Notices by NotHelpfulUntilIAm🥤 🌛 🗄️ (admitswrongifproven@qoto.org)

@Hyolobrika I agree that reality implementation is quite disappointing in that this feature is missing.

@paul I think you could get away with midnight commander instead of midnight train on artistic license, but i agree that dog and momma are way harder to solve.

You might try to look up some dns records like so: https://www.linode.com/docs/guides/use-dog-linux-dns-client/
to get the dog, but still not a good solution because it's not well known.

Maybe a process didn't respond to the one that spawned it, thus getting mom in? Disappointed in her son, might fit.

@Hyolobrika Hm, not sure what needs discussing.
If women feel safe in women-only spaces is for them to say, not us.
Sports, well, that's so far outside of my sphere of interest that i have no idea in how far that should be relevant. Something something weight-classes? Is the existing amount of competetiveness healthy? I have no idea.

What would be things you think should be discussed?

@Hyolobrika I can't speak to connections between vegetarianism and kosher living, but since many accusations are actually admissions Hitler secretly being a jew would make sense.

@rosey Ah, you are lonely and if you do that on twitter you actually get visitors, but not if you do it here?

@Hyolobrika Hmm, would a web of trust work without user setup? I would guess no, and with that i think it is not feasible under the current circumstances. Would be great i think, but would need a lot more change than the technological part.

@freemo me: becomes trans in protest.
muscular... well, there are limits to what i would do.

@freemo @lucifargundam @louis Good discussion here so far. Everyone can have opinions, but which should have weight? Mainly with lucifar here, personal impact should determine this.

I'd like to add that fetuses "rights", be they legal or ethical rights, are usually viewed a bit short sighted.

A mere right to live does not reflect what the ethical consequences are, and a legal right without considering the actual consequences (after birth) runs afoul of the same ethical problem.

So i see two possibilities:
- guaranteeing a right to live and putting actual work behind the contextual issues: access to birth control (prevent unwanted pregnancy), timely access to abortion (important especially in case of rape), providing care for the birthed baby (not an unwilling mothers job), securing the ability of the growing human to actually lead a good life and not just subsist.
This i can take seriously as an opinion (even if i might disagree, depending on details).

- guaranteeing only the right to live, but just some hand waving at most for the rest of the issues.
In this case, i would have to assume the fetus rights are not the actual issue.

To summarize, if anyone who may or may not be up to the task is forced to do anything, the process is surely an unethical one. Claiming to act in stead of someone who does not have a voice needs diligence and foresight, or it is a false claim.

@freemo Why would you differentiate? Both waste about the same amount of your time.

@freemo New normal? Heard even xbox is displaying ads now, why would linkedin be any better?

@freemo So then no reporting being heckled. I guess they want to run a man page instance, maybe with the occasional patient information leaflet thrown in for fun?

@freemo So no exorcisms either, then. Clbuttic mistake.

@lunarised @Hyolobrika We are so used to having people in power that the cake being made by the many is not even in our worldview anymore ^^

@lunarised @Hyolobrika Another take: Pooling resources is a powerful way to achieve more than everyone could individually, but pooled resources are vulnerable to be highjacked by people that didn't even contribute anything.

@lunarised Well, nuclear is problematic in multiple ways, and since wind/solar seem pretty practical, it would be irresponsible to use it now. The waste that we find no way to deal with, the security concerns that are neglected... not to speak about nuclear weapons. And i hear it is pretty expensive per power generated.

But what i am doubting is that it is the cost of switching. As far as i understand, it is that fossil power infrastructure can net more profits to owners, and switching would prevent them from milking what they already have. So it is important to distinguish between cost to humanity and loss of profits for some few. Not to forget the externalization of costs, as the masses usually suffer more from the ecological damage than the owners.

I generally think oppression (sometimes indirectly and hard to see) is more of an issue than the technology itself.

@lunarised What i had been holding back is the emphasis on the last line, but now that you brought it up... "powers that be" are more dangerous to us than any technology.

I think it becomes obvious with fossil fuel usage: people are often positive about adapting alternatives, but it is not something individuals can do well. A concentration of power is displaying its reluctance to do what is known to be necessary for humanitys survival. The technology would not have been a problem, had it been abandoned when the dangers became clear and alternatives were feasible.

@lunarised Hmm. With irresponsible use of new technology widespread, one could argue that nothing new should be made, since humanity is not mature enough to handle it. But that makes no sense as long as the immature entity has no mature entity to parent.

@lunarised Ah, more of a "can know" thing: engineers work with established technology, scientists also bring upon new technology. So it's not a failing of scientists, but the nature of things.

Yeah, that is another aspect, glad i asked.

@lunarised Seems climate scientists understand very well, but are ignored. Wonder why the focus on scientists and engineers, maybe you want to talk about some aspect i didn't get from the toot?

@freemo I agree with everything you said, including that my logic can be confusing at times.