amount of what other people would classify as demigirl or transfemme enby. Admittedly I also take the view that gender can be described as a zone of 3-d grid, with axes "femme", "masc" and "other" (although what "other" really is depends on the individual in question), and my own goes 80-90 femme, ~10 masc, 20-30 other (each out of 100)

Too much evidence for that, thanks to how many almost complete t. rex skeletons we have + the fact that almost all giant carnivorous dinosaurs had tiny arms. However, there's a non-zero chance they were fluffy in at least some places, and a high chance they were incredibly fluffy as chicks, given how fluffy one of their close relatives is known to be.

Also they weren't even the most extreme example of tiny arms

"Sure, the planet is unfit for human habitation now, but at least we got to have lawns in front of our houses and meat every day until the world ended"

Stopping climate change requires drastic action, rethinking how we live every aspect of our lives, and the wastefulness of suburbs means they must go, just like the internal combustion engine and the animal agriculture industry. How will you justify to future generations that you left them with a ruined world, all because you and those like you were too selfish to give up your current style of living?

Additionally, they are provably a blight on cities. They cost far more to maintain than they produce, since they lack any serious commercial activity, so no taxes, and the spread-out nature of them means that any infrastructure is far more expensive per person. You wouldn't even need to actively demolish them, just cut off all maintenance, and watch them rot. Plus, they keep literally bankrupting cities, so often there is no choice, the money is no longer there to maintain them.

I mean, step 1 would be forcing the suburbs to pay the actual cost for their own power lines, plumbing and sewage, roads, phone lines, etc. Since as it stands, most of that cost is subsidised by the highly productive inner city, and that infrastructure is far cheaper per-person in dense neighbourhoods than it is in suburban tumours (sure, live out there if you want, but accept that you will either be paying a fortune for the infrastructure upkeep that supports you, or accept lower-class, cheaper infrastructure. I have a great aunt and uncle who live out in the countryside, and they have a dirt road, a septic tank and a rainwater tank, only their electricity and phone lines are comparable to what you get in cities, because it literally does not make economic sense to run paved roads or plumbing out to where they live).

Once people have realised that single-family housing with paved roads, sewage, plumbing and reliable electricity is well outside the economic reach of the vast majority of people, UPZONE. Demolish suburbs to replace them with far denser urban neighbourhoods, ones made up of townhouses, apartment blocks and mixed residential/commercial buildings. Change the zoning laws so that anyone can start a commercial business out of the front yard. Designate parks and other community areas in between your blocks of apartments and townhouses so that nobody is ever more than 15 minutes' walk away from one. And for those who still want to live out in suburban sprawl, make the transition to being more self-sufficient easier.

Then, you have a city dense enough that you can start running vast amounts of public transport through it. Not just busses, but trains and trams as well. A train is more or less the ideal form of fast transportation along a known, unchanging transport corridor, with far more energy efficiency than anything that runs on tarmac, the ability to hit highway speeds inside city limits, and the ability to be extended almost infinitely. They can also be run from overhead power lines, no need for batteries or internal combustion engines. Oh, and the same lines you run urban rail along can also be used for freight trains, so they can replace both car journeys and freight truck journeys.

When you have dense cities with well-designed and extensive public transport, you can get almost anywhere with just one transfer, your bus/train/tram comes often enough that you're never at the stop for more than 10 minutes, and even a trip from one edge of the city to the other will rarely be more than an hour. Plus, you don't have to pay attention to the road, nor pay for fuel and maintenance.

Source: I live in a city where you can sharply draw a divide between the pre-car and post-car zones, and the pre-car zones are mostly like how I describe, while the post-car zones are suburban sprawl shitholes that might have a train station if they're lucky

I’m not religious in the slightest and I barely see myself as part of the Jewish nation - but I do, just barely. It is unfortunately true that anti-semitism is alive and well, and will be for the foreseeable future. Even if I don’t view myself as Jewish, some anti-semites will, and we all know where that could lead. So Israel is the only country in the world where we can know for a fact that the government (police) will protect us from anti-semitism, not to mention won’t take part in it.

