3,116 karma · joined January 25, 2022
As soon as you have any sort of remix or whatever it will happily download the wrong song.
I'm curious as to why extracting the actual song data is so hard, it is playing on my machine after all.
It strikes me as being a relatively simple project, especially given the existence of the web UI, but somehow it's very hard to find. All projects taken down by DMCA?
For example, buying a power sander for 10 hours labour cost when you could just have sanded the table down in less than 10 hours manually.
It's not like there were infinite quantities of slaves or lower class workers, at some point someone is going to explore the idea of automation purely out of interest.
For what it's worth this is why I believe that inequality and some level of wealth at the top is useful and necessary. You want a class of people who can just sort of mess about as they see fit. Otherwise everyone is just scrambling to meet basic needs.
Playing devil's advocate though, I'm not sure that most people are really that bothered about billionaires, to me it's always felt like a stereotypical lefty trust fund kid thing.
Most of the issues surrounding inequality seem to come about with things like e.g. transit vs driving, big house vs apartment, good diet vs bad diet, etc.
Basically just living next door to people that you* will never be, because I'm not sure that realistically we can give everyone a house on an acre with two cars on the drive.
you*: Not literally you or any individual, it's not that hard to make it out of poverty, but collectively not everyone can/will.
If I had a couple of multiples of what I had, I'd build a bunker, but I'd still much rather live on a planet where I can go outside, play golf, visit national parks, do woodworking in the yard etc.
The bunker is a backup to protect against outcomes you can't control, not the plan A to intentionally destroy the world.
Literally any effort you put in at all means that you are no longer the average in most cohorts. It's simply bad science.
Sometimes I read these studies and it feels a bit like someone reverse engineering a car without knowing what a car is supposed to do. Like - if you don't use oil, the engine is preserved quite well, unless you rotate the wheels, then it gets ruined, but only if the clutch is engaged. But then we do a study, we hold the clutch position constant, say it's disengaged, and then rotate the wheels at different speeds, and find that it doesn't make a difference, and publish that, and then it makes its' way into general understanding that you don't need to use engine oil.
People seem to want to seperate the effects of diet, exercise, social interaction, etc, but I don't think this is possible in a complex system like a human being. They all need to be balanced.
I'm glad you like oat milk, that's fine. I like it too. I resent that this is even a discussion, it's just food, eat what you want to eat, let's do something fun instead.
I drink at least one pint of milk per day and eat mostly red meat, chicken, green vegetables and pasta/rice/bread. I work out and this diet provides the proteins and fats I need to grow and repair. I feel the best I ever have done and I'm pretty sure that I'm fitter than most of my peer group.
The idea seems to be that I should stop doing this and replace it with a bunch of processed stuff.
It just seems obvious from first principles to me that the motivation behind this messaging isn't to improve my health, but to increase the efficiency of feeding a large population.
There are so many areas in life in which I feel this sort of manipulation now and it's getting tiring to constantly feel as if my rational choices are pitting me against others. I don't want to continuously argue with my friends about basic lifestyle choices, I wish everyone could just chill the fuck out.
I enjoyed the social interaction in my job and it didn't really affect my ability to see friends and family after work or at the weekend.
Since WFH became commonplace most of them have moved out of the city so it's actually harder now because my friends live all over the place.
It also feels like people are less likely to go out in general now.
My comment was more about the fact that I just think that social distancing was a load of bollocks and that we could have just gone to work with some people WFH as before and gotten the same end result.
We've been eating TV dinners for what, over sixty years now, yet people are claiming that plastic is responsible for stuff like gender dysphoria which barely existed outside of drag until about five or ten years ago.
Obesity is even more laughable. The fat and thin people I know don't differ in whether they use tupperware or eat takeaways. They just eat different amounts.
We probably shouldn't fill the environment with this stuff, but I think that worrying about heating up leftovers in your microwave is an overreaction.
It went like this, paraphrased:
Hi boss, I don't think that avoiding any form of social contact is good for me. Since it's clear that this is now the new expected working environment, I am resigning effective immediately. Toodles!
I guess it'd be a bit like that but the other way around.
I think that we are speaking at cross ends, as you are comparing life before and after transition, whereas I am comparing the lack of perceived need to transition vs the perceived need to transition.
That is to say, it seems clearly better to not be dysphoric in the first place, if that can be achieved. Especially considering what you describe!
