He goes into their tech and how they do JS splitting and stuff. Looks old, but they’re using modern techniques afaik

Let’s see your funny and cohesive movie world and story written, performed, and edited to youtube for millions then! The world building is pretty basic and derivative, but it’s at its heart closer to a satire than anything resembling a serious story. I think there was significant effort in building, but also writing recording, etc.

Weird the example he gave isn’t imperative, which I think would be “Fix a null pointer dereference in …”

theres a youtube movie someone made about a dystopian society in minecraft whose economy operates on doing cool parkour tricks and climbing the ranks to become a minecraft parkour god. it’s hilarious and high-effort, but stupid

Context:
https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/17

Confidential Dolby code was pushed, though just some headers files.

I C Weiner!?

I’ve just read a book about Somme, and it’s absolutely true for that battle that surrendered enemies were killed for mere convenience - so they wouldn’t have to take them back and feed them. I read this of the British in particular, but that’s who the book was about, so.

This is hilarious

I have never heard this having married a Nutmegger (CT) from them or their family. I’ve actually never heard this from anyone ever in my life! The way I’m reading it, I can for some reason only hear it in a heavy Southern drawl, like MS or AL? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I swear yesterday it said The Guardian was “very high” or maybe I just was 🤔

You are already (fat and fluffy) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They frequently report on conspiracies and political myths, too

Curious why this bot gathers downvotes - can anyone say?

Maybe that’s reasonable. Where do we draw the line? What’s the statute of limitations on an atrocity? What is terrible enough to warrant a ban? What about having capital punishment? Depending on where you draw the line, I feel like a lot of the world would be stripped of their colors at the Olympics, which to me feels like it defeats the purpose.

ty for your take

edit: added example

That’s fair I think

I mean, Hitler was at the Olympics. What have these athletes done to personally contribute to genocide? Should Americans be unwelcome for Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Gitmo? Any of the various coups in South America? Grenada?

Just a thought. Not sure of the correct course of action here.

Hold down j and lmk how smooth it is 😅

I mean, it should be clear. Smooth and fast and snappy. If you don’t want that, use neovim like me :)

I think that you have a well-reasoned and valid view. It’s not that I regret my birth, but that I didn’t consent to being a living, conscious thing – the consent portion of which you can reasonably view as an impossibility.

Suffering is a necessity of living, and therefore bringing a person into the world means they will suffer. You’re right that I generally take a utilitarian view of things, upon reflection. Though, taking it to its most extreme conclusion, I could never be asked to choose between saving 5 million people if it meant killing 4,999,999. Such thought experiments leave me confounded.

Maybe it’s the case we’re faced with infinite impossible choices because the universe doesn’t care and tends towards entropy. There is likely no perfect answer. All I can do as a person is try to beget as little pain into world as possible, but I recognize that my view isn’t without flaw or applicable to everyone everywhere all the time.

This is also why I don’t simply despise people who have children, like my own parents.

I appreciate you taking the time to explore this with me! Genuinely much food for thought.

I say that it’s actually impossible to answer, except in the most extreme cases.

It’s certainly impossible to answer in a single broad stroke for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful or relevant to think about.

That is because the question was about rights, not consent.

If that’s so, then we’re talking past one another. My point is that in my ethical framework, having a child is wrong. They are incapable of consenting as you point out, which is part of why I view it as wrong.

Existence is a presupposition to consent.

Why? The child surely exists before, during, and after its birth. Can’t it be that the unborn human is incapable of consent rather than creating a paradox? I understand the chicken-and-egg problem you are describing, but I think it’s incomplete. As a fully functioning human being now, if I look back at my birth, did I consent? Did I exist yet? I think I can say simply, “No, I did not consent to being born.” Whether you ascribe a negative, positive, or neutral value to this is up to you. In my opinion, it’s immoral.

In what way is that different to negotiation?

It isn’t. I don’t think we disagree on this

But birth is a natural result of conception.

Yes, however isn’t this logic used to argue against abortion? I’d argue that a person becomes a full “person” at birth, which is perhaps arbitrary, but we have to define that point somewhere. Regardless of when we say a person “exists”, they still cannot consent regardless.

That all said, is anti-natalism completely correct for everyone? I don’t know. I’m sure our species going extinct would create lots of suffering for the dwindling population. Maybe on average, humans do not regret their existence. Does that mean it’s moral to make more conscious beings who are capable of feeling that regret?