- 0 Posts
- 20 Comments
deleted by creator
1·4 months agoWe’re gonna have to Marty McFly/Planet Vulcan this guy in the middle of the night
91·5 months agodeleted by creator
29·5 months agoFun fact about the original Sim City: the lead developer said that they wanted to model real cities in the game, but “we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots.”
Thank you for this clear, helpful answer
But… Why? Why would they get different restrictions on the basis of operating system?
This article is from 2014
*governor, not senator, but otherwise correct
3·7 months agoSounds like that’s in here:
“The test build shows the horizontal tab bar and the sidebar at the same time by default. A click on the new “hide tab strip” button hides the horizontal tab bar so that only the vertical sidebar remains.”
Agreed. There’s a slight relief here, though: I believe this is the Times Square shuttle train, which only runs back and forth over a few stations and never goes outside. So at least you’re not on this train for long and never missing a view
Folks are asking “Why post this here?” I get the question but I think I also get the OP, as a New Yorker who was surprised to see this ad IRL.
Most of our subway ads are for VC-funded Internet darlings (think: mattresses-by-mail, kitschy underwear, online therapy) or for some aspiring blockbuster movie from an Internet giant.
Until I saw this ad, I had never in my life seen a subway ad for a company I actually used, let alone respected.
Seeing this ad in the wild broke my brain. I have advocated for online privacy for over a decade. I have spent so much energy pushing people to use Signal. But I had never before imagined that “online privacy” was a concept that could find an audience in mass marketing.
I don’t know if Mullvad will take off. But I know that seeing these ads moved me. I felt like maybe, MAYBE, our movement is breaking through.
3·8 months agoOne of the best things, if you can afford it: enroll in a class. Could be anything. Painting. Swimming. Dancing. Learning something new alongside other people really puts your mind in a different state
Cool article but Wired already published this 2 years ago. Wonder why they’re repubbing?
What does “biologically rational” mean?
Do you mean “This is what’s rational for me, as an organism” ? Seems to me that a lot of self-serving behavior could be classified as “biologically rational.”
But as Marxists, do we not strive to transcend that kind of short-term, isolationist thinking? Do we not try to take a long view, grounded in compassion and egalitarianism?
So, too, do the antinatalists. Both groups understand that you can’t have a society if the only people you care about are your kin. That is to say, “biological rationalism”-- whatever that is-- has no place in Marxism
Yes, there are some folks who overlap, but it’s not inevitable. There are principled antinatalists who don’t want anything to do with the Malthusians. David Benatar is a good example. His question is, “is it moral to create a being that can & will suffer?” That’s a question that has nothing to do with the size of the population/resources.
That’s a fair question, but “Ensuring that fewer people experience suffering by creating fewer people” is a completely fair answer. It just rubs people the wrong way because it runs up against our unscientific, irrational need to reproduce
That’s not really accurate. What you’re describing is the movement against “overpopulation.” That movement often uses concerns about resource shortages as a backdoor into eugenics and upholding the current liberal order.
Antinatalists aren’t worried about those concerns, primarily. Their argument is that because all life experiences suffering, creating life is inherently cruel and immoral. IMHO that argument has some overlap with Marxism in that it’s an egalitarian concern for all people in society.
So can I get rid of container tabs now