Your partner always has the capability to screw you over, cheat on you, embezzle from the shared account, whatever.
Linux is like a nerdy guy who stays at home, plays with Warhammer figures and cooks you dinner.
Windows is an OnlyFans model who goes on vacations for weeks at a time and ignores your calls.
Here in the UK I've literally never encountered it.
Malware?
Keyloggers?
Adware?
Rootkit DRM?
Turns out they changed what "it" is, and I'm not even halfway to my pension yet...
If they just universally enforced that all oversize bags paid the £15 or whatever priority fee, instead of some people just getting unlucky because they didn't bring a tape measure on holiday and are 3cm over, I think it could even be net positive revenue wise.
For me it seems to have some pretty significant downsides. Loss of fertility, permanent hormone replacement, surgeries, trouble dating and being accepted in society, never really "passing" unless you do it very early on, etc.
If it's the only choice for a given individual e.g. they'd feel terminally depressed otherwise, then sure, they should be able to do it. I wouldn't really call it good though, it seems like the best worst option.
Of course, if the stigma has no effect on rates of gender dysphoria then none of this makes sense because there is then no benefit in dissuading people from transitioning.
As it stands, forgetting that Wizz Air requires bags 6cm smaller than easyJet and then getting told you can either pay more than your ticket cost originally or go home, but only sometimes if you get "caught", is just a bit... I dunno, uncivilized, I guess?
If you make it say, £15 in advance, £20 at the airport, that is enough to encourage people to do it in advance as long as bags are all checked, you don't need to be punitive.
You can add lanes, and more people can attain the life that they wish to lead.
You're not back where you started, because more people get to do what they want to do.
It seems as if you have the intrinsic axiom that people should travel less and the fact that they are not doing this is somehow wrong. Your model is wrong.
Time to go outside more :)
For example, I can call a local store and ask "hi, do you have this item in stock, can you check on the shelf and set it aside for me please, I will be there in 25 mins".
By contrast stuff like "click and collect" order flows online are super rigid.
It has nothing to do with "sectors of society".
If you want me on the bus, kick off the dickheads. Making driving worse will not get me on the bus however much you attempt to manipulate me emotionally.
There are three main issues that need to be solved for even me, a train lover, to prioritise using them.
1) Undesirables need to be removed. I don't want to deal with beggars or other general hoodlums. Transport police need to be aggressive with stamping out these behaviours. If I have to interact with these people I won't do it.
2) It needs to be clean and comfortable. My car has air conditioning. If I have to feel sweaty and worry about touching surfaces I'm just not going to do it.
3) I like a good walk, and there are also real limitations to scaling here, so I'm less rigid on this, but it does need to go roughly to where I want to go and it needs to be frequent. If I'm out in the rain for fifteen minutes waiting for a bus I'm just not going to do it, I could already be halfway there by car.
I don't think these are insurmountable, Japan does pretty well, but in the absence of that, the stick just isn't going to work. If travel times via car doubled, I'd probably just do less and then eventually move out of the city.
edit: I can't reply about libraries due to rate limiting.
Libraries are a great example of how public transport _could_ work!
I love libraries!
The British Library is truly public. Anyone can go, anyone can enter the reading rooms. It is a lovely environment to read or work in, as they have strict rules. It is peaceful and pleasant because of the way that it's set up.
It's also a great example of how the many can come together to do more than the few. Almost no-one is able to create a home environment with that sort of atmosphere, and by sharing it we all get more.
I would love it if public transport were like the experience of using a good library.
Whenever I see one of them it just upsets me and reminds me how much better life was before.
The Green Revolution increasing crop yields induced demand for humans. Metro systems existing and building new lines induce demand, in some cases resulting in overcrowding. Building housing and offices induce demand in a location.
There is nothing wrong with improving a thing so that more people are able to do that thing.
I can understand concern about emissions without necessarily agreeing. But induced demand is simply a good thing - you are allowing more people to realise their desires.
As an example, we stigmatize, and should stigmatize, the behaviours of those who are attracted to minors, and that stigma likely does reduce the social transmission of those behaviours.
The question I think comes down to essentially whether one considers the results of acting on gender dysphoria to be "bad".
If it is bad, then the question then becomes, is it a net benefit to stigmatize transitioning - i.e. do the benefits in reducing overall gender dysphoria outweigh the costs to those who would have it regardless of social factors.
If it's not bad, none of that matters, crack on.