fredsir

I was vague, but I think I just meant VPN. Dunny why I wrote proxying. Thank you!

Does Turris Omnia support VPN proxying?

Block it, then.

If I was gathering your stuff without permission, it’s stealing. If a bear or a person not part of society does it, it’s not stealing, it’s gathering. The myths of society are only that: collective beliefs inside society.

Insignificant detail.

Sure. Point being it’s all gathering. No difference when you gather berries or other peoples stuff against their will.

So it's not gathering when we pick berries because the plant prepared them for spreading its seeds, not for us to eat and end up in our trash. Or we take the tree where the bird nested in, or the beetle, or the abe? Or when we take whatever else we take that something else prepared for another use?

It doesn't fit nicely in our societal view of "yours" and "mine", but whenever you take something, whatever it is, you are almost always taking it away from something else. Surely "thieving" is gathering. It's just a kind of gathering that society has decided is not okay, except in all the cases where society says it's okay, like taking the animals home, or the native humans, and so on.

I ask because the one I asked seems to believe break ins and theft is anything but collective myths existing only because the individuals in our society believe in them. Outside of society, where nature and war takes place, none of those things exist, and since the hermit was not part of society, it’s not break ins and theft, it’s survival. The only thing not allowing things out there is ethics and morals, if one is capable of such, and that, understandably, seems to crumble when standing in the way of survival.

Aren't we also breaking in and stealing other, not people, but livings things "stuff" when we mow down their home, destroy their supplies, and then kill them off completely? Is it really a "break in" and "theft" if you are not part of the society that has defined those collective myths? If you are not part of a society that deems that individuals can own stuff, why should you follow those rules? What about when we put upon others our will when we start a war? Is it always wrong to take other peoples possessions or put upon them our will? Is it wrong to take from others that have plenty if you have none? Isn't our modern societies built upon taking stuff that isn't inherently ours, claiming it, and then forcing our will upon those around us, humans and animals alike?

If you are not part of our society, maybe going in and taking our stuff is not as much "break in" and "theft", but just pure and simple survival.

Finding materials in nature (e.g. an untouched-by-humans forrest) vs in society (e.g. someones cabin) is not much of a difference if you are not a part of society. All living things need food and other stuff to sustain its life.

You go out, shoot a deer to survive, chop down a tree, and head home and you got some food and supplies. You go out, find a cabin, take some food and other stuff and head home and you've got some food and other supplies.

The difference is only significant if you follow the rules of society where we don't take each others stuff. But just like we don't bat an eye when we go out and take the life or supplies from an animal that is not part of society, why should a person or another creature that is not part of society think any different when they go into someones cabin and take food and supplies instead of finding the things in untouched nature? Why craft an axe from raw materials when you can just take the one that something else made that is laying right there in that log of wood?

I just don’t like that many carrots. Would prefer to be able to buy the couple I want.

And yes, I do eat plenty of vegetables. I follow a whole-food plant-based diet and have done so for almost 7 years.

> As well, going to the store more often. Buying only a couple or three days worth of groceries makes it easy to lower food waste. When I try to buy over a weeks worth of groceries I find myself having to throw away things more often.

Exact opposite is true for my family. If I meal plan and shop once a week, we eat everything because everything was bought for a specific purpose. If we are more loose with it, we buy too much, and end up throwing out stuff. Of course, you could meal plan for 2 days or 3 days and also go to the store that often, but that seems like a complete waste of time. Save for the occasional spontaneous idea, or for things that can't keep for a whole week, meal planning and shopping once a week have cut down our food-budget and waste significantly. Of course, learning to buy the right amounts for a whole week takes a while. A couple of weeks at least.

For the consumer or the seller?

I think I easily save 20-50% when I buy the amount I can eat before it goes bad instead of having to buy a larger amount because it's prepackaged in a too-big-for-me package.

Come to think of it, I never throw out stuff like fruit which I buy "per piece" instead of prepackaged, where as carrots which usually only comes prepackaged where I shop is something I often have to throw out of because the last ones have gone bad before I got to them. This have meant I rarely eat carrots anymore and instead buy something else that isn't prepackaged.

Same thing with bread actually. But then they started selling smaller breads all over the country to combat food waste, and it really has, I don't remember throwing out bread in the last couple of years.

I was the same before. I could get myself to sit down with a book and read, and wanted to, very much actually, but could only stomach it for 15-20 minutes. Then I was looking for the next dopamine fix. And not every day. It was a bit boring, really, compared to all the things I "learned" from just skimming hacker news.

It took a long time, but now I can easily read for an hour. My normal routine now is to wake up an hour before I have to and read for an hour or so, and then again in the evening read for an hour or so. Reading a book in the morning is really a great way to start the day, I find. I still prefer ending the day falling asleep to the office or something like that.

