The spending on space exploration isn’t what is stopping us on satisfying the basic needs of everyone. It’s political will that stops us there. It’s the fact that our governments do not see their populations as their priority. They see their corporations as their priority.

Nowhere in the Bible is being gay defined as a sin.

I think that’s true of the new testament, but I think the old would hold male on male gay sex as a sin (i.e. “soddemy”). The act, not the state of being. I don’t think lesbianism is ever referred to.

But you’re right. The entire point is that we all sin and we all ask for forgiveness. We should all be humble to god.

Of course, it’s all bullshit, but it’s also been corrupted so much that Christians don’t even live by the lessons.

…signed an atheist that was forced into Bible study as a child.

Yes, and this is why old school liberals (i.e. supporters of liberty for all) support social programs. Supporting those that can’t comfortably support themselves brings freedom from exploitation.

Trouble is they want to take the rest us with them. See how they attacked Iran.

Why are even non-contact sports segregated? Tennis? Why?!

This has been tested on multiple occasions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)

The only real win in singles was Billie Jean King (then 29yo) over Bobby Riggs (then 55yo). Riggs had recently beaten Margaret Court who was a 17 year number one in the women’s game.

Martina Navratilova in 2023 stated that the reason the 55-year-old Riggs lost to the 29-year-old King was simply because of age.[37] Navratilova said Riggs lost “because Bobby was too old,” and added, “A 35 year old Bobby would have beaten all of us.”[37]

┬⁠─⁠─⁠┬⁠◡⁠ﾉ⁠(⁠°⁠ ⁠-⁠°⁠ﾉ⁠)

I like it.

People who’s roles mean they live off stolen credit of workers. People can add value to a company in lots of ways - Organisers, managers, leads, and grunts.

However, there’s a class of people that do nothing. They’re often in high level positions, and talk a good talk but do nothing. Their teams have no respect for them and have to do their role for them. They should have been fired long ago, but there’s often a cluster of them protecting each other. They gravitate towards roles like project manager, sales, customer relations, but I don’t want to say it’s everyone in those roles because sometimes you get good ones. It’s also not limited to them.

Regulatory capture. The government is funded by the medical insurance companies. The people haven’t demanded it because they’ve been told it’s not an option. It’s impossible, too expensive, a fantasy.

He liked Bavarian brass band music and classical orchestral music.

• Buy CPU from AMD
• Buy GPU from Nvidia
• Buy motherboard from MSI
• Buy RAM from Corsair
• plug them together and put it in a case.
• plug HDMI cable between GPU and handy LCD monitor.
• Install Windows

The point I’m making is there’s so much technological development in manufacturing that has to take place before you can even start, it probably wouldn’t happen any faster. Just the technology that builds the machines that builds the machines that build the chips is beyond the 1920s.

Turing’s papers on computing were all pre-WW2 anyway.

Tying everything on the internet to a government ID is the end goal here. That is what all the age verification laws are enabling, intentionally or not.

In a land of ICE forcefully deporting people and people losing their lives in foreign prisons or just for resisting a little, do you not think privacy is more important now than ever?

This man took a step on the road of removing all of our privacy, and the community shouted “WTF DO YOU THINK YOU’RE DOING?!?!”.

57% of adults worldwide experienced a scam in 2025

Sure. I experienced a scam and I told them to “fuck off”.

That’s not 57% fell for a scam, or 57% of android users got scammed by “side loaded” software. It’s cherry picking a stat just justify a monopolistic practice.

As a thought experiment: please recommend them a better way than bullying

We could:

• reject the PR: no, because it’s already accepted by the lead.
• try to argue with the project maintainers: already failed. This is systemd we’re talking about. They are used to just plowing on regardless of what the wider community thinks.
• reject the software: systemd is fundamental to a lot of systems, so this is very painful.

It’s not hard to see why people have resorted to bullying. It’s not right, but there’s no way to make your voice heard. OSS development is not a democracy. It’s a do-ocracy. Those that d"do" dictate. Fine when the developer is aligned with the users. Chaos otherwise.

You’re not going to get something complying with Californian law out of Brazil (for example), so you’re talking about diverging. California can have it’s own version. Sadly that pushes burden onto maintainers that may not be interested in dealing with the pain.

The engineering mindset is to have it support both use models, but that is explicitly what people don’t want. Hidden features which enable authorities to enforce toxic concepts.

It’s one battlefront of many, and a fairly significant one. As we’ve become on online society, computer software has come to encode human rights to expression and privacy. Those rights are worth fighting for.

Unless you’re randomising it constantly, it still becomes part of a fingerprint for you.

A large part of the disagreement was never a tech debate. Systemd on a purely technical level had advantages, but the arguments were always about a concentration of functionality into a single critical program. Great while things are going well. Hell when it falls apart. That fear wasn’t totally based in technical reasoning.

There was a British charity, The Spastic Society. They became fairly high profile in the early 80s being involved in children’s magazine shows for fund raising. Often children with conditions would be featured. The intent was that featuring them would make the condition more relatable, but kids saw them more freaks to be mocked.

It resulted in “spastic” / “spaz” becoming school playground taunts to the extent that the charity changed it’s name to avoid the term.

There’s a few term of that kind of age which were like that. Medical terms or just plain English words that became labelled “derogatory” because of how they were used. I always felt it showed how poor the vocabulary of some people was. If they only knew the derogatory meaning they’d get offended by it’s use in all situations even if the meaning was innocent.