Which is the chicken-and-egg problem of ethno/theostates, isn't it? If most/all of a group are isolated to one geographical location, and largely absent from the rest of the world, it becomes easier for hate to spread in that rest of the world, because nobody there has lived experience, can have that moment of "but I know Elsa/Ahmed/Luna/whoever, and they're decent person" to challenge propaganda when they hear it (and anyone who's a minority where they live has at least one story of being the cause of such a realisation). But if you're a group that lives in those little geographical pockets, it becomes that much harder to move out, because you give up your support network and move into an area of potentially hostile people.

And of course, bigots know about this and weaponise it. Speaking as a trans person and noticing the current wave of vile legislation against us in the shit parts of the US, it sure as hell feels like the objective there is to force anyone who can leave to do so, and punish those who can't, specifically to prevent a sufficient mass of trans people building up that those same deradicalising experiences can happen (hence why the use of a stereotypical trans name in above example). But in a way it's both better and worse for us, because we aren't just born into certain bloodlines or cultures, we emerge almost everywhere, so and have to fight to make the whole world queer-friendly, rather than just being able to set up somewhere in a small pocket and let the whole world slowly become most hostile to us in response.

I see

I'm debating getting a 3440x1440 monitor for coding and because I hear they work well with tiling window managers (hence the question), it's just annoying that I have almost no chances to try them out for free, and also the cost is enough that I wouldn't get one without serious consideration first. Although you have nudged me a bit closer to "maybe I could get one without testing them first, if it's second hand and cheap(er)".

Also I'd be replacing my existing 27 inch LCD with it, and keeping the 4:3, 21 inch CRT, for a highly cursed monitor setup, where everything gets letterboxed or pillarboxed. And then to make things worse, I could grab a 16:10 monitor to put in portrait besides one of the other two, for maximum "what is 16:9 and why do I have black bars on everything".

Isn't that the whole point of an internet argument, though? To get angry, turn your higher thinking off and yell at each other like big territorial lizards until someone gets bored and no longer has an interest in continuing?

(and yes I have gotten bored + actually have things to do now, so the anger has subsided and replaced by "why am I doing this again?")

It's been shown by research that almost nobody has their mind changed by these things, and logically it holds up, you're arguing with someone you have no emotional connection to, over something you have different opinions about and both have strong emotions towards. Also, often there will be a difference of value judgements, that determine to a person which objective facts matter, whether they're positive or negative, and which don't matter/"are just the cost of doing business" (e.g. you clearly treat compatibility as vitally important, I don't really care as long as most things work decently enough, and the Amish treat it as a negative, because to them a computer should be nothing more than a word processor and a calculator, everything else is a superfluous distraction), and value judgements are always subjective.

As an example, the great tragedy of vegans is that they're as close to objectively correct as you can be with a value judgement, that the animal industry is objectively responsible for almost a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions while consuming vast amounts of land that could be used for growing crops for people (I believe the estimation is 6-7x as much land used for animal agriculture as plant agriculture once you account for feed crops), and if we don't destroy it soon we're headed for a vast amount of human suffering from climate change and famine. But you would be hard-pressed to find someone who has been turned vegan or even vegetarian by an internet argument, because a) a lot of people value their beef and bacon over the suffering of other people they've never met, and b) almost everyone has an emotional attachment to their current diet, which they perceive vegans as "threatening" (which admittedly they are, but for very good reasons), and so go on the offensive, morality be damned.

In my own experience, living with one + reading up on how much the animal industry is fucking the planet did far more to convince me than a thousand internet arguments with vegans I didn't know and never interacted with again, and even then, I still don't have the willpower and self-restraint to go fully vegan or even vegetarian, just greatly meat-reduced.