Is this that whole immortality thing keep seeing?

Direct link to the team update on steam.

Mick Gordon leaving the project is a bummer, but I can’t wait to hear the stuff he made so far for it.

Idea!

Carbonize the remains and then woodchipper those! They’re basically charcoal so it’s less messy, and they can be caught in a net NP!

Meat stick.

The loss of skill requirements within trades and crafts is likely a major factor in the cascades of ineptitude we experience in our society. The barriers to entry also directly benefitted the quality of those spaces, and naturally flagged the incompetent (if you are incompetent and lack spell check, your mis-spellings served as a demonstration that you are not a skilled writer. Same for driving, musical recognition, engineering as well).

We’ve seen a clear decline in the general quality of all products, and I can’t help but feel that the automation of skill is directly connected to that decline. This tweet seems to mirror that sentiment in its mockery. You don’t have to think anymore about pretty much any of the process, you just get an output you can ship immediately. So it goes without saying that you can be without any skill and still have a footprint within spaces you have no merit to be in.

What you talkin bout? We already got that.

It goes in the round hole!

OK so for better conveyance, I will say the pencil rewound the tape, and leave this handy image:

Yer in it baby!

So that is not AI - most likely this image was fucked up by some AI-upscaling software. Here’s a less edited version.

And a different angle.

That’s the ‘Magdeburg Unicorn’ found in the Museum of Natural Science in Magdeburg (I think that’s an OK translation? “Museum für Naturkunde”). It’s a woolly rhino fossil and is described as ‘the worst fossil reconstruction in history’. Remember this image next time you feel bad about yourself.

I heard that a possible explanation of currency was blood feuds. Basically, if some extreme wrong was done on one family by another, instead of having a big conflict over it, the mediating government would give the wronged family a ‘proof of wronging’ that was legal tender. The generic value of that proof was either to represent a unit of flesh if the debt was not paid, or an amount of a specific valued-but-common good, but which could be sufficed with other goods in negotiations (some goods that were suggested were a pound of grains or a number of wolf pelts). I don’t know how accepted that idea is, but it sure beats the old-and-cliche barter system idea.

Video that introduced me to this hypothesis.

Very good first sentence to learn.

I’ve been using the K380 and pebble mouse. It’s not large, so probably not for you. You can buy the pebble 2 combo now. I bought a basic leather case for the k380 which works fine.

It got a weird issue a couple years in where it never powers down, so for travel I remove one of the AAA batteries and slide that into the case next to it. The pebble mouse has never acted up. A couple of keycaps on the k380 also fell off before I got to he case, so I would say that if you’re carrying it in a backpack I’d definitely recommend getting a case.

Overall, though, it keeps chugging without much more issue. I also reconfigured the keycaps to reflect my Dvorak layout without any special tools.

Gotta make sure it’s visible from the street so everyone can see it.

That design goes so fucking hard.

Let me introduce you to the racist motive

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

• John Ehrlichman, President Nixon’s Domestic Policy Cheif. (Harper’s Magazine)

e/os, for the fairphone 4 at least, is based on lineageOS.

Not so. There are those that believe objectivism is the true way of viewing the world. They view that we are on the way to understanding the universe as it truly is, that human perception will not pose an obstacle to that pursuit, and that there will eventually be one true method of viewing the universe in its entirety that is yet to be discovered. Constructivist beliefs directly oppose that idea, since all science is a man-made construct that can only approximate reality in their view. Constructivism also, then, leaves room for multiple theories coexisting because they provide better utility and insights in different circumstances. In the example of Einstein’s Relativity vs Newton’s Physics, we are talking about an older theory and the theory which usurped it because it was more accurate, and the general expectation is that another theory will be accepted down the line which will be better than both. That expectation is fairly objectivist, since it assumes there is a true model which we just haven’t discovered yet. Constructivism does not make that assumption, since the universe likely does not fit neatly into our constructions in its image.

The other thing, is that constructivism challenges scientific realism to some extent, in that it challenges the existence of many things which we cannot directly observe, such as quarks, proteins, particles, etc… because “how can we actually confirm these things exist, when we physically can’t observe them, and the things we’re using to show their existence are constructs made up by us?”

This topic is still very much in a state of debate that has very strong implications around the philosophy of how science works and how it should be conducted. That’s also just talking about constructivism’s implications in the physical sciences. Things get much hairier when you start looking at the social sciences, where biases and perception are extremely influential on what we discover. Constructivism directly challenges the attainability of scientific objectivity, which has serious implications across all fields of science.

That’s fair. Language changed for accuracy.

This guy should learn to view science more like a constructivist. Pretty much everything in science is just something we made up that mostly aligns with the natural world, and just because one model is less accurate than another does not mean it’s no longer useful.

We didn’t abandon Newtonion physics when Einstein’s model was accepted for instance, since Newtonian physics is still very useful, and much easier to use compared to others.

Edit: changed language from ‘proven’ to ‘accepted’.

No pet!