While peat regenerates, it does so slowly, so they might actually have burned off some measurable elevation (on average)

*Breaks the law

*Is convicted

*Refuses to pay fines

*Stops receiving funds

*shockedpikachu.jpg

At this point I really can’t understand what is driving Orban anymore. He obviously must have known this would happen, and is likely doing it on purpose so that he can point at the EU as the “bad guy” back home, but like… what does he gain from this? Isn’t it better to just get a shitload of free money from the EU that you can funnel to your friends and family than to not do that? If he legitimately dislikes the EU he can just leave.

Maybe he’s just sticking around as long as he can grab cash? It kind of seems like he’s going for the “see how far you can push it before you’re kicked out” play. Essentially trying to find out how much of an obstructing, law-breaking, corrupt asshole he has to be before the rest of the EU finally has enough and kicks him out, at which point he can peace out to some safe-haven (I’ve heard there are spare rooms in some of Putins palaces).

I’m not quite sure what assumptions you’re talking about, but I do want to hear what you have to say.

What you’re answering to is about opposing external hostile forces, that wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m talking about internal criminal environments that are dispersed in the population and make a living off anything from fabricating documents or scamming people to trafficking or smuggling. Just like modern organised criminal environments, these are not groups you can “wage war” against.

My question is related to how these will be dealt with if not by involuntary imprisonment/re-education/some other involuntary and enforced way of preventing them from exploiting society?

Ok, I’m only really having issue with the “which shouldn’t be hard” part. What makes you think that violent response from an anarchist society would be more effective than the police/justice system in a modern state?

These groups exist today, and it turns out that making them crumble by arresting (or, in some countries, executing) their members is a significantly non-trivial task. That’s when you have an organised force opposing them, which doesn’t need to deal with internal disputes the way an anarchistic force would need to.

I’m asking: In a hypothetical anarchist society, how do you deal with organised criminal environments that live off exploiting other members of society, and who refuse to follow rules or rulings created by the consensus of those that don’t want to be exploited?

I’m pointing out that these groups exist and have existed in more or less every society of decent size, so they must be factored in somehow. I’m also pointing out the “voluntary prison, or else you’ll be excluded from society” likely doesn’t work, as these are people that have already accepted living a life on the side of the rest of society, within their own environment.

I would also like to know what the slur is

So what do you do to deal with the situation we see in modern states with an actual centralised “monopoly” on violence: Organised criminal environments that live off exploiting the rest of society?

We’re talking about people that don’t care if you shun them, because they have their own environment, with their own hierarchy and set of rules, and they’re willing to use violence to exploit the rest of society to make a living.

I just came back to Europe after a couple weeks in the US. The US was beautiful (travelled in the Rockies). I was surprised by the fact that I unironically would not be able to live there just because of the food. Everything was so drowned in cheese / sugar / unspecified ultraprocessed something that I had legitimate digestion issues the first week.

• “I would like an omelette please”
• “Yes sir, do you want eggs in that or just the cheese?”

I had no idea I could miss just plain real bread as much as I did by the time I got back.

What does that have to do with non-Euclidean geometry?

I never understood that. Apparently they use it as a primary way of messaging each other? At least that’s what younger relatives have told me. I’ve tried to have them explain what makes the app designed to hide/delete stuff after it’s been read better for communication, but so far haven’t gotten an explanation I could make any sense of.

“Enshittification will continue until revenue improves”

I’ve found that regex is maybe the programming-related thing GPT is best at, which makes sense given that it’s a language model, and regex is just a compact language with weird syntax for describing patterns. Translating between a description of a pattern in English and Regex shouldn’t be harder for that kind of model than any other translation so to speak.

In general I agree: ChatGPT sucks at writing code. However, when I want to throw together some simple stuff in a language I rarely write, I find it can save me quite some time. Typical examples would be something like

“Write a bash script to rename all the files in the current directory according to <pattern>”, “Give me a regex pattern for <…>”, or “write a JavaScript function to do <stupid simple thing, but I never bothered to learn JS>”

Especially using it as a regex pattern generator is nice. It can also be nice when learning a new language and you just need to check the syntax for something- often quicker than swimming though some Geeks4Geeks blog about why you should know how to do what you’re trying to do.

Ngl you had me until the 1772 bit

Well it’ll still be climate change, just a more abrupt one.

Looking up “historic” election victories for the German far-right

First of all, that speech is awesome.

But I want to comment on something regarding modding, and ask an honest question: Shouldn’t reiteration of historical speeches or texts be omitted from rules about slurs? I mean, reiterating a speech, or a section of Huckleberry Finn, is obviously not the same thing as devaluing someone by calling them a slur. We actually have a quite hot debate going on in my country about this now, where some teachers were harassed for “being racist”, because in class they read aloud a famous poem written by an immigrant about racism, where he writes some of the things that were shouted at him. The whole point of the poem, and of reading it in class, is of course to make a point out of how bad racism is, and to educate about racism. Still, these teachers have been stamped as “racists” because they reiterated specific words in the poem.

For the honest question (I’m not American or a native english speaker): Isn’t there a historical difference between the word “Negro”, and a certain similar word I’ll refrain from reiterating? The way I’ve understood it, the former is a historically more neutral form, that was simply used the way we today would use “black person”, while the latter has more or less always had some kind of devaluating undertone. I’ve gotten that interpretation, among other things, from having read speeches where people are promoting equal rights, and use “Negro” to refer to black people, while clearly not believing that they are inferior in any way (hence the promotion of equal rights). Of course, today, both words are considered unacceptable, but I would like to clarify if I’ve misunderstood, as it helps in interpreting things that were said or written in the past.

I would love to see Harris just stop for a second, turn over towards Trump, and say something like “Your mic is turned off you know, could you stop yelling for a moment?”, and have the cameras cut to a silent video of Trump furiously yelling at his turned-off mic.

The point the other commenter is making, which I fully agree with, is that I can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to update. Windows shoving updates down my throat when they can potentially break critical stuff on my machine is pretty much just equivalent to forcing malware on me.

I think it’s horrible to see what the Taliban government is doing to oppress the people of Afghanistan. I’m also surprised that so few people of Afghanistan showed any real will to prevent Taliban from taking power. They had 20 years to prepare, with ample support and loads of equipment from NATO and others, and when the foreign forces left they just … capitulated.

It’s baffling to me that seemingly nobody was willing to fight to prevent this. Thousands of people were at the airport during the last evacuations, and I vividly remember videos of people holding on to cargo planes that were taking off in an effort to get out of the country. Lots of people clearly knew it was going to get bad, but seemingly nobody was willing to fight to prevent it. I honestly have a hard time understanding how that happened.