My understanding is that one of the upsides to Bazzite is that Nvidia drivers are pretty easy to install and manage. That was the thing that turned me off of Fedora when I tried making the switch to that a couple years ago.

Is that easy to do in Kinoite? This is the first I’ve heard of it, and it sounds like exactly what I would want out of Bazzite.

That’s just, like, Europinyin, Man.

I only read the abstract, but that appears to not be the case, and a majority of relationships start as friendships: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8892041/

What’s the difference between $10 billion in printed money sitting in the federal reserve for such a fund and printing $10 billion dollars on the spot? Neither is affecting the economy until it leaves the federal reserve.

Okay, after processing everything over the past few days, I think I understand how to shift my understanding of supply and demand. Previously I had thought of supply as “there is this much stuff to sell.” It would be better to view as “it costs X per unit to produce Y units at market.” So increased productivity can means producing more Y for the same X, or in the case of reducing labor like you said producing the same Y for a lower X. Demand can be thought of as “N units can be sold for Z currency each.”

Unless you are in a monopoly, Y will always be a fraction of the N units actually sold, so as long as the Z of the total market is higher than your X to produce a profit is made. This is complicated by scenarios where company A sells their product at a different Z than company B, but this model allows for the changes to the supply side that don’t actually affect the total market Y.

Does that make sense to you?

Right, but I’m having some trouble connecting that summation of supply and demand to your implied disconnect between productivity increases and supply. Were you specifically talking about scenarios where there is no space for output to grow, only input to shrink?

For instance, four people extract 1 ton of raw material in a day. A new machine means it only takes two people to extract that same 1 ton, but the size of the material patch stays the same so you can still only operate the one machine rather than using all four people to operate two machines. Thus increasing productivity without increasing “supply?”

How would that not be part of supply? If productivity doubles and is rolled out across the board, wouldn’t supply double as well? I mean, the total work being done would probably drop such that the supply isn’t actually doubled, but if supply was the constraint before then wouldn’t it settle somewhere between that doubled amount and the original, directly translating that increased productivity into increased supply?

Yeah, just like the U stands for oonderwater in SCUBA, or the P stands for potographics in JPG!

The flash drive I used to install it finally died several months ago and I haven’t bothered to get a new one yet.

When I consider changes to language, I try to start from a prescriptivist position rather than a descriptivist, which to me means assuming language should stay static to ensure a common understanding rather than fragmented meanings that lead to misunderstandings. If there is a change in language, it should justify itself through simplifying terms or adding a new meaning that other words lack, while avoiding harming the meanings of pre-existing words.

I use they/them pronouns for non-binary people as an example of this mindset in action because I think the benefits far outweigh any cons. With a greater understanding that non-binary people new language was needed, and they/them seems to me a very natural fit as I would already think to use it when asking about a stranger even before I knew of non-binary as a concept (“oh your friend is coming? What’s their name, are they a boy or a girl?). In my experience having a very close non-binary friend I have found that context tells whether I’m using they as a singular/plural pronoun ~90% of the time, and when it fails it adds maybe 20 seconds of clarification to explain I was referring to person’s name.

I think what you’re saying should be taken as inspiration for further evolving how we use those terms to better separate between singular and plural use rather than try backtracking on how it has already evolved in common use, and I think the answer (for me at least) lies in your very comment. Much like “you” vs “you all”, going forward I’ll put a little effort into using they/them in a singular context and use “them all” or “they all” as a plural. Maybe it will catch on and 30 years from now we’ll be saying “theyal” and “theyal’ll” as shorthand for “they all” and “they all will.”

I’m not the guy you had been arguing with… I just read the thread and thought I’d chime in, as much to clarify my own thoughts for myself as convince anyone.

I’m going to preface this by saying that while I understand the logic you are using by demanding consent before birth and don’t necessarily disagree with its credibility, it feels wrong to me, and that this is mostly me trying to justify that intuitive wrongness.

As I look for some precedent to compare your thinking to, the closest analogy I can find is someone in a coma. According to your logic, if a person is in a coma and it is uncertain whether they will ever wake up with no prior consent given one way or the other on what to do with them under such circumstances, then they should be kept alive because they have not given consent to pull the plug yet. Does that sound correct to you?

When such a scenario plays out in the real world I believe that right to consent is given to that person’s closest relative(s) to strike a balance between the practicality of making a decision and morality of that decision being made by those who know the person best, attaining an imperfect state of near-consent.

