Sure I can’t. But limiting the emissions can come to a point when world becomes carbon-negative. This would cool the oceans and the atmosphere, changing the currents yet again. Indeed, the interactions are more complex, and it won’t reverse in a complete sense, but it will get better.

We have absolutely no control

We absolutely do, that’s a doomer narrative that is extremely useful for those invested in making it worse.

Science suggests we face a reversible issue.

I recently had 2/3 of drive space taken by btrfs snapshots. Still learning to manage them properly :D

Except previously bombarding another person’s server for personal gain was illegal.

Lol

Hope you find bros who appreciate your current hugs :)

Joke’s on you, I jumped over to the second before reading the first

GRUB absolutely takes partitions from other physical drives, and so do many other bootloaders afaik.

So, you can choose the OS to boot as normal as you start up your computer. Just install virtually any modern Linux distro after you install Windows or if you already have it installed. The rest will be done automagically.

And in my experience, most laptops with a single drive can accommodate a second one. But YMMV for sure.

I generally disagree on dual booting. It’s not complicated, barely ever goes wrong if each OS has its own physical drive, and having Windows as a backup is very, very handy, especially at first.

Fair enough - but malicious or not, it does cause issues and builds barriers to inclusion.

Talking about subsections is not about competition. It’s about unhealthy arrangement that, again, can easily be used to exclude people. It just doesn’t make sense to divide it this way.

Intersectionality talks about many issues, and one of them, part of it, is sexism. So, putting it under umbrella of feminism is like putting animals under the umbrella of bees.

My experience interacting with men’s liberation is mostly just men going 100% into misandric narrative that men are to blame for anything and everything. As one person underscored it under one such post, “if a woman struggles - it’s society’s fault. If a man struggles - it’s a man’s fault”. There’s no room there for not blaming men for the discrimination they receive.

The label is important, though, because as long as we call it all feminism, any conversation that does not explicitly target women audience may be maliciously hijacked. I’ve seen this happening in the wild a lot - people arguing that we steal feminism when talking about issues from another perspective.

Also, speaking of intersectionality, isn’t it weird for it to be a subsection of feminism again? Intersectionality commonly includes issues of race, disabilities, transgender individuals, and so on, and as such, men along with nonbinaries who struggle on each of the axis may not get adequate attention and representation under the umbrella of feminism, as again, it’s “about women” (it kinda is).

To me, antisexism should cover feminism, masculism (a term recently hijacked by bad actors, but initially coming from the same place as feminism - equality for all, focus on instances of male discrimination), a movement of nonbinary people.

Intersectionality should go above feminism, and above antisexism for that matter. It is about all struggles of all groups of people, and ultimately stands to cover it all - antisexism, anti-racism, trans inclusion, inclusion of people with disabilities, etc. etc.

Sure, this was not a political statement or anything. Only a mention that lab-grown meat can technically be seen as vegan.

Personally, I still have meat in my diet, but I do experiment with plant-based options like soy meat and seitan, and also play around with tofu and oat milk.

Lab grown meat, too

Locking information into corporate-controlled loops is antithetical to freedom and accessibility.

Having singular proprietary point of entry, or even few of them, into the entire knowledge of mankind is not sharing.

This is the part people are willing to protect. Actual peer-to-peer sharing of information, with as little private choke points as possible.

And having the web ruined by SEO is not an argument to keep going. It’s already worse than it should be, and search engines already provide worse quality results than before. This needs to be reversed, not reinforced.

When the Web was first designed, some of the concerns we have today were nonexistent.

I believe in freedom of information, and would love for the information I share to be accessed in any way a given user wants.

But I have to stand defensive and support the author here, too. The modern LLM boom aims to essentially replace original resources with AI-generated summaries step by step. This is detrimental to the Internet, and to knowledge as we know and preserve it.

First, there is an event commonly called Google Zero, which is briefly mentioned in the article. If you don’t know what it is, it is the not-so-hypothetical-anymore moment when Google (or, really, any other large player) essentially accumulates all information on the Web, feeds it to AI, and since then doesn’t serve links anymore, going straight to answers based on training data. Users will jump to this - they already do - because it offers convenience. But for any independent creators it means having no audience, no money, and no means to produce new quality content, trapping users in a self-containing loop that loses nuance, actuality, and truthfulness, and stays under corporate control. This goes beyond cooking recipes and personal notes - it permeates science, political discussion, and much more.

Second, LLMs multiply traffic coming to sites, which becomes an infrastructural problem. Bots access sites at much higher rates than humans do, and when their intent is to scrape your entire website every now and again and there are dozens of them, this becomes huge.

Third, having proprietary models train on the data I provide without any attribution, copyright etc. makes giant corporation profit off my back, while at the same thing making it so that less genuine users will see what I produce. This means careers of authors, journalists etc. are dying, and this also means they are left free to abuse each and every one of us without any consent.

Fourth, and I wonder if you see it by now, LLMs and the way they represent data, along with SEO tools meant to drive information through the search bots, begin to shape how we talk. All I say doesn’t have to be a list of points, yet it is. It could be less verbose, more readable, yet it is the way it is. Because when we interact with the products of such developments too much, we begin shaping our own language in a way that is less human-readable and more meant for machines, without us often being aware of it. This is a real issue of communication.

So, as much as I hate it, I’m gonna protect a lot of the data I share.

Anyone else outside US and Europe: do we exist?

Keep it in mind: every time you take a shit, you’re essentially reverse dildoing your ass. Very homo.

I bet that price is the main issue. The reason all of these startups fall into oblivion is that price is astronomical.

Not reading all that

The most blatant evasion.

Short version personally for you: all good things military does are better done by other specially trained people. And they don’t need deadly weapons for this. Military doesn’t make sense outside killing context.

P.S. My dad served in the army before he disappeared, so I’m pretty sure I know a bit.

Assisting during disasters

Emergency responders do this with much less overhead - like, well, weapons. They also receive a much more extensive training for this specific kind of thing.

Supporting and maintaining equipment

Military equipment, i.e. literal murder machines.

Stabilizing areas

UN Peacekeepers do this. National armies serve “national interests”, as defined by the government backing them. They are not always interested in deescalation of conflicts, and US Army in particular stirred so many conflicts and made them so much worse because it served US government. Same idea for the rest.

It’s not the soldiers decision

It’s their decision to join the army and voluntarily give up their right to refuse. If you know you can be sent to raze territories and people, why do you join in the first place? There are better places to do good aspects of what army occasionally does.

The primary role of military is to project power by either destroying or threatening to destroy anything a given government doesn’t like. Everything else comes secondary, and if not for that, we would have dedicated personnel only meant to do the good things instead. Don’t buy weapons and helicopters, train people to respond to emergencies and assist local civilians in hostile areas. UN does this. But hey, how do you instate banana republics then?

UN is doing pretty much that. A little armed personnel, a lot of medics and cooks to help the locals