Cethin

I make games for Ludum Dare fairly frequently, and it’ll be a nice feature, because a lot of people will refuse to download a game and only play web versions.

Other than that case, I agree. What’s the point? Your page probably shouldn’t be doing anything where it needs the GPU. What information is a page trying to present that a GPU is better at rendering than the CPU? Maybe very niche topics, but usually text is ideal.

Again, GUI is faster to learn, CLI is faster to use.

TLDR really helps though, rather than man pages.

I don’t understand how you’re both not spiritual and believe this. However, if you’re right then those people are assholes and so I want to align myself opposite to their goals.

There’s no meaning to life, because that implies intent for it existing. It just does. However, I think it does give us an imperative to try to do good with the life we have. We’re one of the few things in the universe that can experience pain and joy, and we should be trying to minimize the former and maximize the latter for the other beings capable of them.

Nothing happens if you do or don’t, but it does make everything better for everyone if you do, which includes yourself for the purely self motivated out there. Life isn’t a zero-sum game, so we should try to make it as nice as possible.

Yeah, easier to learn, slower to use.

GUI is often faster to learn, but CLI is almost always faster to use. It’s the argument people use for why they choose it. You don’t have to move your mouse to click on buttons that can be anywhere. You just type. With tab completion, it’s significantly faster.

(There is a secondary argument for CLI for tutorials, in that it’s going to be the same or similar for everyone.)

I have Ray-Ban Clubmasters and they’re large enough that that isn’t really an issue for me. There are very few angles that go around the frames.

OK, my answer to this was going to be “no” but these actually look cool. I hate those modern ones the kids wear. They’re ugly (in my opinion), expensive, and made out of cheap materials. These have a similar vibe, but like they’re made by someone who understand style, instead of thinking something that stands out is style. Looking at the review pictures though, they definitely do T work for everyone. In particular, they look best with people with darker hair/skin. The blonde pale women I think it looks weird on.

I’m a 31 year old man though. Don’t take my opinion on style.

Something I learned is that I stopped losing my sunglasses when they cost a fair amount. When I purchase cheap ones and don’t give a shit, they break or are lost, and end up costing more. When I got nicer ones I never lost or broke them. Just a one time payment.

Now I wear prescription glasses (I did wear contacts), so they’re both expensive and I can’t live without them. Obviously losing or breaking them isn’t something that happens now.

Yeah, this is legitimately an amazing ad, though Google may bot want it because they probably make more money off your data than you buying the device.

I don’t know if you understand what protectionism is. Protectionism is favoring domestic production over foreign. I don’t think it has anything to do with your comment. The way you’re using it seems to be just not holding them accountable. That’s just capitalism though. They buy the legislators who create the justice system.

I agree larger corporations should face more scrutiny or liability. I’ve never seen a Libertarian express this opinion though. The standard libertarian position is: “The larger company earned its money and should be free to spend it how they wish, including molding the system to its desires. The Market decided they’re the most capable after all.”

I haven’t seen those originals disappear…

It happens. You probably wouldn’t notice it, but it’s constantly going on. It’s particularly bad for niche product. Things like charging cables or whatever, the market is large enough to support multiple products, and there’s only so far Amazon is willing to cut it and those are cost so little for anyone to make.

Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own.

A goal has to be something measurable, but sure. Yeah. That’s basically what I said. Improve lives (meaning happiness). That essentially implies freedom to persue what you want. I don’t know what else it could mean. However, it also need to include companies leaving people alone. The government isn’t the only source of authority influencing peoples lives, and we need a government to protect them.

Obviously, I haven’t dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I’m trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it’s transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.

I largely agree, but I think the key point of why anarchism (aka, removing hierarchy, not no government) is the way I went is because, with hierarchy, those with resources will always buy an advantage. We need a government that actually represents the people, which means it needs to be made of the people, not lifelong legislators. Some of that should be direct democracy where it can be, but rotating representatives chosen from regular people who serve temporary terms, so they can’t gather power, is ideal. As long as capital controls the government then capitalists will buy the system, and libertarians generally (not saying you specifically) argue this is part of the design and good, because they proved “they know best.”

I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.

You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:

Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that…

Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn’t the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can’t remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.

There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we’ve seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.

This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that’s empowered to protect people, but that let’s people do what they want (assuming they don’t hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don’t see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.

No, I’m pretty sure he grasps that concept, and he thinks what he believes is that universal truth.

I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I’m left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what’s left and right.

I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn’t be telling people how to live or what they can or can’t do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).

Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don’t want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They’ll argue they don’t agree with slavery, but what’s the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)

It depends on where you draw the line for “the center.” I’d agree it’s leftist for America, but it’s center-left on a global scale. You’ll usually get some push back if you promote true leftist politics. Usually more agreement than dissent, but still some.

It’s correct. If you choose to answer questions, you should tell the truth. That should be preceded, in bold, “don’t fucking answer questions! If the police talk to you, shut the fuck up.”

Would you agree that the dashboard of a car is UI? If so, isn’t that just data visualization?

Out of the box? Probably, as Ubuntu doesn’t come with everything you need for gaming, so it doesn’t work at all. Once you install all the same packages I imagine it’s about the same. Usually a distro isn’t doing anything particularly special. It’s mostly just a collection of packages, which you can install on any other distro as well.

Again, the point is you were saying (or agreeing) that copies being available for free decrease the value. You then later say it has intrinsic value.

I’m not arguing that they don’t have intrinsic value. I’m arguing that you undermined the point of value decreasing if it exists for free by admitting this. It doesn’t. It’s worth something no matter what someone else paid, and no matter what you paid.

A game decreasing in price over time isn’t doing so because it’s worth less (usually, with the exception of online games). They’re decreasing the price to capture customers who don’t agree with the original valuation. It doesn’t change value to the consumer based on the price changing. The object is not suddenly less valuable when there’s a sale and more valuable again after. It has a degree of “goodness” no matter what. The price doesn’t effect this.

Also also, either the thing you’re copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn’t. If it’s of value, then it’s reasonable to expect payment for it. It’s it’s not of value, then you shouldn’t miss not having it.

Doesn’t this contradict the whole rest of the argument? It either has value or it doesn’t. It being available for free somewhere doesn’t change the value. If it’s not of value, then they shouldn’t miss you having it.