The enumeration on the losing side of that debate is probably correct. But as a person who was in my early 20s in 2000, I’d like to offer what I will characterize as The Historical Context and Definitive Conclusion to This Debate.

No one actually gave a shit about that debate. Sure, it came up, but it did not alter anyone’s party planning. We weren’t actually celebrating the changing of the millennium, we were celebrating because we had a permission slip to do so. Any attempt to withdraw that permission was unwelcome.

In Paris on December 31st, 1999, at around 11pm local time, someone threw themselves in front of a metro. The trains were free that night (because it was the 100 year anniversary of their opening iirc), but because of that suicide, at least one of the train lines was substantially delayed. The streets from the center of the city to the north side were crowded well toward dawn as everyone chose to walk home instead of wait indefinitely in a stinky train station.

That person, who chose to end their life on the tracks that night, holds the core truth of the debate within his death: it’s a ridiculous debate and those who would fight for it should just stay the hell home and let the rest of us drink a lot and dance.

We don’t do it for the purpose of increasing responsibility. I mean , I didn’t, maybe other people do. I just really wanted a couple little mini monsters following me around.

When I was like 30, I was out hiking and I saw some guy with three little kids, the kids were hopping from rock to rock, and the littlest one ran up past the siblings to hold the dad’s hand. It was super cute. My parents were kinda uninterested and afk, so I haven’t seen a lot of examples of dads just having fun with their kids.

That little family was inspiring, in the sense that it opened my mind to a new way of thinking, but also in the sense of taking in breath, it felt like I had been holding my breath and finally stopped. I realized I didn’t necessarily have to be like them, I could use their bad/mediocre parenting as a “what not to do” list, and still do some of the things that they did that were good. I could go hiking with my kids, I could teach them how to build a campsite out of nothing, or how to build a server, or how to put your thumb on the end of a house so it sprays really far.

Sure it’s more responsibility but it’s also really fun.

And, tbh, all the nice things in life are even nicer if you can share it with people. That goes double for kids, because they don’t know how shitty the world is. You just gotta make sure they understand and appreciate the fun stuff and don’t get spoiled.

I think that’s like literally the definition of white hat capitalism

(A term I just made up but I think it’s intuitive, and also I just told you what it is)

I hadn’t heard it either until FD Signifier used it in a video. I guess it originally referred to the “in universe” fiction of professional wrestling, but FD took it out of that context and now I use it all the time – well, it doesn’t come up that often, but it’s a concept that’s needed a word for a while now… Especially now that “alternative facts” are becoming so prevalent.

Vim wasn’t invented, it spawned fully written and tested at the moment creation came into existence

That’s why vi is already installed on every Linux system

Y’all mf’ers need to read The Secret Life of Plants. It’s fascinating.

It’s from the 1970s or 80s, and it talks about this stuff in extreme depth - plant communication, plants understanding their environment… Long range communication & telepathic plants…

You gotta understand, there’s absolutely zero science to it – TSLoP is richly detailed with unconfirmed anecdotal evidence, some lady said this, a man from Tucson said this other thing, etc. If it was real, it would be world changing, but, at this point, it’s a pretty crazy claim that would need some pretty crazy evidence.

But it’s still fascinating – both from it’s own kayfabe, like, imagine a world in which this was real – and in terms of “conspiracy theories” – is not a conspiracy but it’s clear bullshit so the who and why of it’s believers is interesting. Because it’s not like most conspiracies, which usually eventually lead back to antisemitic and Christian supremacist stuff. TSLoP is a legit leftist conspiracy, all its own thing.

So, if you see The Secret Life of Plants at a used bookstore for a couple dollars, pick it up, it’s really neat.

I intended to write that just as an intro paragraph to a critique of enlightenment philosophy, since I feel like, while the goal of objectifying the human experience was the natural predecessor to the eventual subjectification of the exterior universe, their confidence in their interpretations of their experience – or maybe just in the universality of their interpretations – makes their entire project a bit sus

But then life happened and I just said the thing about coffee.

Did you know that Kant used to criticize people who drank more than one cup of coffee per day. Also, he would refill his own coffee cup before it was empty, so he never had more than one cup.

Wtf is this bullshit. When tf did vim start allowing you to do the same thing in more than one way

You’re right, I’ll concede that – but only because BSG is an amazing show and very few characters can be reduced to “good” and “bad” – even the “antagonists” (in the traditional sense of those characters working against the stories’ progression) have pretty valid reasons for doing what they do.

Gaius (sp?) is one of the closest characters to “bad” – but not because of the bad things he does, but because of the bad things he is – ie, vain, selfish, etc – and the fact that he lets those negative characteristics drive his actions.

