Komunitas
feddit.de
Du interpretierst da am falschen Ende was rein. Das ist nur ein Memetemplate, kein politisches Statement. Ich würde auch nicht behaupten, dass OP hier bewusst ein politisches Statement machen will. Ich denke nur, dass manche Leute einfach nicht auf den Gedanken kommen, wie sowas aus einer anderen Perspektive heraus rüberkommt. Daher mein Kommentar. Das Problem mit solchen “es ist nur ein Witz Bro” Aussagen ist halt auch, dass ich das quasi nicht widerlegen kann, außer indem ich den kompletten Witz auseinander nehme und interpretiere. Worauf dann wiederum oft als Antwort kommt “Du interpretierst zuviel rein”. Ich kann also eigentlich nur verlieren. Aber ich probiere es trotzdem mal: Humor braucht halt erstmal eine Basis in der Realität, etwas von dem man ausgeht, dass der Leser/Anschauer(?) es kennt und als gegeben annimmt, so dass eine Erwartung entsteht. Der Humor entsteht dann dadurch, dass mit dieser Erwartung überraschend gebrochen wird. Hier ist es also so, dass eine bestimmte Realität als gegeben angenommen wird (Frauen beschweren sich Männer hätten keine Gefühle) und der Witz ist dann diese angenommene Realität zu untergraben (doch wir haben Gefühle, aber nicht wegen eurem belanglosen Kram, sondern wegen unseren quirky Hobbies, wir sind einfach so deep, ihr versteht uns nur nicht). Das Problem hier ist nicht der Witz sondern wie die Realität (die dann untergraben wird) hier dargestellt wird. Der Witz funktioniert aber nur wenn man diese Realität als gegeben annimmt, damit die Punchline funktioniert muss man davon ausgehen, dass dieses Frauenbild der Realität entspricht oder zumindest einen realen Kern hat. Sonst würde es überhaupt keinen Sinn ergeben. Es sei denn es ist nochmal eine Layer Ironie darüber und in Wirklichkeit macht sich OP über genau dieses Frauenbild lustig, aber das fände ich schon arg weit hergeholt. Memes wie ‘distracted boyfriend’ kommunizieren ja auch nicht, dass Männer alle geschlechtsgetriebene Fremdgeher sind. Es geht nicht unbedingt darum was visuell dargestellt wird, sondern darum, welche Realität als gegeben wahrgenommen wird. Meiner Meinung nach ist das auch kein guter Vergleich, weil dieses Meme etwas anders funktioniert. Es nimmt die dargestellte Situation und verwendet sie als Metapher für etwas anderes. Damit der Humor funktioniert, muss man diese dargestellte Situation nicht unbedingt als tatsächliche Realität ansehen. Was bei dem obigen Beispiel anders ist.
Komunitas
sopuli.xyz
All in all? I don’t like it. Looks like a template taken from Soulless MoneyGrab Inc. but with some added steam elements. Change and innovation is not bad, but while perhaps not especially beautifully, the current user interface is pretty decent in the storm that is nowadays “looks over function”-mentality. Edit: but as others have said, it would be nice if there was some kind of theme selector so people can make their own choices, or just fine tune Big Picture mode as it already follows a more simplified and stylished theme.
Komunitas
lemmy.world
Obligatory IANAL, etc. If the template is being used for non-commercial services and does not closely replicate any of the material the characters is based on, then it probably falls under Fair Use - similar to how many rulings have affirmed that fan fiction is broadly legally permitted. Conversely, if the chat service owner is charging for the use, then it would probably be forbidden under the grounds that the service host is financially benefiting from another’s copyright. Between that, is a murky zone. Content creators and owners have at times made legal demands that pornographic, shocking, or other fan content which could reflect poorly on the original owners be removed, on the basis it damages their value. If I remember correctly, rulings on this have gone both ways and the issue remains largely unsolved. If the bot hoster makes small changes to obfuscate the identity represented to the bot, it could likewise become iffy. It’d likely depend on the court ruling whether the identity was “substantially changed” enough. A new course would be to argue that - given some of the issues regarding how bots have become abusive or encouraging of harmful behavior - any chatbot usage represents an intolerable danger to their brand value. I actually expect to see this litigated fairly soon.