To apply the same thinking to birth, an unborn person-to-be has no ability to consent to their birth, so that consent must come from their parents, who may not know exactly who that person is but have the best idea of the circumstances and growing up conditions they would be born into which would affect their consent when they are able to give it. That, to me, seems like the best near-consent that can be attained.

In more basic terms, I think it should be morally necessary for potential parents to ask themselves “would I want to be born to us in our current and predicted circumstances?” Id both honestly answer yes then that near-consent has been achieved, and if either answers no or they never ask that question, it is not achieved and they should not have a child.

Does that seem rational enough to you?

Then there’s another suicide in the world, I think they went over that earlier.

I live around the Twin Cities metro of Minnesota (two cities split by a river), which installed its first passenger light rail about 20 years ago. I recently moved from the north suburbs to the south side of town. I was very excited to be able to drive 10 minutes east on the freeway to my buddy’s house within walking distance of a station to take the 10 minute light rail ride downtown for a basketball game. Previously I would have driven 20-40 minutes (depending on traffic congestion) to pay $20 to use a parking ramp because the light rail doesn’t extend north.

Over the last 20 years they have extended the rail between the airport/Mall of America on the south side to the downtown of one city, and connected that downtown to the downtown of the other city across the river. If you live anywhere north of the city proper, or more than a few miles away from the one line running south, there is little reason to use the rail system over driving the whole way. If you do though, it’s pretty great.

That’s just been my experience, my understanding is some larger cities (Chicago and NYC are what come to mind) have more robust rail systems, but many cities (mine at least) have limited access for most people living in them.

This comment reflects such a weird mentality that I see sometimes, conflating being social with being extroverted. The two go hand in hand, but they are not the same. I love having time with myself reading or playing games, but I am consistently at my overall happiest when that time is punctuated with going out and socializing with friends or occasionally meeting new people. Never going out doesn’t make a person introverted, it just means they are antisocial.

Hi, I drove a LLV for a couple years! It’s actually so, when they stop at a mailbox, they don’t have to leave or lean across the vehicle to reach out to a mailbox on the right side of the road. It is also easier to hop out for packages, as you said, but if I recall the volume of packages was much lower when the vehicles were designed, so they were more focused on delivering letters from one mailbox to the left.

Another fun fact, LLVs are one of the only street legal vehicles in the US with a shorter front wheel axle than the back! This makes turning much tighter so the driver can pull a full U-turn on any standard road without needing a Y-turn, since visibility is pretty awful behind the vehicle when backing up. This also makes them pretty fun to drive.

Looks like midwest emo is going to be getting even bigger!

One of the most important things I heard in middle school was from a friend of a friend: “It’s normal to be weird and it’s weird to be normal. Have you ever met someone who was truly ‘normal?’”

It’s an argument on the internet, there are never really winners. It seemed like backtracking because saying that a dissenting response is “actually the type of thing I’m talking about” carries an implication that the person responding misunderstood you, rather than acknowledging the possibility that you did not clearly/fully communicate your thoughts. As far as I and I assume the person you responded to could tell, that wasn’t “actually the type of thing” you were talking about. Backtracking may have been the wrong term, but there was a level of condescension in your comment that was so close to being sincere that it rubbed me the wrong way. Combine that with me half-disagreeing with you and that made for a response with some snark at the front. I am a little sorry for that. Also, why would you write “because of your own life experiences and emotions?” Unless the discussion is focused on something related to how people become the way they are, that statement has about as much meaning as “this is an aspen. You can tell it’s an aspen because of the way it is.” All it says is that you assume there is something wrong with the person rather than actually say anything about what that person has said or done. At worst it’s empty words and at best it’s an empty ad hominem.

Nice backtracking on “some other event,” that’s better than what 90% of the internet would do!

I still think it’s fine to use external dates for self improvement. I’m not very religious, but I love lent specifically because it’s a socially encouraged time to change a habit that lasts nearly the two months it takes to make a new habit or break an old one.

One year it was soda because I drank a few cans a week, since then I very rarely have any in the house. Last year I gave up meat, which is something I would never have pushed myself to do on my own.

It’s just a lot easier to test a change when it’s not permanent. There’s certainly an argument to be made that a full year of change at new years is too long to successfully commit to, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing should be discounted.