Some people are super tasters and they'll always have that problem. But most people stop noticing the aftertaste after a week or two of regular consumption. But I agree, when I started sugar free that aftertaste was nasty.
Now, the aftertaste of sweetened drinks is nasty, the lingering coy sweetness is vile.
Living forever sounds awful. For one, I am extremely curious what happens when I die. Without death, life becomes a hollow shell, or at least I imagine it would, as you would lack urgency.
The other is with something like fentanyl where you could have a whole conversation during the procedure, but when you finish the procedure, you don't remember it.
The experience afterwards is pretty much identical, but philosophically both seem very different.
It is a clinical term, you are arguing over semantics. Cardiopulmonary death to be specific. My point is: no one knows, not you, not me, and not my dog.
I don't know what's behind a wall I'm sitting next to right now, but I'm reasonably sure there's a street. I'm also reasonably sure the comment about "you've been dead" is also a very accurate prediction.
That wall is concrete and material. Death is not so much. I am reasonably sure you can do that with great accuracy while still having zero idea what lies in wait for us after we die. A false equivalence.
On the one hand you say without death life would lack urgency, yet you seem to be open to life after death. If there was life after death... wouldn't it lack urgency?
If there isn't life after death, you simply don't exist anymore and there are no more possibilities open to you. So I'd be more than happy to postpone finding about out for as long as possible.
I personally disagree on the first point. Claude code in a terminal with vim is much nicer. I just don’t see the need for the bloat of an IDE when the CLI versions work so damn well now.
The pace at which we sprint toward a full blown surveillance state, with unaccountable oracles sentencing us for pre-crime, is alarming to say the least.
Snowdens document leaks happened in 2013 (implying the surveillance state was set up well before then). So this is more a leisurely stroll than a sprint.
Room 641A was leaked in 2006. To some extent, this all started in the 1940s with the Enigma and JN-25 code breaks. After that, everyone knew that intelligence was the future of power.
Unfortunately while evocative, it doesn't really make sense.
A Zamboni has a "conditioner" at the rear that contains a sharp horizontal blade that shaves the ice as the machine runs across the ice. The blade is a bit like a very wide wood-plane. It is sharp and controlled to be a little below the current surface of ice. The shavings are moved to a waste tank using an internal horizontal auger and vertical auger.
You usually couldn't get near enough to the blade to have a close enough shave for it to harm you. However I'm guessing a Zamboni could hurt you in other ways.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the details . . . I'm sure applying the right amount of intelligence could discover harmful means.
Anyone who had read Bamford's books on the NSA many years prior to 2013 took a look at what info came out and had an internal thought process like "this is nothing new at all".
"I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country! Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield."
Th amount of conservatives/republicans that love Starship Troopers (the film) because they take it at face value is pretty scary. The ones that call it poor satire are especially…interesting.
They continue to prove Verhoeven’s point many times over even decades later.
How many times do we have to tell you this old man?
The book and author of the book was serious/not satire and meant everything earnestly at least the time of writing.
It’s objectively not meant to be looked at as satire. Most of the “citizenship requires service” stuff would be amazing from the perspective of smashing this countries geriocracy.
Verhoeven is the filmmaker, that adapted the book to the screen. He is very much an anti-fascist, and absolutely did turn the book into a satire of itself and the ideology it tries to convey.
> Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first two chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. They then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would make the film a satirical hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture: "Ed and I [..] felt that we needed to counter with our own narrative. Basically, the political undercurrent of the film is that these heroes and heroines are living in a fascist utopia - but they are not even aware of it! They think this is normal. And somehow you are seduced to follow them, and at the same time, made aware that they might be fascists." Verhoeven later claimed that many viewers had not caught on to the satirical part. Ironically, diehard Heinlein fans later declared that the filmmakers themselves also completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism, and depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.
The book does contain fascist themes and Heinlein was not advocating for traditional libertarianism in it. I read it more as exploring the boundaries of liberty and what would constitute a “free” society. The society was, for most, effectively free, just that a normal person didn’t have the right to full citizenship without serving. It was a utopia for the average person - only those that served really saw the absolute horrors of war and were the only ones able to vote and hold office. Would you rather live in a society where your quality of life was genuinely excellent but you weren’t entitled to vote or one where your quality of life is markedly worse but you are allowed to steer the direction of your own governance? It’s a theme explored in many utopian stories, usually with the conclusion that freedom trumps ignorant bliss.
In a vacuum I think the interpretation Verhoeven had is mostly fine. It only becomes apparently ignorant if you’ve read more of Heinlein’s work, where libertarian themes are pervasive.
Why is that surprising? He’s been that way on the public stage for 40 years. What’s surprising is his base popularity hasn’t moved at all. He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
>He’s giving a fair chunk of the population what they want.
That would be upsetting if so. I feel the far more frightening thing is he is telling a large swath of people who don't know what they want, what they want. And then delivering that. So it could be literally anything.
Because the only thing they really want is validation of their unserious world view, and their frustration that results from it. Trump's thrashing around without a coherent plan and [inevitably] making our position worse mirrors their own existence.
It was his selling point. The people who voted for him don't care that he has no ideological conviction. They like that he is instinctively against "liberals". It just so happens that those are the people giving him less money and groveling.
