Cethin
@Cethin@lemmy.zip
- Comment on Just one more square bro 3 hours ago:
Even when it can’t be generalized, you still often learn something by trying. You may invent a new way to look at a set of problems that no one’s done before, or you may find a solution to something totally unrelated. There’s a lot to learn even when it looks like you’ll gain nothing.
- Comment on Pornography depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives set to be banned 13 hours ago:
I think a lot of it is because it makes writing really easy. You don’t need to come up with a reason for these two people to be near each other in an intimate setting, which they can easily turn into something more sexual. Not many people are watching for the plot, so they just need a bare bones contrivance for it taking place.
- Comment on Why is the USA attacking Iran? 1 day ago:
He’s also pathetically insecure, and history has traditionally looked back fondly at wartime leaders like Churchill and the like. He’s hoping for that
A key thing to note is that it’s normally defensive leaders that are looked back on fondly. Attacking another nation usually doesn’t give this boost, or at least not as significantly. Frequently it’s negative in fact.
He’s too stupid to understand this though, if this is his reason. I don’t think it is though. At best, it’s a distraction. At worst, and more likely, it’s an excuse to implement policies that expand his powers, and maybe to prevent elections from taking place.
- Comment on 1 day ago:
Maybe they don’t fit under the term of “paleoartists” (they are artists of Paleolithic creatures) but the most popular modern depictions of dinosaurs are presumably the Jurrasic World movies, and I think they are almost universally lacking plumage. I’ve only seen the first, but the images I’ve seen I don’t have any feathered dinos. So, no. This is still an ongoing issue.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
To hunt? No. I don’t even think it’s legal to hunt with it. It is the most popular rifle, but it isn’t for hunting. It’s for target shooting (in theory, if it’s for sport), or “self-defense”.
- Comment on Ron Ejaculated Loudly 💦 1 week ago:
The difference is that’s trying to be stupid and funny. Rowling is just, I don’t know, lazy, or uncreative, or racist. One, or multiple, of those at least.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
How so? What was the strawman?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? The Earth can just be destroyed. It isn’t required to exist. So what? We’re talking about solutions to a problem. There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?
I never said “naturally healthy”
I literally quoted you.
I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.
Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.
As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.
Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.
I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.
I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.
Fair enough. You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues. Someone said hunting needed to stop. I said it’s necessary for the current state of things. You’ve argued against what I said, which implies an argument against hunting, but really it’s just an annoying “… but what about” argument making no claims and no actual arguments.
This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen. We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative. We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct. If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.
- Comment on We're just scanning for the bear... 1 week ago:
Yeah, what this data actually shows is that, in the situations tested, women tend to find darker areas of a picture more interesting and men tend to find lighter areas more interesting. Not as interesting of a headline though. I’m interested to see what the actual paper says, not some click bait pop-sci meme.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
That works. I’m not saying you can’t hunt with other methods. I’m just saying that I can’t see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons aren’t a significant portion of the danger from firearms, mostly handguns or rifles like the AR-15). People can hunt however they want, or not at all, as long as it is controlled to healthy levels and doesn’t cause any other issues, and, ideally doesn’t cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.
That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.
This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.
we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.
Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.
A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
You must be pretty rested, because you didn’t even try to make an argument. What were the leaps in logic? Can you actually explain, or are you just implying there are to sound smart, but can’t actually identify any?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
It’s not circular, because it needs to be done. If it isn’t done we have massive problems. It doesn’t depend on any other logic. Sure, the issue was crested, in part, by hunting also (a lot just because predators won’t live near population centers though), but the argument that it needs to be done isn’t dependent on you agreeing with killing predators.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead. What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms.
I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 1 week ago:
OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.
From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).
From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don’t like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.
I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. That’s fine, and you can just not do it. I’ve never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. It’s not really something I want to do. I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.
- Comment on AI advice 1 week ago:
People are thinking machines. The problem is, we aren’t a collective thinking machine. People thinking in their own self interest have caused most of the problems. It makes perfectly rational sense to burn the world if you only care about the quality of your own life.
- Comment on Xbox chief Phil Spencer is leaving Microsoft 1 week ago:
The thing about that press release is that it fairly cleverly doesn’t say “no AI.” It says no slop. She’ll push AI, it’ll create slop (as always), but she’ll argue it isn’t slop and is actually great.
- Comment on Elder Scrolls 6 Is Powered By New Version Of Creation Engine 1 week ago:
And Unreal Engine started on 1995. This argument always shows people’s ignorance of software development. When the first pieces of the engine were built is not why it’s shitty. It’s because they haven’t invested money into it where it matters. (Unreal Engine also has some serious issues. It just looks prettier.)
- Comment on Gottem 1 week ago:
No, the whole point is things occurred, but were not caused by a drug, but by the brain. It’s still equally as valid.
- Comment on When DinoCon is doing more than the US Gov 2 weeks ago:
Also, if you’re someone who is seeking power, you do everything you can to suck up to people with it. There are plenty of people in every field who are willing to put up with, or do, horrible things to be treated like they’re special.
