JasonFruit

I can't help but wonder if this is a parody article inserted into Wikipedia by some brilliant vandal.

This statement[0] from the University of Oslo, linked from the article, explains how the stone was dated, and is in general more explanatory.

[0]: https://www.khm.uio.no/english/news/found-the-world-s-oldest...

You seem to assume that the government is efficient and incorruptible. I have not seen evidence that is the case.

The boog guys I know are not far-right, nor are they accelerationists. They're mostly socially liberal young vets who are sick of constant wars, creeping tyranny, and the hypocrisy of powerful people, and who are willing to fight back if they're pushed, but most wouldn't start anything. There might be some people like you talk about, or they might be provocateurs, but in either case, they're a small minority.

I'm much more interested in the motivations of the people involved.

My understanding is that elderberry is not really the elder referred to in European folk stories.

I'm sad that the article doesn't even begin to suggest a period of time where this belief was current. Nonetheless, it gives me a great idea for an inscription on musical instruments I make from elder wood.

First, just because we understand that Google wants to maximize profit doesn't mean they need to lie about it — it means they have no need to lie about it, because nobody's fooled. Either they consider at least some of us fools who would believe such an obvious lie, or they're engaging in a ritual of futile lying whose purpose I cannot grasp.

Second, why must the point of a company be to maximize profit? Why can't it be to make enough profit to remain stable in the long term, instead of growing rapidly to a size where it will eventually either have to engage in monopolistic behavior to survive or else, having extracted all available profit in its sphere, die?

It's the opposite of my life: someone stole my hundreds of vinyl records, and now I own a car. (The two are not related except insofar as my priorities have grown more responsible over the years.)

Why should we be surprised that the United States military takes advantage of the foolishness of people who gamble? Many of the various states likewise profit from their least wise citizens by running lotteries. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that government as a whole is just that: gaining power and money at the expense of everyone you can fool into going along with it.

And "services that contribute to resiliency, retention, readiness and quality of life," indeed!

I'm a customer, and I like the 16x9 screen. Works great for my old school workflows and aging eyes. Of course, I don't know what I'm missing.

I'm afraid you haven't made clear what constitutional change you mean, at least to me. Can you elaborate?

In the US, isn't the main lobbying on behalf of this coming from industrial agriculture that has become addicted to the renewable fuel standard, which mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline, providing welfare for the ethanol industry at the expense of petroleum refiners (and eventually the driving public)? A good first step to end this idea would be to drop the mandate the same way the subsidies and tariffs supporting ethanol production were dropped.

That's a lot of assumption. Why not let them answer for themselves?

> agree not to shit on other people's identities

I believe you mean, "agree with me on gender and sexuality". When you take away the tendentious wording, it's a lot less clear that it "should be a given."

Mine lines up with yours: Fastmail has been great, Proton started okay and has gotten progressively worse.

If you're not colorblind, you may notice the rainbow progression of navlinks under the title. Then there's the choice to include pronouns as a special data item in the markdown, and the specific choice of "they/them" in the example, even though that's probably much rarer than the two more traditionally-expected choices. Then, of course, there's the affiliation with a Mastodon instance; we're all aware of the developer's politically-motivated choices and limits on federation with the main Mastodon instances.

Is "burning crosses" over-the-top? Yes, obviously. Does it say, "You're not the kind of social we have in mind," to a sizable portion of potential users? Yes again.

One is a buttock. Two is a pair of buttocks. Three or more is linguistically possible but physically unlikely.

Yes, it is, in fact, a buttock.

I loved my water rocket! That thing was amazing. You can still get them, and it sounds like they're as impressive as they were.

There's always infection. Don't give up hope!

I'm not sure that device qualifies, but I've often told my wife that I hate the farewell phrase, "Stay safe!" that's become so common lately. Sometimes you have to balance whether something is enough fun to justify the risk of death.

We removed the engine from my control line model and made a much more dangerous device! We mounted three wheels on the edge of a Frisbee and mounted the engine vertically in the cut out center. Then we started it and let it uncontrollably bounce, fly, and spin around the driveway, scattering gravel, until it ran out of gas or quit running from sheer abuse.

Exactly what I came in to say: why reach for a function key when you have ~26 good letters and a bunch of modifiers right under your fingers?

I'm amazed to search this whole conversation and not find anyone using Liferea. Simple, free, and effective. I have no complaints.

Why?

I spent hours playing Duke Nukem when I was a kid. Based on my son's love for absolutely idiotic games, and the assumption that I was like him at his age, that may or may not say anything for its quality, but I have fond memories of it.

We don't spend $115 billion on a country's war effort unless we are confident we're in control.

100% earned it, in my opinion, and if he comes to my favorite coffee shop, I'll be all ears if he chooses to brag a bit.

I prefer when people engage with philosophy seriously. Trying to couch philosophical ideas in this sort of frivolous language falsely implies that you can understand them without dedicated effort. The language of philosophy isn't the hard part if your doing it right.