Patrick's Parabox - Single developer, unique idea, mind bending - think outside and inside the boxes inside boxes.

Not if you have kids or cats or you will be always out of toilet paper.

I hearby announce that I am also not buying Valve & Counter-Strike for £12 billion. You heard it here first!

Germany: https://www.bbk.bund.de/EN/Prepare-for-disasters/Personal-Preparedness/Stockpiling/stockpiling_node.html and that's not new. It gets updated every few years. I thought every country in the world has this. If something can be said about it then that it is true that some families in Western countries, imcluding Germany, have a hard time to afford every day food and can't stockpile and THAT's something governments should address too but don't.

I applaud Rowling for her hostility. Not because I agree with her, but because others say the same thing but hide it behind nicer words and those are way more dangerous, because it is harder for people not knowing much about transgender people to see the damage done, the hatred spread. With Rowling even the most uninformed people realize that it is off, wrong and bad.

If Rowling agrees with a "reasonable TERF" they have now to distance themselves from her and it is fun to watch that happen. No you can't distance yourself from someone who just says the silent part out loud, you are in the same boat, so keep row(l)ing!

[-] Anderenortsfalsch@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Also, most all US small to mid sized business transactions are by check.

Why? It is a bank transfer with extra steps. A check can get unreadable, get lost... No one in Germany would write a check for a permit fee or to pay a business partner. You pay online. Fast, safe, can't get lost, easy to proof what, when to whom you have paid for years to come. And the transfer won't get through if you do not have money on your account or are allowed to overdraw, while you can write whatever you want on a check and then run.

It is not cash or check it is bank transfer or check and the bank transfer is the safer, faster option. All they do at a bank is to scan the check and to turn it into the exact same bank transfer it could have been in the first place. All you do is adding a layer of risk by writing on a piece of paper.

I find that really funny, because many Germans still refuse to buy their groceries without cash, many like me do not own a credit card only debit cards, but no one younger than 90 uses a check. I am 58 years old and have never owned checks.

To be fair, the project was the dumbest thing I have ever seen, but it was one of the only big projects that got rid of cars completely and in that one thing it was actually refreshing and futuristic and not the same old. A walkable citiy with a fast train - I hope they keep that, but it will be the first thing to go says my cynical brain.

It is NOT an "early access period" it is a "late access punishment" for not be willing to overpay for a game. Journalists should call it that and nothing else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAJEHZDIEw Crazy Baby - Joan Osborne

It is more "stuck for a lifetime", because this song saved my life and will stay on my "emergency playlist" forever. She sings out of my soul, when depression has me and at the same time sings hope into my soul, if that makes any sense, because it is so hard to describe.

I wish that for every human a song exists that can do that for them!

[-] Anderenortsfalsch@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What a shit guy who cares more about people who live in thousands of years than people who live today:

https://netzpolitik.org/2023/longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology/

https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo

Why do I think this ideology is so dangerous? The short answer is that elevating the fulfilment of humanity’s supposed potential above all else could nontrivially increase the probability that actual people – those alive today and in the near future – suffer extreme harms, even death. Consider that, as I noted elsewhere, the longtermist ideology inclines its adherents to take an insouciant attitude towards climate change. Why? Because even if climate change causes island nations to disappear, triggers mass migrations and kills millions of people, it probably isn’t going to compromise our longterm potential over the coming trillions of years. If one takes a cosmic view of the situation, even a climate catastrophe that cuts the human population by 75 per cent for the next two millennia will, in the grand scheme of things, be nothing more than a small blip – the equivalent of a 90-year-old man having stubbed his toe when he was two.

Bostrom’s argument is that ‘a non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilisation is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback.’ It might be ‘a giant massacre for man’, he adds, but so long as humanity bounces back to fulfil its potential, it will ultimately register as little more than ‘a small misstep for mankind’. Elsewhere, he writes that the worst natural disasters and devastating atrocities in history become almost imperceptible trivialities when seen from this grand perspective. Referring to the two world wars, AIDS and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he declares that ‘tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things … even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.’

This way of seeing the world, of assessing the badness of AIDS and the Holocaust, implies that future disasters of the same (non-existential) scope and intensity should also be categorised as ‘mere ripples’. If they don’t pose a direct existential risk, then we ought not to worry much about them, however tragic they might be to individuals. As Bostrom wrote in 2003, ‘priority number one, two, three and four should … be to reduce existential risk.’ He reiterated this several years later in arguing that we mustn’t ‘fritter … away’ our finite resources on ‘feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy’ such as alleviating global poverty and reducing animal suffering, since neither threatens our longterm potential, and our longterm potential is what really matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism

He does not care about us, why should anyone care about him? Unfortunately other rich people are also into this, because it helps them to ignore the worlds problems and to do whatever they want to the people living now.

view more: next ›

Anderenortsfalsch

joined 5 months ago