- Comment on I am looking for a Linux OS 3 weeks ago:
One thing to note is that Linux can read your Windows partitions. If you have data on drives you’ll still need, you can leave them and Linux can access them fine. (Windows can’t read most file systems though, so the other direction of this mostly doesn’t work. Windows can’t read most Linux drives partitions).
If you’re reasonably technologically competent, I’d recommend CachyOS or Garuda. These are Arch based, so the Arch wiki and Arch User Repository are available, and great resources. They come with everything you need for gaming though, unlike base Arch. You don’t need to fiddle with things or set things up. They just work out-of-the-box.
If you not really but want to learn, the Mint recommendations are fine. It’s one of the most used distros, so there’s still plenty of help available. Alternatively, and I think better, there’s Fedora. For either of these, choose KDE versions, not Gnome or anything else. KDE is more customizable and closer to Windows too. (Though it can be customized to be more like anything else, or whatever you want too.)
If you really don’t want to learn, Bazzite or maybe Zorin are there.
- Comment on 3 weeks ago:
If you’ve ever read an AI email, they aren’t capable of that either. It’s a meme at this point that people use AI to write an email, which becomes far too long, and the reader uses AI to make it shorter. AI does not do concise and to the point.
- Comment on Nope, not visiting that 3 weeks ago:
I know exactly how time travail would work; forward only. Backwards time travel isn’t happening. In the imaginary world where it does work though I don’t see how radio waves wouldn’t work. I don’t know what heliocentric math has to do with it. You can tell where they’re coming from no matter where you are in the universe, not just around the sun. Then you adjust to that position and you’re done.
- Comment on Nope, not visiting that 3 weeks ago:
That’s not really true. First, if you can invent time travel you can probably do the math to calculate positions of objects. Second, even if you do need a beacon, you could use something that already exists. For example, radio waves. Earth has been shooting off radio waves for a fair amount of time now. That could be used as a beacon. Also, you could do something like having your time machine do small jumps, check it’s relative position, then adjust. This would solve just about every issue.
- Comment on ICE agents attempt to arrest US Citizen in St Peter, Minnesota 4 weeks ago:
Even if it’s not as strong, or even if it doesn’t exist at all, it’s still a good idea. It’s an unambiguous order to a single person. There’s no way to think it’s anything else. A general appeal can be seen as anyone else should do it, but you’re not going to.
- Comment on 'Go Back and Play Morrowind and Tell Me That's the Game You Want to Play Again' — Former Bethesda Veteran Delivers His Verdict on Potential The Elder Scrolls Remasters - IGN 4 weeks ago:
I know there’s one quest that gives the wrong directions. I assume that’s part of the reason they don’t do it anymore. If they modify the game and the position of something changes they need to go back and modify any text that referred to it. With a quest marker they just mark the location and it works automatically. It shouldn’t be that hard to make a procedural text directions generator though, but that wouldn’t work with 100% voices lines.
Thats part of the reason I think that is flawed. They can’t have characters give you detailed lore about the world because it needs to be voiced, so they have to shove it in a book, which means you can’t have a conversation about it. I think a hybrid approach would be better, but there’s no way Bethesda is going to do that now.
I guess there is an argument for AI generated voices for this task. It’d be doing something that is impossible to do otherwise, so it’s not replacing anyone.
Sorry, that was a huge tangent/rant.
- Comment on 'Go Back and Play Morrowind and Tell Me That's the Game You Want to Play Again' — Former Bethesda Veteran Delivers His Verdict on Potential The Elder Scrolls Remasters - IGN 4 weeks ago:
I disagree on it being weird the thing that makes it great. No, it’s because they cared. They wrote a deep intriguing story, and they trusted the player to treat the world as meaningful and to learn on their own. They expected you to read and to be interested.
Now, everything is dumbed down and simple, and it’s baby fed to the player. There’s little to discover that isn’t shoved down your throat. Sure, there’s (precedurally generated) loot to gather, but nothing more.
Morrowind was built as a world, and then they set a game there. The people, locations, and events make sense in that world. Starting especially with Skyrim, but even with Oblivion, it’s built as a theme park. The world is just there to entertain you, but there’s nothing behind the fecade.
- Comment on GOG job listing for a Senior Software Engineer notes "Linux is the next major frontier" 4 weeks ago:
Fair enough. Probably a good use case for it. I’ve found it’s pretty reliable at creating boilerplate. I just wouldn’t trust it for doing anything important.
- Comment on GOG job listing for a Senior Software Engineer notes "Linux is the next major frontier" 4 weeks ago:
I don’t want to say you’re totally wrong, but I am skeptical of the benefit. Sure, maybe it works now, which is cool, but is it making changes that are maintainable? The next time someone does this is it going to work? If we just constantly have LLMs update code, when does it start breaking, and when it does is it going to be in a state someone can fix?
- Comment on Playback speed past X2 is now a YouTube paid feature 5 weeks ago:
Yeah, 2x is normally my limit, sometimes 2.5x. Very occasionally there will be content that gets 3x or more, but it’s incredibly rare. It has to be something pretty slow.