Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 12
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 12
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.
The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.
This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?
I'm interested in where the limits to expectations lie here. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this next part but I do worry I may come off that way but I'm trying to figure out the boundaries of what a "reasonable" expectation is so I can make tasks like this easier for my own team (completely unrelated to this project but it's essentially the same problem).
Is it not reasonable to expect people to type into a search engine something like "GitHub help" and then poke around in the links that come up?
.... Well I'll be damned, I tried my own method before commenting, and the first link that comes up is a red herring, how obnoxious. I was hoping it'd be a link to the docs, not GitHub support. I guess I just answered my own question: no that is not reasonable.
As a technical user, I am still at a loss for how to help a non-technical user in an algorithmic way that will work for most non-technical users x.x guess I'll be thinking about this problem some more lol
(I guess I'm rambling but I'm gonna post this anyways in case anyone wants to chatter about it with me)
Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don't think society sets what's valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we're drain swirling but that's likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.
Society is not perfect, and it's social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that's what we're likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.
I'm likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I'll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don't mean to waste your time in case that happens.
I guess all I'm trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I'm personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that's what I do for fun.
What do you think about that assessment of the situation?
Oh boy you're not gonna like my stance on morals :)
And I'm not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language... But, si je parle en francais a tu, it's as useful as if I hadn't talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don't already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.
I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn't give money any more legitimacy, it's just you've decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.
I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.
Their point is they don't want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?
Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)
Oh boy we've engaged nerd mode, my favorite!
Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it's just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it's new (aka not "legal tender"). If you want legal money, you'll have to specify lmao
That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?
Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I'm not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.
...there is a joke here that I could make about incel forums. I'm not going to try to because it's in poor taste, but my point is that I'm pretty sure that does exist....
Also, what's your actual position if that's your devil's advocate position? I'm a bit unsure if the implication there is intentional or not
Ngl, pretty rude to just go poking around in stranger's holes like that without warning lmao (/s/jk/etc)
Christ Almighty this is the dystopian software future that my college computer science ethics professor was working so hard to delay.
Hmm can someone tell me if I'm just in a "republicans are hysteric about it so it must not be that bad" mindset?
It's obviously spyware to some degree, but this really seems more like a case of red-scare. I can't put my finger on exactly why, though. Makes me think I might just be reacting to their reaction.
I guess, what exactly are they afraid that China is going to do with this data? It's a missing puzzle piece that I've heard nothing coherent on besides "China gonna spy on muh datas". Like, sure, maybe if you're a government official, and I don't think bans of tiktok on government devices are stupid, but I think the nationwide ban idea is pretty dumb and baseless. So I guess my actual question is, what are they afraid of happening, exactly?
Not with that attitude