austinjp

Wow, I watched that with the sound off and was surprised it's actually a car manufacturer's ad. What a misfire. In turn, that reminded me of this legendary ad misfire:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strand_(cigarette)#Marketing

Limiting access to services that were previously available is certainly not progress.

Scooter workaround: Have multiple apps for multiple providers on one phone. I've done this plenty of times e.g. when one of us has a dead phone.

Obviously only works if your city has multiple scooter providers :)

I'm not sure this is laggard behaviour. Laggards are defined as having no thought leadership qualities, they are literally late to the party.

There's an argument that this is quite the reverse: it's innovative behaviour since it demonstrates comparative rarity, leadership (pointing the way), novelty (we should do things differently), etc.

Frankly, I think this thread points to some of the weaknesses in the Diffusion of Innovations theory (which on the whole I quite like). It doesn't neatly model 'luddites', those who are exposed to 'innovations' and understand them, yet reject them for whatever reason.

Dude, come on. You can surely see where this line of argument leads. Are you seriously defending a society that continually and arbitrarily raises the barriers to accessing services?

On what criteria are those barriers raised? Those decisions are being outsourced by states -- which (democratic) societies elect to act in their best interests -- to monopolies that have none of those responsibilities. In fact, as your comments illustrate, market pressure and competition provide neat justifications to avoid those responsibilities. They lead to a race to the bottom, not the top.

Comparing a smartphone to a hat is like comparing a Tesla to a sock. It doesn't illuminate the conversation at all, it's a straw-man in the extreme.

Some people don't want smartphones. Some people can't get hold of them. They are both getting locked out of basic societal functions.

I would genuinely enjoy reading published science that supports your proposition. I've not seen much, if any.

Nice, although the pertinent quote is:

"This article doesn't provide all the answers – the best answer will vary according to the needs of the application, and in most cases, it may be difficult to find a 'perfect' solution."

It might be worth checking some of the fly.io work:

https://fly.io/blog/all-in-on-sqlite-litestream/

I'd take the candy without watching the ad, for the same reason I refuse to use loyalty cards. Both the ads and loyalty cards are worth more to the supermarket than they are to me. They're basically ripping me off while pretending to give me something gratis.

(Actually, in reality I'd ignore the candy since I don't need more sugar.)

> these people are quite literally fighting for less government control. How can that be construed as fascist?

At risk of derailing this thread... It's entirely possible for someone to fight against government control in specific areas of policy. If that person feels threatened they might become more strident in their views, and become more supportive of new policies that implemented their preferences 'firmly'.

I've rarely seen anyone support 'less government' in 100% of situations. When anyone's societal values are threatened (real or imagined) there will be demand for the government to do something about it. When people feel increasingly threatened, they support increasingly 'robust' politicians.

Having said all that, I agree that the word 'fascist' is unhelpful here.

As a sibling has noted, the paper you cite does not support your claim. In fact, it doesn't even mention wildfires.

The authors suggest that existing predictors of Hawaiian precipitation need to be updated so they're more accurate. They note that "dryness has been observed over the islands, indeed the driest such 20-yr period on record" and that this has become particularly unpredictable in the 21st century.

In their "suite of atmospheric model simulations" the authors describe "the observed 2010–19 ocean boundary forcings and atmospheric chemical composition" as the "factual" which is contrasted with the "climate of that period absent effects of long-term global warming drivers" as the "counterfactual" (emphasis mine). They test three models, finding that "all three models produce Hawaiian-region drying in response to a zonally uniform ocean warming".

Their preferred theory of "atmospheric decadal variability" is "ENSO" -- El Niño Southern Oscillation. They cite [0] which describes "decadal scale changes in the general atmospheric circulation [and] long-term changes in the atmospheric circulation itself."

Finally, every author of the paper you cited has published repeatedly about the relationship between global warming and wildfires, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. In conclusion, I find your post here to be disingenuous and either made in ignorance at best, or in bad faith at worst.

