Shut up, nerd.

Yeah, probably.

You’re just asking why I think it would be good to harm people who have done nothing wrong. I wouldn’t. I can point to several posts in my history that will show I’m not a eugenicist. Which appears to be the brush you’re reaching for.

Don’t forget their cowardly base that will claim ignorance of the Paradox of Tolerance while they claim those who are intolerant of intolerance are just as bad and evil. Those who would step in front of the only solution found to work with any permanency. The fascist apologists and enablers.

Fascist uprisings are the closest we’ve come.

This reminds me of Detroit: Become Human.

You’re free to make your own video without what you feel is an egregious oversight.

These two things can exist in harmony.

I just want to say I’m glad other people understand how ridiculous of a suggestion this is for fixing Windows problems. It has become such a low effort nonsensical approach because people don’t truly understand what it does and it feels like doing something. It’s the new ‘have you tried turning it off and on again.’ dism and sfc. Then when someone mentions how absurd the thinking is that this fixes anything but a small negligible fraction of issues, someone always chimes in how there was this one time where it worked for them. Perpetuating this low effort, almost useless approach to troubleshooting. I’ve fixed more issues with BIOS updates than I have with either of those tools.

Today we will begin our lesson with a discussion on The Dangers of Dogmatism. Class is now in session and will be for eternity. There will be a test at the end.

Ah, my friend… I wish I were so romantic as I’ve misled you to believe. Admittedly I’m only prone to fits of it. You are, of course, correct about the need to find a neutral ground that is less prone to bias and more fit for consumption. Lately, I’ve been struck by the need to feel my humanity and express it, wildly. I’m just making the mistake of believing that an honest presentation is enough to convince others that it’s a worthwhile endeavor, meanwhile being reckless in the attempt. A ‘rage against the dying of the light’, if you will allow.

I’m generally more as you self describe. I feel it would almost be too daring to say ‘a classical stoic’, not this new age stigma ridden thin veneer over cynicism with an edgy ‘I don’t give a shit’ attitude. So, apologies if you feel slightly offended at the suggestion we are alike in that way. As for depressing and boring; I don’t think that at all. Having that mental space --detached and analytic-- offers great benefits in introspection, self realization, critical thought, and enables me to safely empathize when it makes sense to do so.

I would like to think that I value your discussion on these topics more than you yet realize. I had an excellent philosophy teacher.

That’s the thing, though. I don’t need to get lost in the nuance and come out of the other side as a ‘realist’ or a cynic. The cold calculation of incalculation… the idea that because we are not perfect judges, we should not judge at all, is sinister enough that it even has a meme: Letting perfect be the enemy of good.

When I do selfless acts - and I believe I have, if my act is seen as an act to my own benefit or with ulterior motive: I feel harmed and wish to withdraw. Why would I reason to live with the burden of seeing the world as so purely black and white that the only good that can come from it is beyond my recognition; because I too must be black and white or risk being an imperfect judge?

I’m not going to tell someone that their willingness to donate a kidney is anything less than altruistic just because there’s ‘emotional baggage’ or they don’t self ascribe properly… I’m simply willing to accept it as a good thing.

Just because the future is unknowable doesn’t relieve me of the burden or responsibility of making active choices that I feel make a positive difference, even if I can’t foresee the outcomes. Should the man that saved Hitler’s life from a crowd of angry people feel responsible for everything that Hitler did after the fact? Can I now cynically use that thought to help no one at all, so that I don’t run the risk of saving the next Hitler? Yet do these same cynics that claim humans only work in self interest not go on to complain that so many are passive bystanders to horrific events? It’s self defeating. I’d rather not be a bystander, because I feel a sense of duty to not be an enabler.

Finally, I don’t have a need to sanitize my discussions from all emotions. I don’t think that’s productive so long as the emotions are genuine and an honest reflection of my state of being.

A sincere thank you for your response. I hope my response is received as well as I intend.

You mean… mothers breastfeeding feeding their children? You mean men who find big rocks and throw them into water from heights to make a big splash? Do you mean people who donate their organs to other people? Do you mean the many artists, scientists, teachers, and basically everyone else that gets their ass out of bed every day to then put a smile on their face for other people, despite feeling existential despair inside because the last shred of reason for being has been invested in someone or something else, so they keep moving? Robin Williams?

I think we have very different ideas of what self-interest is. Namely, I think that you have confused the idea that one must suffer, or at least feel nothing, or it’s not altruistic enough. That one should not enjoy acts of love, kindness, caring, giving, art, exploration… or they’re secretly solipsistic. This isn’t the condemnation of the world you think it is. This feels like a projection of an internal insecurity onto the greater portion of humanity.

I think most people have been guilty of thinking this at some point. Rather than feel threatened by my words or that I’m being critical of you and only you, I would ask that you do what I did when I once thought this very thought… think on if you’re really willing to live the rest of your lived experience with this thought at the forefront. Not everyone gets this one right, but it could have consequences on your ability to actually ‘enjoy’ another human being without needing something from them to do so.

That sounds kind of like a console, no?

Edit: I mean, if the intent is gaming and only gaming, it feels like there’s a lot of overlap. Only the PC would have less support for more freedom.

Just enable the sqlite3 USE flag in /etc/portage/make.conf.

Sorry, wrong distro. I’m assuming Arch can use portage or something if you want.

So, just to be clear, that ‘something that can’t be overcome’ is… checks notes capitalism?

There actually is an array in any POSIX shell. You get one array per file/function. It just feels bad to use it. You can abuse ‘set – 1 2 3 4’ to act as a proper array. You can then use ‘for’ without ‘in’ to iterate over it.

for i; do echo $i; done.

Use shift <number> to pop items off.

If I really have to use something more complex, I’ll reach for mkfifo instead so I can guarantee the data can only be consumed once without manipulating entries.

Either use a straw or only fill one side? Is that cheating?

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face… forever.” - Some book or something.