![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
We did that in Germany, and it’s now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.
We did that in Germany, and it’s now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.
Hooo boy, I get what you mean. Though I’d also love to be tossed around by Striga. And, on her good days, Carmilla.
Imma do it this evening, so hydrate up, bud
So freedom of speech doesn’t exist anywhere? Literally every place has some restrictions.
While I like the theme etc. of Helldivers 2, I do wish they went a bit further than that. This kind of satire is best when it forces small bits of unease on the audience, like the ending of Starship Troopers - “it feels fear!”, and everyone celebrates. There are bits and pieces surrounding the gameplay loop (e.g. something like “never talk to the enemy, destroy them for democracy”, forgot the exact line), but it’s rare enough to be easy to ignore.
That’s a bit harsh. The first ¾ of season 3 are really good, even if they did drop the ball at the end.
Having said that, it’s true that you actually can run some windows software through Wine but it’s a hack and it’s not going to work as well as it would on the OS it was designed for.
Most Steam games built for Windows run perfectly fine under Linux, many even better than on Windows. 10 years ago you’d have been correct, but the landscape has changed drastically.
Just as a warning, the macvlan stuff isn’t well documented and seems to have hard limits. I worked with it a couple of years ago and had to eventually read a lot of Docker code to figure some stuff out, and the host was only able to successfully set up 4 macvlan networks at a time - the fifth (and any following ones) were never reachable, even though I used the same scripts as for all other ones.
Things might have improved in the meantime.
I would also rather be a billionaire in a system where workers rights are respected, everyone has enough money and work is fairly paid. These people aren’t like us however - they want more and more and more and more, and as long as they see a chance to come out on top, they’ll take it. Musk would rather be a little bit richer in a dictatorship than have only his current wealth in a democracy. If you’re not like this, there’s no chance to become a billionaire.
Awesome, thank you!
Thank you for the validation, sometimes I feel like I’m going crazy with how often these things are repeated.
But those lectures do sound interesting - would you mind linking them when you have the time?
I don’t understand the tendency to attribute harmful behaviours of the rich and powerful to these strange, irrational reasons. No, UK leaders didn’t spend millions upon millions on propaganda because they have a fragile identity. They did it because they’ll make money off of it, and will be able to move the legislation towards their own goals.
It’s the same when people say Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants to restore the glory of the Soviet Union. No, he doesn’t care about any of that, he cares about staying in power and becoming more powerful. One of the best ways to do so is to invade other countries, as long as you don’t lose.
Why would the app size be the lowest? I could maybe see that for one single AppImage (though I don’t expect a significant difference), but as soon as you have two or more apps, sharing dependencies would make Flatpaks smaller than AppImages.
Crazy what other commenters are coming up with.
It depends. I really liked Mozillas initiative for local translation - much better for data privacy than remote services. But conversational/generative AI, no thank you.
As opposed to randomly building stuff without fully knowing what it’s designed for? How do you build a detector for something you know so little about you wouldn’t recognize it if it ever were detected?
We’ve been over this - you build a detector for something you don’t know much about by making hypotheses about the thing you don’t know about, and checking if they are true. How else could you ever build a new kind of detector? This is how pretty much all scientific discoveries happened - people saw phenomena, tried to explain them, and tried to experimentally verify their explanations.
I’m aware an attempt to make them was made, but even the criteria these apparatus’ go by can lead us in other places, and often seem to.
Many different attempts have been made, because many people have different hypotheses about what dark matter could be.
That’s a sign it’s premature. They haven’t detected.
How are you ever going to detect something without looking for it? Please, explain how you can ever detect something new without building instruments to detect it.
Which is the basis for the findings I showed. It’s natural to float around many hypotheses, what goes against critical thinking is to scapegoat it.
Again: then propose a better theory. People would love to find an alternative explanation for dark matter, if it would fit the data. Make a hypothesis and test it. But you can literally never do that, because according to you, you shouldn’t attempt to verify a theory that you don’t know to be true. So how will you ever learn even a shred about new things? Before you learn about them, you can’t know about them, but you don’t want people learning about them because they might be wrong.
Then come up with a better theory that fits the available data - many others have tried and failed.
We make the instruments to learn, not confirm what we already believe.
No. We usually make instruments to confirm hypotheses, and then use them to learn new things. That’s why people are trying to build dark matte detectors. You don’t just randomly build stuff without thinking about the use.
How so? I was always taught/told (in the context of science and science class) that it’s better to not have an explanation than to not know how to explain something is and just go with something out of pressure.
Who is doing that? Your comments all seem to imply that you think dark matter is something scientists just randomly assume to be true, and I don’t know how to explain that you’re misunderstanding this beyond what I already wrote.
This is that in practice as I’d rather wait, for example, to have better instruments to see if Planet 9 (which there’s a demand to identify with clarity since we suspect it to keep hurling small bodies into the inner solar system) is really dark matter (however we might identify it) or if it’s an obscure planet, a small black hole, or a phenomenon we don’t even know about yet.
But what do you want to wait for? Unless people think about what could be causing the gravitational anomalies we’re seeing, we won’t come up with better instruments. But you don’t want people to think about that, because they can’t fully explain it. So how do you get to better instruments?
Science works by observing phenomena, formulating a hypothesis to explain them, making predictions with that hypothesis, and finally testing (and refining) it. Scientists have observed gravitational anomalies, they’ve formulated many hypotheses (of which dark matter fits the best so far), and now they’re trying to make predictions and test them. This is really difficult, because we’re far away from the gravitational anomalies that we’re seeing, and they aren’t interacting with the electromagnetic spectrum. What exactly is your issue with this process? You keep saying that scientists assume things, but I see no violation of the normal process, and no better theories.
In the short term (single digit generations) that’s probably true, but I don’t see how it could be on longer scales. If the random mutations decrease fitness, they won’t be passed on at some point, since there is less reproduction. If they increase fitness, they will be passed on to more individuals.
It seems like that would massively increase complexity - right now the energy is collected at one point, having it collected all around the tower means more leakage and way less maximum energy.