The low-brow term for this is "owning the libs", but I believe it's really what's happening. It doesn't matter his personal moral failures or inconsistency, as long as he sets back social progress.
Me too! They were an excellent ethicist if I recall. Well read, liked the classics. Excellent at figuring out what was best for the people around them. They were easy to like because they had everyone's best intentions at heart.
> Two accelerationists might have directly opposed beliefs and goals.
The same way as there has been a left-wing socialism and a right-wing socialism, which in the case of inter-war France (for example) ended up with the Ni droite, Ni gauche slogan. But I can understand that the audience here is not that willing to embrace dialectic thinking, even though discussing about politics of the last 200 years or so without involving said dialectic thinking would be a futile thing.
That comparison doesn't make any sense. Socialism is an ideology. Accelerationism is a strategy that can be used by a person of any ideology. A communist can be an accelerationist, so can a fascist, a liberal, a monarchist, an ethnonationalist, etc. It can be a strategy to try to advance any policy, pro/anti-slavery, pro/anti-abortion, etc.
Accelerationists are people who want to embrace the ultra-capitalist surveillance state to force a societal collapse in order to eventually built a better society on its ruins. We are very far from that goal, so I don't see how they have been proven right about anything.
Self inflicted these incidents are. All Blizzard needs to do is follow the lead of the OSRS team, make the old game and add new breadth, listen to your players not your shareholders. For all the dumb mistakes Jagex has made at least you feel heard with their polling and it feels like their is progression.
The team running WoW just care that you buy the new mount bundle every season. It is no wonder PvP has been dead for like a decade, the races to world first are only two serious guilds competing against each other and in general both Classic and Retail are memes in the year of our lord 2026. Retail in particular is a lobby game, not really an RPG, where you just queue into things and barely have to explore. Perhaps I am just bitter and jaded but I feel like we lost something so special along the way, and that makes me really bummed, haha.
I'm not a WoW player (never had the PC required to play it, until I did, and now I'm busy with other things), and I don't care about Blizzard's rights as IP holder, but what exactly is Blizzard failing to deliver which makes Turtle WoW's success self-inflicted? Sounds like Retail is no good, but don't they have 4 or 5 different versions of "WoW Classic" to choose from?
For me the biggest draw of Turtle WoW was not the custom content, their custom content was mediocre and their class balance patches were disastrous for PvP.
The best things about Turtle WoW for me:
- They actively banned real money traders, i e cheaters, buying in-game currency for real money from third parties, and bots generating said in-game currency to be sold for real money. In my experience this is simply not done, at least not to the extent that Turtle WoW did as on WoW Anniversary. On multiple occasions I discovered bots farming gold (it's easy to recognize them by how they play, even easier if you try to interact with them) and reported them to the game masters, all of them were banned within hours on Turtle WoW.
- They disallowed "boosting" and "GDKP".
"Boosting" is the act of a high level player rushing lower level players through lower dungeons to level them up at a much much faster rate than what they can achieve by themselves. The global chat in WoW Anniversary was being spammed non-stop with "boosting" advertisements from other players, selling their boosting services for in-game currency. "GDKP" is the act of buying gear from raids with in-game currency. Both of these activities incentivizes buying in-game currency for real money i e cheating. Besides that, having those kinds of player services banned, the global chat in Turtle WoW was actually just a chat where people could have conversations and not just a spam dump of advertisements.
The overall atmosphere and the social aspects on Turtle WoW were much better than that of WoW Anniversary. I believe that is partly due to the two points above. Despite their custom content, Turtle WoW feels more like WoW felt in its initial state over 20 years ago, than Blizzard's Anniversary servers ever did for me.
Did you ever play Turtle? They did a lot more than just that, as per the top comment in this lineage, and were serving a subset of the community by listening to what people want. Turtle WoW was popular because Blizzard and the shareholders do not care about making a fun and engaging game. They care about you spending money in their store and finding ways to poison the economy with their own gold buying system. WoW died in December 2010, the true spirit at least. Makes me sad to say that, and I hope Classic+ is everything we dreamed, but framing Turtle as just another private server is disingenuous. They were on the wrong side of the law, and perhaps they did get some money for their efforts, but at least they tried harder than the entire WoW Classic team combined.
I have had Bazzite on my gaming PC for a while now, never have to mess with the terminal much. It has come a long, long way. Even gentoo has become more accessible than ever. While some of this holds true, you most certainly do not need to live in the command line with some of these distros. Especially if you are just trying to play some games and browse the web, etc.
I imagine most of them were motivated by money. OpenAI was supposed to be Open. As I understand it, it was not created for shareholder profits and instead was made to benefit everyone? Hence the Open name. Then someone like Sam comes along who can make you incredibly rich by casually ignoring the initial mission. Would you go against this incredibly powerful billionaire who by many accounts is not encumbered by ethical quandaries? In doing so you risk your financial freedom, and for what? OAI is already a husk of its intended purpose. Mine as well get paid to be a sellout.
> OpenAI was on the verge of closing a large investment from Thrive, a venture-capital firm founded by Josh Kushner, Jared Kushner’s brother, whom Altman had known for years. The deal would value OpenAI at eighty-six billion dollars and allow many employees to cash out millions in equity.
Probably a factor in the pro Sam camp. Hard to stand up against a big payday.
reply