JasonFruit

Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?

This article is confusing or confused. It conflates the people and companies that use the internet with the network itself, and then supports its argument that the internet is splitting by talking about what's going on with TV networks. There's a lot of division going on in America, but I think they've failed to see its shape.

Nextdoor is possibly the only platform less intuitive than Mastodon, so it might have a chance.

Responding charitably, as in with a loving, understanding attitude, not with charity on the sense of a handout.

> dithyrambic

I pride myself on knowing words, and I did not know this word. Thanks!

The combination of fashionable and durable doesn't make sense: fashions change quickly, so why should an article of clothing outlive the fashion it was meant to serve? To embrace durability in clothing — which I would far rather remain a choice rather than be mandated — you have to embrace social durability, that is, looks that are socially acceptable but not fashionable.

You may have a point. I'm going to go reevaluate my entire worldview for a bit.

EDIT: nope, still not buying it. I can only make it work by analogy with bury->burial, archive->archival, and there's not enough there.

We don't really have that problem with other goods: is it possible to make cheap and expensive bed sheets, or kitchen scales, bookshelves, or phones? Yes, in all those cases, and there's a financial incentive to do so: people who cannot afford an expensive version will pay for one they can afford.

Where exactly is the difference between those goods and housing? At first I thought land, because the same land could be used for expensive or cheap housing — but that's the case with the raw materials for those other products, and just as in the case of land for housing, not all raw material is equally desirable.

As to your question, we really can't have good evidence one way or the other, because there are too many variables. I'm attempting to reason about it, and am not really sure I have answers myself, but I'm not comfortable assuming that having government take care of a problem makes the problem go away.

The assumption here is that housing can't be affordable by nature, but has to be made affordable by government intervention. Is that the case? Would it be possible to build an apartment building that simply will be affordable, without the government giving the developer a pile of other people's money?

I also wonder about the incentive that's created when artificially affordable housing is provided in an area that's expensive because of high demand: doesn't that prevent a shortage of low-skill labor that would otherwise be a limiting factor in that demand? That is, if it's too expensive for many people who might work low-paying service and manual jobs to live nearby, the rising cost of that sort of labor might begin to lessen other people's desire to live there and businesses' desire to locate there, mitigating the housing problem.

'Archival' is an adjective. The gerund 'archiving' works nicely and is grammatical.

This is a good message to get out, and I wish it were more likely to make it into the hands of people who wouldn't otherwise get the message. I applaud the effort.

I'm disappointed with a few things about it, though, because:

- It makes it sound like Scott McCloud did this, but he didn't

- It unfortunately includes a political viewpoint that is irrelevant to the message

- It omits context on a few points to make them sound worse than they are, which is completely unnecessary, because the message is devastating without them

When you're speaking truth about a powerful and deceptive entity, you have to be absolutely factual and focused, and this isn't quite there.

Usually after they're dead and the art community has reached an agreement that they were pretty great, though; it's not much of a status game if it doesn't bear fruit while you're around to enjoy it.

Are you sure it doesn't work the other way around? That is, first the United States government (usually it's them, after all) decides you're getting hit with a war, and then you're portrayed as a bad guy, worse than Hitler, a threat "our democracy" and to all life on the planet — and the people eat it up, put the Ruritanian flag on their profile pictures, and "stand with Ruritania," because we'll fight the bastards to the last Ruritanian. And then we fund the bad guy to fight for us in our next conflict against the real villain.

I assume the lacuna is filled with lawyers who said not to discuss that part.

I have done all those things. On Linux, Nvidia drivers are a royal pain, webcam and printer both worked without any effort other than hooking it up, and running a 32-bit application was not too difficult with instructions. On Windows, I've never messed with video drivers, but have had problems with the same webcam and printer requiring me to locate and install drivers, which were bundled with software I didn't want. 32-bit applications on Windows were of course a breeze.

So anecdotally, it's a mixed bag. Maybe if I had less Linux experience and more Windows, the story would be different.

I... don't think that makes sense? Why can't you release something under the GPL and have it become popular worldwide? Or maybe you're using 'popular' in a sense I'm not accustomed to.

The application denies access to intruders by successfully ceasing to function.

I'm curious what Finns perceive they have lost by their neutral stance toward Russia and NATO, and what they expect to gain from NATO membership that will offset the disadvantage of enmity with Russia. It's not clear from my U.S. vantage point.

I notice a lot of similarity in the way articles like this discuss "the singularity" and how some preppers and survivalists discuss "when SHTF". Underlying the warning, there's a drooling sense of anticipation, as though a) they're so invested in the idea of the disaster that they hope something, anything, will happen to show that they were right all along, and b) they are so dissatisfied with the current state of the world that they want to see it break down. I don't think either one is a healthy or realistic approach to life.

This is what you get when you don't require a court to order the release of private information. This, and out of control law enforcement, that is.

I'm not convinced that an airtight grain storage facility filled with carbon dioxide is impractical. A quick search turns up several manufacturers of airtight grain silos.

Especially from Erudition Magazine.

Wheat properly stored keeps for at least thirty years without noticeable degradation[0]. I'm not sure how easy that is at scale, but on first glance it seems not impractical.

[0] https://extension.usu.edu/preserve-the-harvest/research/stor...

I completely agree. Classroom teaching is a far more difficult and limiting situation, and I don't mean to imply that what I can do with my three kids can be extended to a classroom of thirty in a school of hundreds — though in many ways I wish it could.

I had a recording of Paul Galbraith playing Bach on the guitar, and it was stunning. I went to a festival to hear him play live, and he really could barely struggle through the same works. He seemed on the verge of rage-quitting the performance, so maybe it wasn't going as he expected either? Hard to say, because I never went out of my way to hear him again.

There's nothing wrong with having fun playing a game. Do I think it's wise to make a game your one big thing? Probably not. But when it comes down to it, few of us will have any lasting effect on the world, and your personal happiness has value, too.

See also 'mercenary'.

I homeschool my children, and I don't grade their work. Instead, I use the errors they make to guide my teaching; what they can't do successfully obviously needs more of my attention and theirs.

What's interesting is the difference that makes in what feels like an accomplishment to them. Whereas I would be proud, in the public schools, to have the highest test score, my kids are proudest when they manage to excel after failing. If they excel the first time around, their response is, "Well, okay, but that section was easy."

I think that's a more beneficial attitude to carry into their futures.

As far as the terminology goes, maybe. As far as people choosing to believe what is convenient, profitable, or flattering about the world around them, that's been the case as far back as anyone can recall. I think we like to imagine that technology both makes us immune to the problems of our ancestors and makes our problems immune to historically-informed solutions.

Fine, a Pyrrhic victory of style over substance.