Komunitas
piefed.social
it explains so much of these people’s behavior Indeed. For me, realizing the cause of problems continues to be instrumental to keep things in perspective when solutions are often too complex to contemplate. However, in this case the conclusion is clear: a wealth/power cap has to become normalized. The inverse of vaccinations, you take money away so the indefinite growth mind virus doesn’t grab hold to infect or impact society. Thank you for having invested time and thought into my essay, it makes it all worthwhile, truly.
Komunitas
lemmygrad.ml
Here’s what I mean when i say that the right is unfortunately ahead of the curve compared to most of the European left on the issue of the EU. This is from a pretty conservative account so the framing is right wing but the core of the analysis is not wrong: The EU is nothing but a facilitating structure of the United States, tasked with upholding the post-WW2 power architecture and preserving American dominance on the European continent—along with everything that comes with it. As long as the EU exists in its current form, Europe will never be sovereign or capable of charting its own destiny. It will remain an afterthought of the American Empire, bending over in the most masochistic way imaginable to maintain a global order built on a neutered Europe—one that solely benefits the U.S. The problem with the EU is that it’s a fake concept at its core. There is no such thing as a “European people” or a shared “European identity.” There are French, German, Italian, Spanish, Austrian, Czech, Polish peoples—with their own cultures, histories, and values. None of these are respected under the EU’s increasingly authoritarian, top-down structure. The EU attempts to force in decades what takes centuries to grow organically. It suppresses national identity, culture, and pride, and tries instead to instill a plastic liberal ideology and a hollow, universalist cultural template that not a single European truly believes in. The EU is modeled too closely on imperial Rome—one rule, top-down, comply or be crushed. It tries to manufacture a unity that doesn’t exist—at least not in this form. https://xcancel.com/DlugajJuly/status/2008202267342909866 Of course the prescribed “solution” of restoring the HRE is batshit crazy right wing nonsense, but the point is that they correctly identify the inherent unsustainability of the EU project as it currently exists. And by being the only ones (with the rare exception of socialists like ourselves who are only a very small fraction of the broader left) who are pointing out that the project does not actually serve the interests of European people, and by at least in part correctly diagnosing the problem (while of course, because they are not socialists, omitting actual class analysis such as pointing out how the EU serves capitalist interests first and foremost) rather than going along with the liberal establishment’s “just close your eyes and ears and pretend like everything is fine” approach, like the broad mass of socdems in Europe do, the right wing gain legitimacy and support from a not inconsiderable segment of the working class (in addition to the petite bourgeoisie to whom this analysis is most appealing) for their reactionary agenda. The task of socialists is to reframe this critique from a progressive and class based rather than reactionary nationalistic perspective. The reason many on the right want to leave the EU is because they feel it doesn’t allow them to be as racist as they want. The reason why we want to leave the EU is because we recognize that the EU is itself a racist and colonial institution that serves capital and empire and crushes the working class with neoliberalism, militarism and austerity.
Komunitas
lemmy.ml
(it appears to be a fake story, though)
Komunitas
beehaw.org
It looks just about as bad as C++'s template system, minus the latter’s awful compiler errors. I’d say they’re incomparable. One’s a Turing-complete programming language, the other is not much more powerful than generics in a language like C#. That’s not to say that your impression is incorrect - both are significantly more complex than what Go had for the longest time (no generics), and likely more complex than what Go has now (though I haven’t looked much into Go’s new generics system to be honest). If you’re looking for a reason to use Rust, I recommend picking it up and doing some projects in it. There are many, many reasons why one would choose Rust for a project (security, correctness, needs to be low level, preference, etc) and many documented scenarios where companies have found switching to Rust to be beneficial to them, but at the end of the day, only you know what your requirements and preferences are. It seems like you prefer highly readable code. This is a pretty subjective thing though, and you may find that Go is more readable to you than any other language. I would disagree, but again, it’s a matter of preference. For some, C++ is the language they find most readable. Regardless, the only way to know if you’ll like it and want to use it is for you to pick it up and use it, and develop your opinions based on experience. If you find that spending time learning it will be a waste after trying it out for a little bit, then you have your answer.
