The same thing that’s on the first side, but in reverse.

Same

Highly recommend Inscryption. It’s a fantasy-mystery-horror deck builder that turns into a surreal, recursive, experience. It’s a masterpiece.

I’m mainly concerned about:

1. Not losing data if one drive dies on me.
2. Fast reads
3. Easy plug and play expansion

Since I’ll have 8 drives (or 6, if I use the smaller server, it would be nice if I could swap out one of them without losing data and add a larger one, which would then get used automatically. Is that something that RAID is good for?

I’m hesitant to set up backups because it’s going to be a lot of data.

Fucking hell.

Other people in the comments are mentioning incentives, low pay, crappy management, etc. I don’t want to work, but it’s not really about any of this, or it’s about all of this a little, sort of.

I want to do good work.

I want to make software that helps people, that does what it’s supposed to do, that is fast, non-predatory, and doesn’t succumb to endless feature creep or artificially rushed scheduling. Pay me enough to live comfortably, and I’ll do this basically on my own. I don’t even need all of these things.

I’ve found that most businesses prioritize between 0-1 of these things.

This is not correct.

The word “woke” as a political term predates that group- York started trying to found a group in 1967, and “woke” was first used to warn black men of threats from racially motivated whites in 1931, by a singer named Lead Belly, then even more directly as a political term in 1971 in a play called “Garvey Lives!”

Whether York used it that way or not, it’s clear that he didn’t invent the usage.

I’m pulling most of this info from Wikipedia and Google to save anyone else reading the effort.

It’s not an acronym.

It originally meant “awake” in English, kept that meaning in the American black community after it fell out of use among whites (e.g. “I was having trouble staying woke on the drive”), and was repurposed as slang. The slang meaning was “to be aware of prejudice or racism”, with the implication that many blacks were “asleep”, i.e. accepted excuses for racist systems, believed that racism wasn’t a big deal anymore etc.

I’m not sure whether the word was adopted seriously by leftists generally before the right, or immediately became a catch-all label on the right, but either way, it’s become the latter.

Conservatives and some left-critical leftists now use it as a broad term that refers to things like DEI initiatives, anything trans, etc.

No, we’re not.

There have been recent challenges to freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, and privacy, along with other developments that both of us disagree with and find to be dangerous. But there is a vast distance between where we currently are and a society in which women are considered property. Women hold roughly 30% of public offices (varying between about 25% and 35% depending on type of office), are about 20% of the US military, and as I said before, fill almost half the working and management positions in the country.

It is not possible to make women property or force them to be subservient at scale. They may not be equally represented everywhere, and there is certainly room for improvement, but they hold too much power for this to happen.

Sorry, I was in the middle of doing something else when I wrote that, and not thinking clearly.

Either way, polyamory is the biggest example of large scale, voluntary, non-religious, polygamy-like relationships that we have, and it’s stabilized at +12% women, which is a far cry from the harems you’ve described. We’ve also been assuming that they’re straight, which they are not. Some estimates put the prevalence of bisexuality at 50% among poly women, much higher than in the broader population.

Most examples of broadly polygamous societies were a long time ago, highly religious, and had no access to modern technology, transportation, or media. Women at the time could be kept as property because they were taught by their religion and culture that it was right, because they didn’t have the ability to travel quickly to get away, because they often didn’t have money or property, and because their society didn’t recognize them as legal people.

None of this is true now.

47% of workers, 42% of managers, and roughly 62% of people engaged in polyamorous relationships are women. Women are financially, socially, and politically more powerful than at any time in the past, and if polyamorous relationships are anything to go by, then we should expect polygamous marriages to be skewed toward multiple men to each woman, rather than the other way around.

Abusive relationships aren’t unique to polygamy. Assuming that they occur in polygamous relationships at roughly the same rate that they do in monogamous relationships, and that polygamous relationships are less common over all, I think it’s unlikely that highly lopsided marriages would occur often enough that the number of single men would rise drastically and increase the likelihood of violence or civil unrest.

Even assuming that wealthy men, specifically, would acquire and maintain large harems of women who are dependent financially or otherwise, there’s nothing stopping them from doing that now. All a marriage gets them is a higher risk of losing their wealth when one of their wives decides to leave.

When it’s been legal on a country- or society-wide basis, the tendency has been for a relatively small number of very, very wealthy men to have a large number of wives…

I’m not sure that this would hold true if you made polygamy legal nationally today. While I agree that this has been the historical trend, it’s also almost always been tied to high levels of religious fervency and few protections for women. While we can argue about whether the current situation on both fronts is trending one way or another, I think we can agree that it’s certainly improved in the last century.

I doubt that a woman who wasn’t living in a close-knit, isolated, religious community, would tolerate being in an exclusive relationship with a man who has 85 other wives.

