It annoys me that people keep saying “figuratively” is what they mean instead of “literally”. “Figuratively” may be the opposite, and technically correct, but the use of the word “literally” in this way is to strengthen a statement. A more appropriate correction would be “actually” or “seriously”, which holds the intended meaning. “Figuratively” is the last thing it should be replaced with.
I’m pretty sure the baseline questions are things they already know the answer to. Like what’s your name, where were you born, etc. So lying about them would be obvious.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I’m guessing you’re not so against.
I think you’re missing the point of the -porn suffix. Its not supposed to convey “the study of” or “images of”. Its meant to convey that viewing it is satisfying in some primitive/emotional/aesthetic way. NaturePorn isn’t just “pictures of nature”, it’s “pictures of nature that suck me in and make me want to see more”. In that regard, the comparison to sex is intentional.
I doubt you want to. Its probably at least a terabyte.
I used to consider myself republican, and I think I’m still closer to republican than democrat. I prefer small government, which is at least sometimes a republican ideal. I am also against identity politics of any kind, so I am against affirmative action. I am in favor of gun rights, with regulations that allow for appropriate tracking of who has guns where, how they are stored, how they are transported etc. However, regulations that prevent particular people from owning guns or ban any particular weapons should be very conservative. Even felons should regain gun rights after an appropriate period of time. Only ridiculously dangerous weapons, like nukes, should be outright banned. Stuff like full auto weapons should be legal, but restricted to only be stored at a gun range or something. As far as LGBT goes, I don’t think the government should have anything to do with them. Let them do what they want, let people react how they want (as long as it isn’t violent of course, which is already illegal under other laws). I’ve never been really sure about abortion. My gut reaction is to just let people do what they want, but I struggle to logically justify it as anything but murder. Not to mention the impracticality of banning it.
I wouldn’t really call myself a republican anymore though. This is largely because of the religious aspects. I don’t know if republicans have actually become more authoritarian or if my perception has just changed, but either way they don’t seem to prioritize the same things as me anymore. Things like right to repair, net neutrality, and E2EE are important to me, but they don’t align with that at all. The party also keeps embracing identity politics, just with different identities than their opposition. Religion should be a non-factor from a governmental perspective. It doesn’t need any special protections, just to be ignored.
If I had to call myself something, I guess I would be a ‘libertarian socialist’, however much of an oxymoron that seems to be. For instance, I like the idea of UBI, largely because it would allow almost all welfare/social programs to be eliminated (including social security). Doing so would reduce government control, because they no longer have an ability to tweak who gets what, since everyone gets the same amount.
The Chinese room argument doesn’t have anything to do with usefulness. Its about whether or not a computer that passes the turing test is conscious. Besides, the argument is a ridiculous one to begin with. It assumes that if a subcomponent of a system (ie the human) lacks “understanding”, then the system itself (the human + the room + the program) lacks understanding.
That sounds nice and all, but is useless as a definition. The way I see it used, wisdom is knowledge and intuition that is gained from experience, whereas intelligence is a property of a person that allows them to learn quickly.
In the first couple panels I can’t stop seeing her mouth like a mustache
I love that they keep saying stuff like “introducing Ubuntu to the Christian community”, as if they couldn’t already use it.
I know it’s repetitive, but (some) people still don’t seem to hear it. Everyone complains about windows doing a million annoying things, but so few actually consider an alternative. Some people need to be reminded that they don’t need to wait for Microsoft to fix their problems. Admittedly, I doubt very many of those are in this community, or on this platform though.
When you hit the windows key (aka meta-key or super-key) it brings up the app launcher. You get a dock at the bottom with pinned or running apps (like a taskbar), and all of your open windows are presented in a sort of mini-version that lets you switch between them or move them between workspaces. There is a search bar that you can immediately type into to open any app with a .desktop file. There is also a button to bring up the app grid which shows your apps kind of like a mobile device’s home screen.
Not having a dock is one of my favorite things about gnome. I actually use an extension to hide the top bar too. There’s just something so satisfying about having 100% usable space on screen. I get all the info back in the win-key overlay, so I don’t really need that stuff on screen at all times.
Does this not work?
I think you can do the same in the post
You linked a webpage as an embedded image. If you meant to make a link, use:
If you meant to embed:
You formatted your links as images. Markdown uses  for images, […](…) for links.
" dumb it down"? Isn’t the mobile app (s) displaying the same posts as the website(s)?
That’s not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn’t the same thing as saying free speech wouldn’t apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
Aren’t tankies authoritarian leftists? What’s “right” about them?