I thought the same thing; I’d love to see more low-poly style IRL. The CT looks impressively terrible from the back though.

There’s plenty of great stuff in there; I especially recommend filtering for dead hardware.

I can’t say I feel the prog vibes in this one.

I just the other day edited a Steam config file with some wacky file extension by cracking it open in notepad. Bless plain text.

Don’t forget Kodi!

I’m not complaining; I’m clarifying for less informed readers. It’s a subtle and often misleading distinction.

Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software “even more open source” is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.

You’re not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.

More open strictly in that it allows free software to be rolled up into proprietary software.

Just because competition can be suppressed temporarily within a discrete system doesn’t mean it has ceased to exist. Exactly why ideologies that demand the absence of competition will eventually be outcompeted from the outside.

The health of the current system is undenianly declining, absolutely. But competition is eternal and non-optional, so systems that seek to eliminate it are intrinsically doomed.

Well, competition has been going pretty strong for the last four billion years; time will tell.

Yes, exactly! For all the noxious effects of greed, it drives competition which drives evolution.

Even if a utopian communist/anarchist society were able to stabilize on its own, it would inevitably be overcome at some point in the future by a more competitive society that had martially evolved beyond the utopia’s understanding.

Whether its right or wrong has no bearing on the entropy of it.

In this context, I think ‘dehumanization’ really means declaring someone not a valid person, rather than any specific assertion of species. A conflation of person/human much in the way gender and sex are often conflated.

Well that and extremely standardized platforms, with all the benefits that entails.

What a goofy take. “Having trouble with self control? Have you tried having self control?” Obviously there’s something more going on or life would be a whole lot simpler. Sometimes externalizing a decision through a tool like a timer is part of how a person indirectly exerts self control.

In part it has to do with matching overly consistently with the moves engines would pick. Even the best players in the world perform worse than modern engines, not to mention you’d expect human players to vary at least sometimes by personal preference among roughly equivalent options.

A friend gave me the 6-CD “power pack” of Mandrake 10 that could install a quite wide range of optional software completely offline. Hooked me too.

A bit off-topic, but a completely understandable theology. I personally don’t find it meaningful to speculate about what god ‘knows’, since god is beyond all things.

In any case I’m glad you understand why believers tend to look before they cross the road.

Believers still understand intuitively just as you do that people who don’t look before they cross tend to get hit more often. Whether you call it “god’s will” or “just the way things are” has no bearing on the fact that it is prudent to look before you leap.

Your argument applies equally to non-believers. If a freak accident might kill you despite your best efforts, why bother trying to protect yourself at all?

The reason your argument is fallacious is also the same whether you believe in god or not: the future isn’t knowable.

The vast majority of believers believe god’s plan includes free will. God may know the future, but we can certainly agree that we do not.

By the logic you seem to be presenting, why would believers take any action whatsoever?

Believing in god does not mean one believes nothing bad can happen to them.