Komunitas
pawb.social
The resources required to attack every life bearing planet only really becomes super expensive compared to waiting for civilization to arise if life is very common but civilization is not, which is admittedly a possible scenario, but by no means guaranteed. But consider: any civilization capable of launching an attack on another, particularly one that can be considered highly likely to completely destroy the target in a single strike (which you absolutely need, because if a target survives your attack, it now knows that you exist and even if it did not also follow your “attack everyone” doctrine, will see you as an existential and hostile threat) must necessarily have interstellar travel technology. The amount of time needed to develop this, and the amount of energy and resources this capability implies, make it highly likely that they have very good automated manufacturing as well. With those two technologies, you dont need to listen for radio signals or similar. You can send a tiny and difficult to spot or trace probe to every star out there (potentially at almost no cost if you can make a probe that can extract raw materials and build copies of itself, but even if you cant do that, the probes can be much smaller and lighter than a planet killing projectile and so if you can build one of those, you can at least launch a probe to every world with atmospheric compositions indicative of possible life, to observe from close range and tell you if civilization arises there. Thus, any civilization that wants to follow this policy is impossible to hide from, it doesnt matter if you send radio signals or not, or if you build structures that are visible or not, because your position was compromised before you even considered that there might be something to hide from. If youre a civilization that worries that aliens might be hostile, then, trying to hide makes no sense, because it wont help. What would make sense instead then is to try to grow as far and as fast as possible, in the hopes of acquiring enough redundancy that your neighbors dont have the capacity to destroy you, or at least enough that they arent sure that they do. This kind of growth doesnt seem to be the policy of anyone we see either though, because it should be visible even to us (we can see stars, and if you want to grow as much as you can and have automated manufacturing, you could start to build dyson swarms and similar structures that would visibly change the amount of light that reaches us from a given star). Now, there are a few responses to this line of thinking that I’ve seen: The first is that a civilization this paranoid might not want to expand to other stars, because a colony in another system is so distant as to be effectively a new civilization, which might turn hostile to you, and is right at the next star over, and so civilizations might just stay in one star system and launch attacks from there. This doesnt really help them hide, as for the reasons Ive just mentioned, they should be easy to spot by anyone that actually has the ability to threaten them, but it might make it less likely for us to see, which is all that matters for the fermi paradox. But these aliens would still be able to send out probes to spy on our planet, so if theyre within around 5000 light years or so, they should have been able to see us develop civilization, and so if thats what they want to destroy, we again, shouldnt exist to contemplate this right now (and if theyre much further away then this, and theyre still worried that we might be a threat, then they really do need to destroy us before civilization ever arises, for reasons Ill get into in a moment). These hypothetical aliens must in order to make sense have a different policy than just “destroy anything smart enough to develop civilization”. The next most obvious trigger then is “destroy anyone that makes it into space”. Suppose then that you’re these aliens. Your probes report some aliens on a planet 500 light years away (given the galaxy is in the ballpark of 100000 light years wide, this is in your cosmic backyard, relatively speaking), or if youve not done the probes, you hear some radio signal indicating this. You decide to launch an attack. But, you have a problem. That signal from your probes (or the radio signals if you hear those instead) was sent out 500 years ago, and even if your attack moves at lightspeed (it wont unless its something like a laser, but you probably want to launch something at a large fraction of that speed, so lightspeed is still a decent estimate) its still going to be 1000 years between when that species started going into space, and your attack arriving. Thats almost certainly enough time to colonize a lot of their solar system, so just attacking their homeworld probably isnt enough. Do you attack every large celestial body in that star system just in case? They could also have significant habitats and industry and such in orbit of various objects, or in orbit of their sun, so even