urshanabi [he/they]

woaw that’s pretty cool huh

maybe vdo.ninja? it uses webrtc and has not given me performance issues thus far

im almost convinced mozilla and by extension firefox is controlled opposition

not quite as bad as adobe, but they are among the worst

best of luck

Universal Basic Income i’ll have to disagree with (not inherently, rather in nearly all proposed implementations), look into Negative Income Tax, which to my knowledge, was purported by Milton Friedman. A notable economist, known for Monetarism, and advising Reagan during his Reaganomics thing.

Yeah that would be a great idea. The piracy community on dbzer0 uses rentry.co, maybe that’s an option?

Yeah, I like it quite a bit. I wanted to have 3D models of stuff I designed what could be interacted with and I think the capability to integrate existing libraries is there but it’s beyond my skill atm.

The blogging part is neat, I’m a big fan and the nature integration with R Shiny and R Shiny for Python is great.

Christ, this makes me sick.

Maybe to reframe it, it’s like job security?

I always thought Deepin Desktop looked close enough like Windows 10 or 11 that some people might not notice, may be worth trying.

Generally instead of starting off with all your eggs in one basket, it might be worth running say a different distro every week and recording the experiences patrons have and what the people who are doing IT support have. This kind of approach is scientific in nature and gives you relevant data (though only a small amount) for your current environment. It’s also small scale and doesn’t require huge start up cost to begin.

Wish you the best!

When I was younger, I’d save my lunch money for weeks to buy a game and fast during school. I’d do my best to fill my stomach with as much water as I could.

Thanks for the info, I will say I did chuckle from OP’s response but this is infinitely more useful.

I don’t think this is true. The commonly cited reference is James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, I’ll provide the relevant excerpt and a Wikipedia link, though I’ll urge caution as they aren’t authoritative sources by any means. Bolding is mine.

Preamble

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 and is titled “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.

Cherry-picked quote cited by Garry Wills

Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book Explaining America, he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison’s framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: “Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such”.

EDIT: Here’s where I first heard of the argument that the US is not a democracy (in the sense it’s thought of by everyday use, as opposed to the Greek which involves the concept of demos. He’s a Marxist, thought it might be relevant and wouldn’t want to waste your time only to figure it out later.

EDIT EDIT: I didn’t even make my point, whoops. I think the founding fathers were not unaware of the current state of affairs of the electoral college being probsble, rather it was included by design.

I have maybe 2 dozen and I haven’t played a single one. I downloaded titles a few times, forgot about it, then went on and bought the game on steam.

I hear you. I always found it to be very unfortunate :/

Hear hear, I’m the same way. I went further and tried it out and like a pokémon, hurt myself in confusion.

Of course! Here’s is a link I have more resources as well if you’d like.

A quote from another article I have saved:

According to John Cacioppo, a social neuroscientist who specialized in the study of loneliness (he died in 2018), humans would have evolved a built-in bias against easily making friends because avoiding an enemy would have been more important than making a friend. “If I make an error and detect a person as a foe who turns out to be a friend, that’s O.K., I don’t make the friend as fast, but I survive,” Dr. Capiocco said in a 2017 interview in The Atlantic. “But if I mistakenly detect someone as a friend when they’re a foe, that can cost me my life. Over evolution, we’ve been shaped to have this bias.”

A link for the second article here

Ah, ok makes a ton of sense. Thanks for the response.

Interesting, thanks for the response. Robin Dunbar is a psychologist and anthropologist who studies friendship. His claim to fame is ‘Dunbar’s Number’ which is a general statement of how many friends a person can have. It varies from person to person and is influenced by one’s environment, age, beliefs, etc.

He has a way of expressing how relationships manifest themselves based in closeness, I have an here.

This seems to map to what you’re saying. Another thing he said was that the more close friends you have, the less acquaintances you’ll have, and vice versa. There are limits to the number of people you interact with and it can be seen as a sort of hierarchy.

I wanted to ask to get a better understanding: Why do you prefer more time with your kids and wife? Is the idea that your time is better spent to positively affect them and yourself (i.e. enjoying your time with family) and it’s better to ‘put your eggs in one basket’ so to speak? That there is an investment required to have some kind of benefit to make it worthwhile to spend time with others and with family there is a predictable outcome? Do you ever actively engage in criteria to evaluate the methods, reasons, or heuristics you use to determine who to spend time with or who to allocate resources to?

My notion is more investment is given to those who we are closer to due to some perceived positive effect but those heuristics are only ever rules of thumb and wholly influenced by reasons outside of our control. The conclusion is made and then we work backwards to find justification.

I have a friend who spends every weekend with their family, in the infrequent times we do see one another they complain about their parent’s misunderstanding and causing them distress. Rightfully so, as their parents are a bit old-fashioned to say the least. What confused me was, this is a bit machiavellian, they have already seemingly reaped many of the benefits from engaging with their parents and they may be better suited to distributing their time intentionally so as to have a better outcome for themselves and even their parents who are a bit reliant on them and whose ways are set-in further as the friend plays their part in the pattern. They are acclimatized to their environment (with their parents) and the extent that they can predictably or intentionally cause meaningful improvements or positive outcomes is set.

I always thought it would make sense to continually test alternative strategies because at any point one can become ‘comfortable’ at a given local minima or maxima more or less arresting any further development or change. The violent refusal when the topic is broached, and the absolute certainty to which they claimed their current method was superior caught me off-guard and made me confused.