All the characters have flaws, but the “good” characters do their best to mitigate their flaws, and let their positive traits motivate them. For example, Adama often acts before he thinks, a trait that is awesome in combat, but can be less positive other times – and he (as best he can) seeks advice and counsel from the people he trusts (eg Saul Tigh) – he knows he can be impulsive and he knows his “instant judgement” decision making isn’t perfect.

Cavil (that’s his name I think) is close to “evil” but he does have reasons for his actions – preservation of his “species” (though really it’s just himself) – but he’s evil because of the fact that he doesn’t listen and acts with disloyalty and dishonor.

(There’s an amazing comeuppance for the titular character of the show Nathan Barley that epitomizes this idea: Barley doesn’t actually do anything wrong, but his motivations are repugnant, and his motivations are what’s revealed… Shit I should write a whole essay on that…)

Are there contemporary shows that are as good as BSG? I kind of gave up on TV after Firefly.

How long does it take to fill that storage?

Cylons being manipulated by other cylons doesn’t absolve them of guilt.

BSG did have a few instances of the reverse of OP’s question tho – where the “good guys” turned out to be bad" – trying to say this without spoilers; it’s a 20 year old show but ffs of you haven’t seen it, go see it now.

• the (temporary) new admiral
• several main characters during the part where they live on the dirty planet
• a very specific set of seven main characters (wink wink) … .and more,…

And there’s one specific example of the full 360 – a character that starts good, turns bad, but turns out they were actually good all along. I won’t give the name, but they were passing messages to the resistance.

That show was awesome.

One note tho, on the topic generally: flipping character alignments is a frequent pre-shark-jump thing, and is often bad writing. In BSG, tho, all of the “flips” are pre-planned, or at least 100% true to their character (eg the 360 example above).

Yeah, they’re probably using the increased power – they weren’t running 3 instances of stable diffusion on the m1

it’s weird that it happened twice

Everyone who dabbles in programming eventually learns :q. Not everyone learns :wq.

I’ve been loving Source Hut, but they’re not ready to handle GitHub-level usage

Microsoft is going to continue to increase their monetization of GitHub. It’s going to get worse, not better.

I’m not sure I understand the problem. Is the problem that they’re not using matrix? Or do you prefer that it was still all on IRC? I don’t hate IRC but it’s definitely way less user friendly.

Oh I pirate the shit out of everything – and partly it’s a boycott, but I think mostly it’s the convenience. “Owning” things and enjoying them on my terms (no Internet? No problem) is just better than subscriptions.

And I block ads, 100% for sure. I would literally give up most of the Internet rather than subject myself to ads – I’m “on the spectrum” and I have a very hard time with overstimulation and distraction, so ads substantially interrupt my ability to read (which I already have trouble with).

Like – I love lemmy and everything, but I’m here because Reddit disabled the ad-free app I used to use. I was a daily reddit user for like 13 years. if I could still use Relay, my ethical resolve against their anti-user practices, and my personal commitment to foss, probably wouldn’t have held up.

My feeling is, if I behave in a way that’s conducive with good mental health and life satisfaction, and what I do is also a political statement, then the universe is in harmony.

It’s really just the "voting with your wallet’ perspective I mean to illuminate and undercut – it’s a very tempting idea, but I would rather we (as a resistance movement) remain sane and comfortable than ascetic and underengaged.

Voting with your wallet is literally plutocracy – those with more dollars get more votes.

Not only is our theoretically bad, but it’s practically bad: the impact of a boycott is negligible, but the impact on the people doing the boycott is huge: not having access to the conveniences everyone else has puts us at a significant disadvantage compared to our peers.

And finally, it’s not just practically bad, it’s actually contraindicated. The executives of a corporation are legally required to maximize immediate returns to their investors. It’s literally illegal for a CEO to move a company in the direction of civic responsibility over profit. And it’s not just “profit” – it has to be increasing profit. Line has to go up; they can’t just keep it flat, even if “flat” is hugely profitable. To withdraw our financial support will just cause them to squeeze harder on everyone else.

(There’s an argument that there might be more profit in social responsibility, but unless you have numbers to back that up, and it demonstrates immediate returns in addition to long term benefits, then it’s just a guess, and a guess is never going to be more convincing to shareholders than facts.)

The only way to change this is with regulation, and a cultural shift away from “line goes up” mentality. And you can’t effect political change when you’re spend 3x as long making dinner because you’re boycotting processed food.

Suggesting that we just give up all the conveniences that our labor, our creativity, and our cultural contributions have enabled, for the sake of convincing a CEO to be nicer is just ineffectual.

I just wrote like a 10 page response to another comment on that same post I made so I don’t think I have the energy to go too deep on this - so, to keep it short:

1. I was just rebutting that person’s claim that a car and a digital object have the same relationship to value, and they don’t; physicality requires resources that “digitality” doesn’t.

2. I feel like you might’ve agreed with me in the second part? Or, if not, I think you managed to destabilize the entire data economy in like 2 sentences, so, fuck yeah.