that might not be enough. Worse, that thousand years of space could be enough time to start to get into interstellar travel themselves, so you might need to target every system within a certain radius of their home star, and even worse than that, if theyre just as paranoid as you, its enough time that they could conceivably begin to launch their own interstellar attacks, and if they happen to see your home star and think “that looks like it might have life, lets attack it”, then your policy was insufficient. Youre not launching an attack against a newly space fairing civilization, youre launching one against whatever exists in that area of space when your attack finally arrives. Thus, you really need to attack well before civilizations start to go into space. If we’re anything to go by, the time between early space exploration and industrial revolution is only a matter of a couple of centuries, so something like industry or radio is also too late, unless your targets are in a very narrow window of distance. If you’re within a few thousand light years (still relatively close compared to the size of the galaxy) then you really should be attacking by no later than the first sign of early civilization, and if youre farther than that, as I mentioned earlier, you really should attack before civilized life ever even arises, because there would be time for a planet to go from having literal cavemen to an emerging interstellar empire before your attack even got to them, and once they have interstellar travel, you dont know exactly where they’re all going to be, and they have the capacity to at least try to attack you. So, you either attack before civilization in which case we shouldnt be here, or you colonize the galaxy yourself to have outposts nearby to any emerging aliens, which is fundamentally not stealthy, and which again means we shouldnt be here because our planet should have been colonized by said aliens before we could ever evolve. The other response Ive seen before is that maybe, nobody is actually willing to engage in a policy of genocide at first sight like this, but everyone is afraid that someone might be doing so, and so everyone hides despite there being nothing to hide from, and so we see no aliens. But this assumes that everyone considers this possibility, deliberately holds back their own development by trying to hide, despite probably also realizing that hiding is futile anyway, and that nobody across the galaxy ever, or has ever, not done this and so had the galaxy to claim for itself, which seems absurdly unlikely, especially given those hiding still have the option to send the probes, and potentially discover that everyone else is doing the same and so knows of them anyway. The TLDR of this, because I know this was a rather lot of text for just a response to this, is: The dark forest assumes that one isnt a target unless one takes action that reveals oneself, and that one can be sure of destroying any civilization one knows about in a first strike, and that these are the only options available with no way to try to make oneself a less vulnerable target. None of these assumptions seem reasonable upon further pondering, and if they do not hold, the scenario does not make sense.
Komunitas
mander.xyz
[Sorry for the double reply] The “numbers” template style would be considerably more useful if the palette was itself numbered. At least, while using that style. I’ve seen a lot of people struggling to find the template. I think that it deserves its own button. The dark mode is amazing. Seriously, I want it for the next years. I don’t think that it needs such a huge button though, when a simple half-black half-white sun icon would do the trick. On desktop the palette has an awkward shape, as a narrow 32x1 strip that you need to roll back and forth if the window isn’t maximised (fairly often, since people were doing other stuff while placing pixels). It would be great if it was a 4x8 somewhere at the right. A lot of people (incl. myself) were struggling to tell a few colours apart. Mostly dark grey vs. black vs. navy blue and dark chocolate vs. maroon. So it might be sensible to tweak the palette itself for the next years. But overall their hue distribution was really good, in no moment I thought “damn, I need more colours”.
Komunitas
hexbear.net
I do have a pet theory that TTRPG players can be very roughly divided in to “My character is special because of what they are” and “My character is special because of what they do”. I think you’re on to something. My most notorious “that guys” were template stacking power trippers that also wanted to have dark secrets and special destinies (and/or no inconvenient allegiances or families or friends to care about) and the best characters brought to my table were often just… characters of unremarkable template that did very memorable things at the table. There were a few memorable weird ones, but that’s just it, they were weird, not template stacking generic epic grimdark badasses of epic destiny.