Gamer™

I have commited the Num-Code for ™ to muscle memory.

Other interests include bicycles, bread making and DIY. I do own a 3D-printer and adore the Nintendo 3ds.

  • 1 Post
  • 19 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 8th, 2024

help-circle


  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlBacon tho
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Even if you added “for it’s meat” at the end there, I have killed and eaten fish.

    But the way you said it, who hasn’t swatted a fly or mosquito? Not to mention the skin mites and fruit flies you consume daily.







  • I think that is thinking a bit too narrow. A lot of the stuff we use today might just be our bronze to our successors iron - you can build an unstable society on either. And what we do use up today could still work if used more efficiently - we might not have enough rare metals to give everyone a smartphone in the post-post-apocalypse, but I could see us still launching satellites if only big governments had computers - because they did.



  • We have had Millions of years of (presumably) intelligent Dinosaurs on this planet, but only 200.000 years of mankind were enough to create Civilization IV, the best Strategy game and peak of life as we know it.

    So clearly, Civilization™ is what sets us apart.

    Jokes aside, the thing evolution on earth spend the most time on is getting from single celled life-forms to multicellular life (~2 billion years). If what earth life found difficult is difficult for all, multicellular collaboration is way harder than photosynthesis, which evolved roughly half a billion years after life formed.


  • A filter for sure, but not a great one. Call me optimistic, but I don’t think that will set us back more than 10.000 years. If humanity can survive, society will re-emerge, and we are back here 2-3000 years into the future.

    Is +5°C Earth a good place to be? No. Will the majority of humans die? Absolutely. Will the descendants get to try this society thing again? I believe so.

    On a cosmic scale 10.000 years is just a setback, and cannot be considered a great filter.





  • I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.

    Barely anyone gets to have “convicted felon” in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. “Convicted of falsifying business records” is just so much more specific, and can later be added with “and election interference”.

    In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying “Support due to being established fact”.