Just asking the question is poison for the mind.

Try making this picture for blacks or asians or any non western, non white, non heteronormative, non male performing person.

The only way this picture makes sense is that you as a white man want to go back to the times where your oppression wasn’t questioned, while hiding behind the idea that screens are somehow worse than white oppression.

There is good music from past centuries. Like … How many people have been inspired by Moonlight Sonata. A few songs always survive as good songs, because that’s what they are.

To understand Rock and Roll tou need to understand where it came from. You have to understand that it gave white youth the opportunity to make dance swing music in a highly segregated society. Moving away from big bands into smaller garage size groups, being able for the youth to practice in the suburbs. Entering high schools and becoming a subculture, mainly or basically exclusively, white. Where black cultural music moved towards hiphop and rap, talking about the reality of segregation and poverty. White youth was using RnR to protest systemic issues, racism, war, and the old way of doing things within the more socially acceptable ‘fad’ that RnR was considered to be.

Do you believe that any living soul 70 years in the future is going to look back at any of the crappy shit being produced now as worthwhile to even consider?

No there will only be old decrepit people, that’s going to be you btw, that continues to persist in listening to it because of some sentimental value. But say stupid shit like the 10s were the best musical years ever.

I’m not a big fan of pickled cutting boards or pickled linen, but to each their own i guess.

Let me try and put this into a bit of a different perspective. There is a huge effort to individualise global warming, to accomplish two things. First to guilt trip you and second to create apathy. Because it’s very easy to understand that what creates global warming isn’t going to be solved by changing your individual consumption patterns. And you’re completely correct.

80 percent of total human made greenhouse gas production is done by 57 companies. Who have increased, not decreased, their co2 emissions since the 2016 paris agreement. Because companies aren’t countries. They actually aren’t bound by any such agreements.

Imagine the future without those fuckers. It’s only a couple of companies. It’s not as if we need to destroy half of humanity or flee the planet. Chill out.

But you’re doing the exact same thing with the same outcomes.

Do you consider yourself a virus? Your loved ones? Friends, family? Nobody sees themselves as a blight. It’s always society at large. It’s the decisions we make as a collective.

And then the question is why we are making such decisions. And that’s what i mean with the need for systemic change. It’s not inherent in humans to be like a virus.

I have a big problem with that, namely that that is what Elon Musk wants you to think, it’s what Jeff Bezos wants you to think. And when you’re defending the position of ultra capital, you should at least understand why they truly want this. What they truly want is to keep this system intact, they don’t want change, they don’t want responsibility. Going somewhere else to get what you want, is the colonialist mindset, the white mindset. It’s the idea that you as a person have the right to your lifestyle, that you ‘earned’ it. It’s the way that your consumption is tied up with your identity. That your behavior is only secondary to your consumption. Your self worth is rooted in accumulation.

That’s what they are afraid to give up, and ultimately what you’re parroting. While it’s absolutely not trivial to leave, and systemic change is very much necessary far far far before we, poor people, are remotely close to living among the stars in any form of comfort or luxury. Have set up anything close to the insanly complex international trade and knowledge base, rhat depends on billions of people to function. It’s going to take hundreds if not a thousand years. All the while being completely and utterly depending on this very planet.

Well, with that logic the end conclusion is to unalive oneself or everyone else. That would Truly truly rob anyone from advertising harm.

You’re making a slight mistake in your logic. The endgoal isn’t the end of advertising, the goal is to not participate in furthering harm. That word ‘participation’ acknowledges that harm exists. And it doesn’t seek to end it but asks how you live with the fact of it existing.

We have a similar discussion in vegan circles. Where we argue against buying second hand leather, down, and wool. The reason is that the second hand market continues to give value to the exploitation of animals. I.e. It normalizes these products. It keeps those products desirable.

The same argument absolutely applies to child labour. Why would you want to keep those products desirable? Is your image, your way of presenting yourself, really more important than child labour? You really do not have to participate in this, nobody who values you as a human will think less of you. In fact, it’s the morally upstanding way to live.