One of the things that has really worked for me, other than training the practical side of reading for prolonged amounts of time with focus, is to get used to preferring long pieces instead of the quick fixes that is mostly what's online. Before I wanted the quick reads, they felt like I achieved things. Now I want the long pieces, the books, the journalistic marvels that took years to produce and an hour or more to really go through properly. It took time to get here, getting rid of the fear of missing out - which I'm still working on - and understanding that all sorts of things happen in the "now", but almost anything of importance and substance is best "consumed" at a distance - maybe a week or more after it happens. That's especially true for news, except for the odd once that you want to know about right now, but I feel like when that happens, word will get to your from other paths, like family, friends and so on contacting you if it's that important. Any news that is not important enough to warrant your attention after it's a week old, is it really worth knowing anyway?

They lived in harmony with nature in every realistic meaning of the term. Being dragged away as somethings dinner, sleeping with one eye open, sometimes going to bed hungry, and so on, is part of natures harmony. That's how it works everywhere in nature for all living things. Sometimes you are the hunter, and sometimes you are the hunted. And that's okay, or no one could survive.

It's only when we change the game, like with our modern way of society, that we also have to change the rules. Like it's not okay anymore to go about killing others willy nilly if it's not necessary. Or should I say, one could hope the rules would reflect the change of the game, but not in all aspects has it yet at least.

> What about the countries you're shipping your plastic waste to

Or ordering from. Their pollution is funded by you.

That was a lot more than I expected! Thank you very much! I'll take the dive in later!

That's a Snowden quote, isn't it?

So do you have any recommendations for specific stuff to read for the rest of us... Pretty please? :)

> Ok, but if your experiences are objectively wrong compared to our shared reality, "we" can make value judgements in the context of our shared reality as to whether the behaviors based on your objective experiences are rational or not.

Well, sure, but if we take some definitions of rational:

> Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible.

or

> Having or exercising the ability to reason. synonym: logical.

I'd say rational doesn't care about factual or not, or others experiences or not. Rational is entirely dependent on how you react to what you experience.

> Sure, you can say "he is behaving rationally thru the lens of his own perspective" if you want, but that means the rest of us in the shared reality can say "these behaviors are irrational thru the lens of our shared reality". And since we're still here, and he is unfortunately not, I think "our" perspective is the one that matters at this point.

I think that's a wrong conclusion.

He was mentally ill. This perhaps skewed his experiences according to our shared reality. His experiences was not factual, one could say. Were his actions irrational? I don't think we can say that from what we know because he might have been acting rationally. The problem might just have been how he was experiencing things, which makes the basis of his actions not based on something we can say is factual or "real". However, if he was acting rationally on his experiences, even though his experiences were "wrong", he was still acting rationally.

And I’d argue that rationale depends entirely on how you react to your experiences. Your experiences can be objectively wrong compared to our shared reality, but true to your internal reality, and if you behave rationally according to your internal experiences, then thats rational behavior.

Your experiences might not be real or factual, but that doesn’t mean you can’t act rationally to them. Factual and rational are not dependent on each other. You can for example act rationally on the basis of a lie you were told. Doesn’t make your behavior irrational.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying rational depends on perspective. For a person with mental illness, it might be rational the way they act because their brain for example works differently, they experience things differently, and from their experience, what they do might have purpose, it might serve to meet a goal, it’s rational. But since their experience perhaps is skewed from our reality, from our perspective, from our experiences, the behavior looks irrational.

Are you really in a position to declare that that was not the case? Do you posses all evidence, or is there actually a chance that there are things about the situation that you don’t know?

Also he was mentally ill, his brain worked differently than normal. Rationality depends on perspective. He was probably acting with rationale according to his experiences.

I think there is a distinction. Rational/irrational is a relative form. It depends on perspective. For people that are wired like most other people, irrational behavior is ... irrational, but if you are wired completely differently mentally, your behavior might seem irrational to onlookers, but it might not actually be. A crude example, but effective: you wouldn’t call a dogs behavior irrational if it acted very differently to a human. Same with people wired differently in the brain, like people with mental illness. Might seem irrational to you even though it isn’t.

I think the point was that he, contrary to what you claim, wasn’t a good reminder because he wasn’t irrational, which you implied.

Hopefully that is family-sized pizzas.

As I understand it, assuming we are talking about carbs, fats and proteins, as in their whole-food forms, not as in say a cookie, no, it's easier/quicker for your body to store say fat as fat than carbs as fat, which it will have to transform into fat first. Carbs are also loaded with water and fibers which makes digestion even slower to make this effect even better.

> Carbs and sugar are the culprit behind the obesity epidemic, not meat

Processed food as well as particularly overeating of delicacies like meat, cheese, eggs, fish, and oil and sugar prepared plant-foods, is the mayor culprit, I believe.

Nobody got fat from eating plain potatoes, beans and apples. It's also very hard to overeat on those kinds of foods because of the high water and fiber content. People get fat by eating too much dairy, meat, eggs, and plants prepared in oils, or other highly processed plant-foods, which are easy to overeat on.

Your body will break down protein and fat into carbs if it isn't supplied with enough carbs. Your body has developed a mechanism to make carbs from other things because it needs carbs so badly. It would seem folly to think we should rely on this round-about disaster-mitigation mechanism instead of just supplying it with what it wants, which is partly carbs.

Why zero carbohydrates?

It doesn't have to be better than fish in every way. Just in the ways that consumers care about.