From the rest of the article I very much got the ‘crazy people send crazy message’ message, but I can see how that might depend on the reader.

You say the letter is meaningless, but I think we have to be careful. Sesame Street teaches kindness, inclusivity and caring, and I think the republicans would be only too happy for an excuse to tear it down.

I’ve read the NYT article, and I can’t see anywhere where the author ‘sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might be financially compensated by Hamas.’ Instead they report that ‘the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ ‘sent a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Accurso is receiving funding to further Hamas’s agenda.’

The article as a whole seems pretty positive towards Miss Rachel, and uses her comments to point out how bad things are in Gaza, and insinuates that StopAntisemitism are the problematic ones.

Split the difference, it’s octal.

They seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that a phone is a tool. I don’t want ‘springy’ animations when I tap a button, I want my tool to do what I intend. I don’t want notifications that ‘subtly’ stretch when I dismiss a different notification, I want the dismissed notification to go away and the others to close up around it.

What I do want is a phone that works securely, quickly, efficiently, doesn’t waste battery on nonsense, and doesn’t distract me from what I’m doing. I guess we get ‘pretty’ geegaws instead.

Would it though? Would it really? Couldn’t we just let trump have it as it is and see what happened? It’s bound to be ok, isn’t it?

Not a particularly good one…

Your points are well made. I was just considering the passage as quoted, rather than in a larger context. As a response to Social Darwinism, and a demonstration of cooperative behaviours, it makes a lot more sense. I may have to add some of his writings to my reading list, although, as you can probably judge from the time it’s taken me to reply, I don’t seem to have much spare time right now!

Cats’ social behaviour, when there’s no resource shortage, is fascinating. They seem to go from hissing, growling and general agression at a new member to head rubs and purring remarkably quickly, although when food gets short all bets are off again. Dropping the agression is beneficial to the individual, as they’re less likely to be injured, and coincidentally helps the group. Cats are an unusual species in that they naturally form social groups where rest, but have individual teritories where they hunt. If you haven’t seen it before, you might enjoy a documentary series called ‘The secret life of cats’ by the BBC. They monitor various groups of cats to see how they interact and go about their lives.

Whilst you’re right about privacy not being binary and the need to create your own threat model, the problem is that all the different parties that collect your data trade it, so if you leave one avenue open, the others that you tried to block are likely to get your data anyway. Whether this fits your personal threat model is probably an individual decision.

It sucks that we need such an extensive amount of work put in to make devices private

The issue is that, short of the extremes suggested in places like privacyguides, you’re not really making the device private. You could argue that you’re making it more private, but the counter-argument is that you’re still leaking so much data that you haven’t significantly improved your situation.

Doing something probably is better than doing nothing, but it’s not going to satisfy those who seek actual privacy. If you’ve got a particular leak that you’re worried about it’s definitely worth looking to address it though.

Fair point, I wasn’t sure it was the equals, hence my initial question. Drawing boxes with the box drawing characters does make a lot more sense.

The #define = line would mean the = would be effectively removed, rendering the for a syntax error. That is, assuming it is an equals sign they’ve redefined, and not similar looking character.

Have they #defined out the equals symbol? I don’t think that for loop is going to compile.

If your doctor manages that, you are definitely ending up as the subject of a paper in a prestigious journal.

Try writting ‘Deceased’ on it and return it. At the very least it’ll give any human who sees it a momentary pause, and maybe they’ll take it more seriously.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply, and my appologies for only responding to what appear to be the key points, life has decided to get busy.

You are correct in saying that the animal behaviours discussed are largely evolutionary, the question is what the driver is. Maybe I am being too cynical, but in each example I see a behaviour that is tailored to the benefit of the individual and their genetic line, rather than to the benefit of the group as a whole.

The horses forming a defensive ring have their young on the inside, and are acting to protect them, not the young of others. The person acting to put out the fire at a neighbour’s house seeks to stop it spreading to their house (look at reports of historical fires in cities for many examples) or to encourage others to help them in times of trouble. Kittens playing together rather than attempting to kill their siblings benefit directly from the play, and lack the necessary strength to kill anyway. Other species’ young are not so delicate. Any altruistic behaviour can be framed as selfish when you consider the benefits the individual gains, both in terms of a positive feeling and in terms of social ‘credit’ for want of a better term, although that take may really be too cynical for most.

One of the most obvious ways to see how selfish these behaviours are is to see what happens when they don’t work out for some reason, say lack of resources, or where a larger benefit can be gained by acting differently. Lions kill each others cubs, in many species the strong will monopolise resources to the detriment of weaker members of society, others will steal cached food from members of their own kind. Even herd animals will leave the slowest members behind if it means personal survival.

As I said, I do think humans would benefit from much more cooperation, but I think Kropotkin’s point is weak and mostly relies on the reader thinking the animals mentioned are cute and fluffy, or majestic, rather than thinking about their behavior. I think his point would have been better made by comparison to either bees or ants, which clearly operate communally, with little regard to individual benefit. They’re perhaps not so pleasant a comparrison, and are notably hierarchical with a ‘queen’ as the topmost tier, but, to me, they seem to fit his argument better.

“OK, you caught me. I get to keep the egg though, right?”

The problem with that passage is that every behaviour that he attributes to ‘a feeling infinitely wider than love or personal sympathy’ can more readily and obviously be seen in terms of self preservation and individual gain. This is not to say that every instance of these behaviours in every species is selfish, but his explainations do nothing to disprove that. Neighbour’s house on fire? Put it out before it spreads here. Ruminants being attacked by wolves? Form a circle to protect your sides and rear. Woleves hunting as a pack? More members bring down bigger prey so there’s more food per member, and less personal risk of injury. Kittens play to hone their hunting abilities, and to start to form dominancy hierarchies. Birds flock together because it’s more efficient to follow another bird, rather than lead. And so on.

None of this is some gotcha that proves that cooperation is somehow unnatural, or that selfishness is more natural, but to assume the opposite is hopelessly naive.

More cooperation and working towards the common good would do wonders for the human race, but it’s fighting against a lot of instincts, both old and new.

This whole thread has been a hoot, but your comment properly sent me into fits of giggling. I can picture the nice old lady perfectly.

Tickle the belly, that can’t possibly go poorly.

More. Nukes.

Failing that we use those roboroaches they developed a while back to lead the other roaches to live in the crater. They can have that bit. The inevitable plague of supersized mutant cockroaches we’d suffer in a few generations is a problem for later.