The responsibility of wearing and using a product doesn’t start and end at the first purchase. It continues and changes over time. Fur coats are now generally frowned upon. And who feels comfortable wearing crocodile leather, or ivory beads. These things are out of fashion, for a reason.

And I understand the ecological argument, that it’s a waste of resources. I really do sympathise with this argument. But in the end it’s just saying no to buying something you never really needed in the first place. It’s never an actual decision. Your life doesn’t depends on a piece of designer clothing, or whatever product. And if it does, none of these arguments matter.

So, no it’s a choice and in the end the ethical choice is the one that’s most closely related to being a human being in this world.

Sounds like total incompatibility. It will take decades before we could even think about incorporating non binary based systems into our workflow.

Most of the time they didn’t. They were posted without their consent.

More than 5 drinks a week.

To me that’s kind of the cut off point. Because more than 5 you’re either drinking daily or binge drinking in your days off. If you’re an occasional drinker, 5 drinks is a lot and you’ll be drunk. Which is not something occasional drinkers are after. But leaves enough room to have a wine with dinner in the weekends or a drink with friends.

Also, any amount of alcohol is bad for you. Carcinogenic at any amount, there is no lower limit. It should be extremely simple to not drink. And if you are in any situation where you feel it isn’t extremely simple to not drink, you’re not in a good place and you need to fix that. I’m not saying to not drink, I’m saying that it’s not smart to drink when you can’t say no.

This is a world wide stat. The numbers for chickens are stratospheric. with 200 million chickens slaughtered per day.

About 900,000 cows are slaughtered every day. If every cow was 2 meters long, and they all walked right behind each other, this line of cows would stretch for 1800 kilometers. This represents the number of cows slaughtered every day.

I’m not legally bound, to telling you I’m a bot. Please change your input.

A couple of things happened. First of all, there are a lot more people on the internet. Like a lot more. And that means different preferences, age groups, nationalities, etc. While previously you could pretty much guess, nowadays that’s impossible.

Second. It has become a central part of people’s day to day lives in ways that it wasn’t in the early tens and earlier. The bulk of people’s engagement shifted towards mobile apps. That meant a lot less talking and a lot more scrolling. Consuming a lot more content.

Third. Content has become the means to earn money. That meant a large shift in the way content creators thought about what they made. People started to go for safety, copying what worked, experimenting less.

Lastly, we lost a lot of curators. Most of the curateing is now done by algorithms. Blogs and curated sites have died. Back in those days most of the content you went through on the internet was lists of what other people had found. There were few alternatives.

I started to feed my cat at very strict times. 0700-1200-1800. And by doing so I stopped her annoying me in the middle of the night. She used to be outside and yell at the window until I let her in. Demanded attention at stupid hours when she could eat whenever she wanted.

Anyway she is now almost 18 and she sleeps a lot. She sleeps and gets candy. And I now have to wake her up at seven most of the time.

It lives and dies by consumer demands? That hasn’t been the case since we started this fucking race. It has pretty much been an Investment run enterprise since the very start. Name a single LLM derived product that is consciously being bought by consumers. It’s all subscription based models that don’t deliver on their promises. Nothing is living up to its promise.

Where is the AI that I can say: plan an appointment with my dad. And it links our agendas, sets the alarm, orders a bottle of wine, asks me to order an uber because im out of gas, and otherwise i should leave a bit earlier. Where are the actually smart intelligent assistants?

Prance

Saylor Swift

Queef

Also, but not just, if we consider classical theism (pantheism), then there would be nothing that God isn’t. As God, if we would think of God as the foundation of all being, could not be anything that isn’t. Since what isn’t is without foundation.

Also, but not just, if we accept panentheism, where God is everything that is and isn’t.

Not at all in the dualistic theistic view where there is a distinction between what God has put in motion, the physical world, and the heavenly realm where the souls/angels/God resides. In base a distinction between the subjective and the physical.

Basically the only time that anybody would accept God as ‘made out of atoms’ is if that person accepts the inherently and mostly explicitly atheistic view of metaphysical physicalism. Arguing for God from physicalism is like arguing for social healthcare as a (US) republican. There is an inherent disconnect between the two.