The idea that a functional society can arise from a population that only does what it wants is, let’s say, unlikely. It removes checks and balances, so there is not really anything that prevents someone with huge resources to become a tyrant. What happens if someone with billions of dollars ignores the NAP to get their way? They can fund a private army, I can’t, so how can I prevent them from aggressing against me? Without a state law enforcement and legal system, there is no entity that can stop them. We would regress to a society of warlords, dukes and serfs.

Likewise it makes the country as a whole more vulnerable to enemies. If there is no central state to run the military, just a rag tag collection of powerful, self-interested groups, then could they successfully repel an invasion? What if they are bribed with power by the oppressors, and facilitate the invasion? Look at colonisation in Africa and the Americas to see examples of how that played out. Tribes played off against each other for the benefit of the highly coordinated invaders.

Libertarianism is a user-pays society, where if you can’t pay and can’t generate income (even if it’s no fault of your own) then you better hope someone takes pity on you and you receive charity, or else your remaining option is to just die. Our current system is a playground for the rich and a crushing, lifelong burden for the rest as we compete for relative scraps, Libertarianism would dial that up to 11.

Note that I live in a country where although government has its problems, there is quite a bit of pro-worker and pro-citizen law on the books, and government institutions are generally seen as competent and are trusted. If that wasn’t the case then perhaps Libertarianism would seem more appealing.

So they fucking should be, although being libertarian is only marginally less embarrassing anyway

It’s making my micro soft

That’s the dictionary definition perhaps, but not what they’re pushing for. Conservatives talk about small government etc, but really it’s about rewarding the ingroups and punishing the outgroups.

They want to revert reproductive rights, with the government tracking periods and investigating women’s bodies. That’s weird af. They love the police state and mass surveillance, recording people’s messages and web activities is hugely creepy. It’s weird if a person snoops on you like that, and it’s weird if the government does it. They care way too much about what’s between your legs and which gender you sleep with, again, weird.

Edit: also just to add there is good weird and bad weird. Good weird is being yourself despite what the mainstream does, bad weird is forcing your viewpoints on others

They kick you out if you get too close to the animals genitals :(

Whoa Black Betty, 'bamala

i3 or something idk I use Cinnamon

Fair enough, but isn’t it reasonable to want the president of the United States to be someone who doesn’t fall apart after 9pm?

Yeah this is reporting on the feedback from a focus group of like 20 people conducted by some Latino TV station… Not sure how representative that is of the wider electorate…

Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?

Because they all offer competing and mutually exclusive hypotheses.

Christianity tells us that the one true path to salvation is by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.

Hinduism tells us that our next life will take place in this world, based on our actions in this life.

Islam tells us that Mohammed is the one true prophet.

Buddhism says that there are no prophets, enlightenment only comes from within.

They make contradictory claims, so by definition they can’t all be right, and they typically claim that they are correct and the other explanations are false, so even if one religion is correct, the rest (comprising of the majority of the faithful) must be wrong.

Google Messages definitely supports dual SIM, I have a physical SIM and an eSIM in my device and you can choose which one it sends from on a message by message basis

Pretty ironic seeing Rolling Stone of all publications displaying a disapproving stance on drug use

I don’t recall the previous commenter mentioning anything about Facebook. Making a comment that is anti something doesn’t automatically mean they’re pro something else.

Step 1: Feel like getting into a comment section argument

Step 2: Put words in the other guy’s mouth and argue against those

Step 3: Make yourself look like a bit of a tool

Is this the best use of your time?

Musk said. “If you get to the 100 million vehicle level, which I think we will … you’ve got a kilowatt of useable compute,” Musk said.

A whole kilowatt? “I think you could have on the order of 100 gigawatts of useful compute.” Ah.

“And unlike laptops and our cell phones, it is totally under Tesla’s control,” Musk added.

They clearly seem to think that they can do whatever they want with their customer’s property

don’t come with a requirement that drivers watch the road

Seems it’s like every other Mercedes then

Fuck Google too

If you wanted to do something like this you could put the charger on one of those electrical plugs with a timer, or a smart plug that’s switched on when the battery reaches a certain threshold

Models are getting more efficient and hardware is getting more powerful, it’s completely feasible that open source, self hosted, GPT4 equivalent and better models will be completely viable to run as individuals for reasonable costs (hundreds, not thousands) in the not too distant future.

As always, the will and knowledge to use the tools falls to the individual.

Claudine Gay was right to resign, if the very top position at a university is occupied by someone with no academic integrity, then that will spread like an infection.