[0] https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.631

[1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMGC51B0971P/abstra...

[2] https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23003

[3] https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/103/12/BAMS-...

[4] https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/53/12/jamc-d...

Um, just no. Escalating punishment, and including physical punishment, is a guaranteed way to induce extreme problems. Prisons are packed with people who lived that life, listen to some interviews. Breaking people leaves broken people who break more people.

Note: I'm not saying punishments are a bad idea. But severity as the variable to tweak, that's demonstrably a dreadful plan.

Funny, that's a variety of Russell's Teapot, which stemmed from philosophical arguments about religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Thanks for that, I hadn't noticed that my browser had been redirected courtesy of the wi-fi I'm currently using. Too late to edit unfortunately. But yes, that's the canonical link.

The article briefly notes his association with Symbolism, you might like some of the other Symbolist artists:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_(arts)

Personally I enjoy Odilon Redon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odilon_Redon

Tangential: I was going to suggest "protocoli(s|z)ed" instead of protocollar, but I Googled "protocollar statements" just to check and found 2 things. First, this page was the top result! Second, "protocolar" (one ell) and "protocolary" are apparently real words. New to me, thanks.

I love lazygit, until I start typing a commit message only to find that I hadn't selected any files, and lazygit has processed each key-press as a command, and my repo is some bizarre state :)

But anyway, I typically have it sitting quietly in a terminal pane and just use it for selecting files/hunks/lines for easy commit message editing. It's great for that.

Not necessarily:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Yeah, I don't really disagree. I'm somewhat splitting philosophical hairs here, but "if we didn't have to support metabolisms" etc those lifeforms/artifacts would not be "us". In that sense, our biology isn't a "stepping stone" en route to something else, at least not in any way that's meaningful for humanity. We are our biology. "Pure compute" may come after us, but it won't be us.

But sure, I don't see any reason why any search for meaningful contact should be limited to biological forms, other than practical issues around budget and our own imaginations. Why limit it to biology + compute? That still seems anthropocentric to me. I'm sure theoretical physicists who take the occasional snort of DMT would have some wild ideas about other options :)

Edit: formatting.

I think the point is that punishments aren't always effective, and rewards can be difficult to identify.

I know 'me too' comments are not welcome here, so my justification for this reply is that it highlights an apparent minority of folks here who really struggle with all the standard tools for so-called procrastination and so-called productivity.

I agree about the lizard brain motivation. It seems that checkboxes are a simple shortcut to achieving that motivation for many. They don't work for me, my experience is similar to yours.

I've realised that if I can find something rewarding to enthuse me, then I can tackle a task. And that reward needs to outweigh distractions, it's no good saying I can have two marshmallows later, I'll take one now thanks. So I try to focus on any aspect of a task that I might find rewarding in the present moment, and if I'm lucky it will push competing distractions aside enough that I can get started.

Every. Damn. Course. That I've ever attended has pointed to 'check the boxes' rather than 'find your motivation'. Checking boxes feels like walling myself into a tomb (see other comments in this thread). It's beyond frustrating.

You are not alone! I never experience positive feelings when crossing an item off a to-do list. It feels like a slow creeping death to me.

Walling oneself into a tomb - exactly.

What are "we" if we're not biological? What is there to separate from the biological substrate into "pure compute" substrate?

UAP = unidentified anomalous phenomena

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senators-move-require-relea...

Well that's kinda the reason _for_ the line. Climate change kills people. "Save the planet" is too vague, it's disempowering.

That's disingenuous misdirection. The current change is a threat to humanity of our own making.

> My routine includes brushing my teeth 3x per day for 3 minutes

I appreciate that you may have specific reasons for this routine, but is that a typical routine generally? I've heard 2 minutes twice per day, so 3x3 seems excessive, and might cause gum/tooth damage through abrasion?

At a guess, probably should be mkdir -p

When I visited just now, I saw a message saying the edge function has crashed.