I can see how that would be a problem for a smaller, more insular religious community, but on a national scale you would have much more variation in relationships. Most people would probably still be monogamous, some would lean towards multiple wives, others multiple husbands, some more complex arrangements. The impact of any particular relationship pattern would be diluted by the size of the population.

Why does a man with multiple wives have a destabilizing effect on society?

If you’re that worried about it, then make it a form that people can fill out themselves. While we’re at it, roll marriage agreements into contract law and remove the two-person cap.

My partner and I have founded a company that uses custom AI models trained on research to (partially) automate the process of peer review and replication. We can identify mistakes and some types of fraud in research to aid reviewers as well as extract methods and equations from papers and automatically verify findings. If you know anything about the state of research right now, those are some incredibly large benefits.

I used to have a power shell script that a coworker gave me that would uninstall a huge number of services and apps on windows, change a bunch of config settings etc.

I’ve always wished there were a way to roll out a stripped windows release as an open source project without getting sued.

I don’t play games as much as I used to, but I had a lot of fun recently with Carrion - you play an alien hive mind eating scientists and fighting security through an Area 51 style facility.

(2/2)

Conclusion

Your views are incoherent

I’ve assumed throughout, that a fertilized egg has the same sort of moral weight as a child or an adult human being, for simplicity. I don’t actually believe this, however. You apparently do. Why? Because an egg has a “reasonable expectation of future conscious experience”? Pluripotent stem cells, as you said, also meet this standard. If that’s the case, so do skin cells, with the appropriate technology. Fertilized eggs, as you also said, don’t always meet this standard- I assume because 40% of fertilized eggs fail to implant. So if the only rule you have for what “counts” (has the moral weight of a person) is that it has a “reasonable expectation of future conscious experience”, and you’re specifically excluding eggs that are fertilized but don’t implant, and including stem cells that we have artificially coaxed into fertilization, then why is an aborted egg considered a violation of your morality, but stem cells thrown in the trash aren’t?

There’s no dividing line between one and the other, except the word “reasonable” in your “reasonable expectation of future conscious experience” definition. By which you mean “reasonable to me”. A fertilized egg has a “reasonable expectation of future conscious experience” to you, right up until it fails to implant- and then it doesn’t anymore. A fertilized egg that implants has a “reasonable expectation of future conscious experience” right up until an abortion- and then it’s murder.

The only differentiator here is your opinion.

You claim that rescuing fertilized eggs from a burning IVF clinic is morally equal to rescuing children from the same burning building, but when I imagine a world in which everyone acts on this claim, it’s absurd. You yourself wouldn’t behave in the way you’re describing, but would leave the eggs to burn in order to rescue a single child- no matter how many eggs there were. You claim, further, that this is because there is a difference between the psychological weight we place on people that look like us (children), and not on people who don’t (fertilized eggs), but when asked how one might go about differentiating between a psychological impulse and a “true” moral intuition, your answer is that an intuition isn’t a moral intuition “if the basis for it is too complex”, which feels a lot like saying “you’ll know it when you see it.”

You don’t consider bodily autonomy to be a fundamental right, despite it’s simplicity, despite probably sharing the same moral intuitions that I do in many of the scenarios that I’ve discussed above. If someone were surgically connected to you, should you be able to say “no”, whether it would kill them or not, whether it’s the heroic thing to do or not? If you were drowning, and someone were using you as a life preserver, should you have the right to push them away, whether or not they would drown, whether or not it would haunt you afterward?

You fail to see that your dismissal of bodily autonomy, when taken to it’s conclusion, leads to even more absurdity. If you don’t have the fundamental right to reject someone’s use of your body, what gives you the right to deny society access to your organs? If it would save dozens of living, breathing people, and you have no right to deny the use of your body, what fundamental principle do you invoke to avoid getting used for parts? A vague claim that “forcing an action is stronger than denying an action”?

Without a fundamental principle of bodily autonomy, you’re forced to patch together ad-hoc and weak explanations like this in which you weigh different “types” of actions, try to estimate harm, or appeal to societal consequences in order to justify your right to deny other people the organs they need to survive.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this discussion is that you started with the belief that life begins at conception and should be preserved at all costs, likely for religious or social reasons, and are working backward in order to justify those beliefs.

Thanks for the conversation

It’s been interesting.

I’ve learned a lot about what you believe and why you believe it, and it’s given me the opportunity to clarify and refine some of the things that I believe. I think that, regardless of whatever credentials you do or don’t have on this topic in real life, your views are contradictory and confusing- but I appreciate your willingness to put them out there for discussion. I think that I’ve gotten all the use out of the discussion that I can, however, so I’m going to end it here.

I imagine that you’ll want to do a closing rebuttal sort of thing. I won’t be replying to whatever you have to say, so, if you celebrate-

Merry Christmas!