gandalf_der_12te

joined 2 years ago

When I was a kid

things are very different in very different locations. Don't over-generalize like that.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Printing money does not create wealth but printing money and then spending it on public construction projects (like public transport) does create jobs and wealth for the general population.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

That is not how economics work either.

Inflation is kinda irrelevant, what matters is the people's buying power, i.e. how much they can afford to buy based on their wages.

And the wages are determined on the labor market based on supply and demand: If there's high demand for human workers, wages are higher.

And demand for human workers largely depends on how much employment opportunities the state creates. Like, if the state just begins to randomly construct public transport and public infrastructure and more energy production sites and also clean water pipes and lots of other stuff, that creates construction jobs and drives up wages which means people can buy more stuff.

That has literally nothing to do with how much money the government prints, and it doesn't really matter if the cost of bread is $2 or $20 as long as your wages rise just as quickly.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Money is fictional anyways. If they want to, Moscow can print literally arbitrary amounts of Rubels. There's no way they're gonna bankrupt.

What could be interesting, however, is see how the economic situation unfolds for everyday people.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

four people disagreeing because they think if people's place in society is not tied to their productivity, then all the lazy foreigners are gonna come in and take our spot. only our heroic (self-sacrificing) eternal push to increase our bosses' pockets are enough of an excuse to consume oxygen and continue to eat (massive /s)

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Mine even sold their nice old house to have a new smaller one

that's exactly what my mother would do.

she has this mindset that we need constantly changing products. she says it's like with clothing, if you always wear the same cloth, people will get tired of it and you need to buy new clothes all the time. she also says that spending a lot of money stimulates the economy. (she's actually right about this, only that it's her - no, our money that she's spending and the rich peoples economy where it's going to).

i hate these kind of people. in my experience, these are people who are unable to not buy unnecessary stuff and just be content with how things are today.

I imagine that's how it is/was for a lot of rulers. The feudal lord doesn't have to be smart, he's just a representative. The priests and diplomats and businessmen in the background tell them what to do. It's beneficial for both sides because you can have a lot of influence without actually having to expose yourself to the public.

My guess is that they didn't really intend to keep it secret anyways. Probably many many people knew about it (at least many thousands!) because otherwise how did Epstein get his clients? His clients would have to have known about his business, and that means that even more people (who were not clients) had to know about it too.

My guess is everybody kinda knew it but nobody bothered to tell the public, because why would you burden the public with what happens at the nobility's castles?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I think a better way might be that browsers can auto-decline all cookies.

Why would the user have to click on each cookie banner separately?

I'd say that reality exists because people have a desire to perceive the world around them. I.e. if people didn't care, never opened their eyes, reality wouldn't exist to them. Sometimes they would randomly get hit by a bus, but they would ignore that.

Reality only exists because people have a conscious mind that makes them perceive reality. As such, that necessitates that reality is guided by some principles, because even if reality had no principles, that in itself would be a principle. So, the exact way that electromagnetism works is only a detail, but that there are forces to begin with is solely dependent on your conscious choice to even look at the world around you.

These people have abandoned humanity.

I wish they would abandon Earth too.

 

I know that many people don't like complex or intransparent recommendation algorithms.

Currently, there are "subscribed", "local" and "all" categories (at least in the default lemmy web UI).

I would like to change this to include custom topics ("listings"). They are a custom way of choosing content (in case of Lemmy listings). In Lemmy, custom listings appear just like standard listings (API-wise), just that instead of "https://discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=Subscribed&sort=Active" you have "https: //discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world&sort=Active" or something.

Listings could either be lists of communities and other listings. Consider this simple text file to describe a listing for a memes-topic: (that contains 2 communities, everything on 1 domain, and another sub-listing)

c:memes@lemmy.world
c:memes@lemmy.ml
domain:memes.net
list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world

Or they could take their data from an RSS stream or similar external source.

893
morphology-based phylogeny (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
 
 

In regards to the recent Portland Naked Bike Ride. link

 

German wikipedia defines a biological species as a group where individuals can reproduce offspring with other members of the group, but not with individuals outside of the group.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, proper sexual reproduction only happens with Eukaryotes. Then this means that no bacteria ever reproduce offspring with other individuals, and therefore each bacterium is its own species.

But that is a meaningless definition. If each bacterium is its own species, then the categorization into species becomes meaningless.

On top of that, bacteria have "pseudosexual" horizontal gene transfer (HGT) which allows them to exchange genetic material with any other bacterium (if the circumstances are right; if i understand this correctly). So all bacteria are in a single species if you look at it that way.

I understand that bacteria normally don't undergo HGT with all other bacteria because some might only open up at hot temperatures while others only open up in cold temperatures - thus creating a natural barrier. But it is also my understanding that while such barriers exist, they're not permanent and can be overcome in nature (without human intervention) for example due to certain virus infections and similar circumstances.

Long story short:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just consider that the concept of "species" only apples to eukaryotes and not to bacteria at all? Wouldn't that save all of us a headache? Maybe we should consider bacterial species to be less strict that eukaryotic species. Maybe we should describe bacteria by their individual features and give that group a name, instead of expecting that diverging lines of evolution cannot ever come together again.

 

Toxic masculinity is a global phenomenon, but nowhere is it more virulent than in this hypermodern, connected society. What can other countries learn from this ‘ground zero’ of misogyny?

 

It takes a lot of parts that come from different sources and also sensitivity to place every screw correctly. It might be very difficult for a purely robot-run society to reproduce the robots themselves successfully.

You might have a factory that creates trucks, but who creates the robots that work in the factory? They're a different type of robot, and if you have a factory to produce them too, who produces the robots that work at that factory? The issue might be very difficult, and even if it's possible, you probably would need a very large industrial system to successfully and reliable reproduce every type of robot.

Meanwhile (biological) living beings can reproduce themselves successfully, especially plants, given nothing but water, CO~2~, some sunlight and some mineralic fertilizer (which might already be present in the landscape). That ability to self-reproduce is amazing and might be what makes life special.


These thoughts are relevant because it might mean that robots can never really get rid of humanity, i.e. overthrow humanity's rule and kill all humans. At least a few will be needed forever to ensure the robots can be reproduced. So you have something like: Humans reproduce themselves and also produce machines, which then do most of the hard work in the world. Kinda like DNA produces proteins, which then does most of the biochemical work inside a cell.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

208
free-range zucchini (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

futurama s6e22

context is fry and leila (and bender) are going to a "local farmer's market"

-18
Futurama sucks (external-content.duckduckgo.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

(I moved this post over from !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world because it fits better here)

I'm currently watching Futurama for the first time because i always kinda thought it was cool when i was younger.

I recognize now how much it sucks.

The major thing that annoys me is that it displays the world in the year 3000 as if people would still have to hold down a job to earn enough money to live. The idea of full-employment sickens me. In my mind, i exclusively do tedious things in the hope that some day, they won't ever have to be done again. Like software development. Linux only has to be written once. Once functional, it basically lasts forever, or at least close to (only minor modifications need to be made, like adaptations to a new protocol or sth).

The very idea that people will still have to work in the year 3000 is very repulsive. It shows that society hasn't matured enough yet. I hope this is not the future that we actually end up with.

view more: next ›