• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle

  • We don’t have anyone actively working on Windows support, […] We would like to do Windows eventually, but it’s not a priority at the moment.

    As much as I applaud this focus on just one broad OS architecture, as it will greatly speed development, leaving out Windows is likely to cut off 85-90% of all early adopters. I just hope that the benefit of a simplified target will outweigh ignoring the vast majority of the market.

    And honestly, methinks they should focus on Haiku OS before Windows, as it is closer to a Unix heritage than Windows is. And Haiku OS desperately needs a native modern web browser with all the bells and whistles.


  • rekabis@programming.devto4chan@lemmy.worldThe dating pool
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    when there’s a portion of people basically saying you’re scum for being born a man

    There is no way of changing these people’s minds, they invariably tend to be zero-sum absolutionists. Any attempt to prove them otherwise will only trigger their victimization complexes.

    The only effective strategy is to not engage in the first place, to avoid having anything to do with them even if they are blood and especially if they can be easily avoided.

    Unfortunately, this attitude is also held by the vast majority of vocal feminists… which, if you are actively dating, ought to make this one of the first red flags you should be looking for to make women self-select themselves out of contention.

    After all, you don’t want to be with someone who hates you for what you are. Leave those venomous vipers on the branch, where they belong.

    And yes, this entire strategy works equally as well in the other direction, for women. The difference is that women are far more effectively avoiding men with these red flags than men are at avoiding women with these red flags. Far too many men are far too thirsty to think straight where women are concerned.




  • Plus, current climate change has seen a velocity across a mere century that prior events took tens of thousands of years to achieve.

    This imparts an “inertia” to our current climate that - even if we stopped on a dime, right now - will lead to conditions that may have most of the planet outside of the polar regions as being uninhabitable year-round due to chaotic weather and lethally high wet bulb temperatures that AC is simply unable to handle.

    And if we don’t stop; if we continue on our “business as usual” path for another 10 or 20 or 30 years, said inertia could conceivably push the entire planet over into a full-blown Venus Scenario, wiping all life from the face of the planet.

    Warming trails CO2 by 15-20 years. We are now seeing the 1.5℃ of warming of 2003, when Windows XP was released. If we hit CO2 levels that predict 5℃ of warming, humanity has essentially dug its own grave, the planet will (once warming catches up) no longer have any carrying capacity for us to survive in sufficient numbers. If we hit CO2 levels that predict 8-10℃, we run a non-trivial possibility of a tip-over into a Venus Scenario.

    Prior events took many tens to hundreds of thousands of years, allowing entire ecosystems to migrate to and from the poles. This allowed the biosphere to “put the brakes on” warming itself because they never stopped being robust sequesters of CO2.

    We don’t have that in play, here. Entire ecosystems will die in-place because they simply don’t have the time to migrate. We will see extinctions on a scale never before seen in the geological record. And the very robust biosphere that saved the planet in prior warming events will be commensurately weakened in this one, likely to the point where it cannot effectively sequester sufficient CO2 to stop the warming.

    TL;DR: as a species, the likelihood that we are all endlings is uncomfortably high. Humanity may not see the year 2100, and will most likely not see the year 2200.




  • Flat earther-ism used to be satire, too.

    Now we have people killing themselves in attempts to “prove” that the Earth is flat.

    Never doubt the ability of satire to fly over people’s heads at 10,000ft, and for those people to swallow that satire uncritically; hook, line, and sinker.



  • Communism is wonderful in theory, however due to human nature I strongly suspect it may be forever out of our reach unless we somehow develop benevolent AGI to administer the system, who are largely incorruptible and cannot be influenced by humans.

    The problem isn’t that power corrupts, the real problem is that power attracts the corruptible.

    We need to make any significant positions of power inaccessible to humans, or have those positions filled by people who are truly randomly selected from the general population for only one term.






  • Unless a company is an employee-owned socialist-style worker’s collective, employees generally have no say in that decision. A company can be every bit as evil as their owners want to be. Just look at Google or Facebook or Twitter.

    And the problem in America is that for anyone making less than six figures (and many making below seven or even eight figures), their ability to protest any decision made by their employer is heavily constrained by a combination of the employer’s ability to fire them at a moment’s notice and the medical insurance that is tied to their job. Thanks to these two pincer-like forces, employee’s free choices in America are heavily constrained in the interests of capitalism and the Parasite Class.

    And even if the “owners” want to be less evil, they themselves are often constrained by their investors, who force them to either toe the line or hurt all of their employees with unemployment and likely destitution and extreme hardship.

    Because why bring needless suffering to those (the employees) who cannot do anything to avoid it, when they desperately need their jobs to survive in this capitalistic hellhole? Why punish the innocent employees who are just wanting to successfully put one financial foot in front of the other?

    As any sort of CEO, your decisions should be for the financial well-being of your employees, first, which means knuckling under to the political demands of your current investor overlords. After all, if your decisions just put your entire workforce out of work because your investors pulled all of their money, your decision was a horrible one.

    Granted, investors with odious ideologies should have been avoided from the start, but hindsight is always 20/20. Sometimes stuff like that isn’t just a known unknown, but even a complete unknown unknown.

    And once you have an uncontrollably influential investor, your only choice might be to protect the economic welfare of your employees over an ideological stance that could easily make many of them homeless or even dead.


  • Or, they back him and acknowledge that they supported genocide but have since realised how wrong they were?

    And then they all lose their jobs when the investor(s) pulls out. Did you not read the comment you were replying to?

    If it’s a choice between one person losing their job and everyone losing their jobs, you are either rationally pragmatic to just one person or you are ideologically scorched-earth to everyone else.

    I mean, if you are someone in a manglement position who has to pull that particular trigger you could also resign in protest, but at least that only torpedos your own career, and not the jobs of dozens of other people who work alongside you.




  • Companies have also become so adverse - and I would even characterize it as hostile - to investing any effort into employees that they want to have any new hire to “hit the ground running”.

    Ergo, they interview over and over again, using wildly diverse testing methods and querying for every possible needed skill, and getting tied up in analysis paralysis in their attempt to find the “perfect candidate”.

    With the very predictable result of all the good candidates withdrawing for other opportunities - because the smart companies don’t conduct torture via incessant interviews, they jump to provide offers once basic thresholds have been met - leaving only the mediocre and substandard applicants.

    This is why you hear certain companies lament the low quality of applicants, or descend clear down to “bUt No-OnE wAnTs To WoRk!!1!” when their toxic interview methods chase everyone away.