“Ah you think depression is your ally? You merely adopted the depression. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t see optimism until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but unrealistic idealism!” - Me… and… most millennials, probably.

That’s nice. But… what’s that got to do with the price of fish? Or the price of tea in China?

I’m going to invite you to another angle, and it’s one with a premise that people are still scratching their heads over – forewarning: no matter how honest or objective you try to be about these subjects, this is one of those things where you can’t have a public discussion about it and come out unscathed. Even if people don’t really have a formed opinion of their own. All well.

Natural selection is still taking place. It was never about “idiots” dying off. That’s a bit of a misconception. So let’s drop that rhetoric – even if you wish to keep that opinion. Remember that people can still have plenty of children before doing something terribly stupid and then dying as a result.

In fact, natural selection is in overdrive and stronger than ever. Once you try to grapple with that you’ll need a few more pieces to see a more clear picture of why I believe this. Now, for you down voters: I’m not advocating an idea here --even natural selection-- or stating facts so much as trying to understand and communicate the way I see things. If you can’t understand the nuance in that, then feel free to continue – the button is below.

I’ll begin by addressing the drivers of modern natural selection in the order of what I believe to be the most impactful. Beware that none of this is to discredit or find fault in either men or women – but the concept of natural selection, and all of its woes, are directly tied to having successfully reproduced.

1. Women now have more access to information and communication tools than ever, and that’s a good thing – as are women. I shouldn’t have to state that I believe these to be good things, but here we are. Women are, now more than ever, demanding more value from life at all angles. Including, if not especially, men.

2. Social Media. All these things are tied to my first point. Women, especially younger women, have a better idea of the sorts of things they desire to the point where it will even cause them to feel a decline in their well-being for not having access to it. This may help inform them in a way that they develop other life goals or objectives, rather than participating in a less than desirable relationship.

3. Family Traditions: Less women are being forced into marriages, whether the marriage is arranged or simply obeying their families desire to marry as the families see fit. Self agency – good.

4. Everything else. There are many more drivers – including things not related to women, I just covered what I believe to be the top three – I feel I need to state here again, none of this is to blame or find fault in anyone – man or woman, or anyone else. It’s simply an attempt to try to make sense of the world around me.

Why I believe the above can be evidenced by a couple of simple metrics: a steep decline in birth rates across most of the world, and the male loneliness epidemic. This may not fit comfortably into the idea that death is the main driver of natural selection, but as I’ve already stated, I never believed that it was. Whether natural selection is the correct model to fit this world view into or not and the unpopularity of that model; that would be a different discussion altogether and I’d rather just fit this into the framework of the discussion than have a disclaimer before every sentence for internet points, as I feel I’ve already had to add too many.

I always thought I was one of the few people that saw Eve as the libertarian dystopia that it is. I certainly thought I was the only one that held it up as a ready example of what libertarianism looks like when fully executed – now that I think about it, this must be a more popular idea than I realized. Complete with nullsec monopolies and everything. All this in a space that features no scarcity other than real-estate. The end game of libertarian ideals in the Eve example ends in monopoly and the accumulation of absurd amounts of power into the hands of few select individuals. What’s striking is how well run things are on the fleet level, only for the corporate leaders to often be wasteful, populist, of questionable moral fiber, and generally irresponsible – albeit not as a rule. They also have a penchant for casually destroying those that disagree with them. It stands as an excellent example.

On this note; given that it’s suspected that Earth has only a good ~800 million years or so left, that may not even be enough time for another sentient species to emerge with enough time to become technologically sufficient enough to … avert extinction – much less undo some of the damage that we have done. We have to grapple with the idea that if we fail as a species, we’ll be the only and last sentient species on Earth to have emerged. Or as I like to call it: Get filtered, nerd.

There actually is an array in any POSIX shell. You get one array per file/function. It just feels bad to use it. You can abuse ‘set – 1 2 3 4’ to act as a proper array. You can then use ‘for’ without ‘in’ to iterate over it.

for i; do echo $i; done.

Use shift <number> to pop items off.

If I really have to use something more complex, I’ll reach for mkfifo instead so I can guarantee the data can only be consumed once without manipulating entries.

Great. I have plenty of money and hate contributing to society in any meaningful manner – I consume only. I’ll manage the crop pickers from my phone, though. When do you start?

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face… forever.” - Some book or something.

I’m not sure anyone here works for the DNC. We’re not trying to get ourselves elected. People are absolutely allowed to criticize others for the intended consequences of their actions when they get exactly what’s expected. In this case, they’ve alienated themselves.

Not disagreeing. However, it still kind of feels like we’re trying to solve wolves to fix a human problem. You know?

Pete Buttigieg worked for Mckinsey. Although it appears he’s tried to make good in addressing how his time was spent working there, that is a stench that is difficult to wash off. Bias Note: I’m not against Pete, but I’m definitely against Mckinsey.

This one has been easy for me lately: They spell ‘lose’ as ‘loose’.

Excellent argument all around. I like that it stayed on point and didn’t devolve into something else entirely. I know you and I don’t necessarily agree, but I respect that you stood your ground and as a result, you as a person. I do feel that you could put more value into the demand-side of things, AKA, the consumer but there’s a bit of nuance there and we probably have different approaches that solve the same ideal. My follow on points would have been to argue that YouTube isn’t deserving of being given a social-contract of ethical conduct etc etc. I would also address that YouTube is central to some livelihoods and the financial well-being of others. I really wanted to highlight the sense of irony that I get that you would call a group of people crybabies and then feel personally attacked when someone took you to task and stood their ground on the counterpoint; however, I concede that if I had known you would have felt personally attacked I would have picked a softer tone and for that I apologize. I think we can both acknowledge that we’d only be arguing nuance at this point and that’s not a worthwhile use of our time. You sir (edit: or ma’am, or something in between, if it pleases), are not an NPC. (also edit; upvotes given for the statements except the original statement I disagreed with)

I feel respected because I grab the product I want, take it to the register, and pay for it and get the result that I expect based on what I paid. Marketing and manipulation aside, I acknowledge that’s part of being an educated consumer. I’d thank you for putting value in my response, but I’m not interested either.

Good points, 12 seems to be superior and I’ve changed my opinion.

And yet here we are. Yet again on Lemmy. Yet again with the crybabies wanting ad-free and cost-free shit without considering that someone somewhere has to pay for it. Google is not a charity.

I was tempted to state that I was wrong, clearly you have thought about this, but I don’t agree with this perspective at all and won’t be changing my opinion. If we’re in the business of calling things out that “nobody said,” then nobody said Google was a charity.

That’s how the free market works; nobody has a gun to your head.

The ‘nobody has a gun to your head’ approach to laissez-faire mercantilism likes to ignore how important free market access is. Lack of access can be just as bad as a gun to the head, if not sometimes worse. This is a one sided argument in favor of corporatism that doesn’t address access. The main thrust of my point.

I pay for premium. I’m happy to pay for content I enjoy and I’m happy that the creators I enjoy watching get a cut without me having to watch annoying adverts. I do not expect handouts. There is nothing “shitty” about paying for things.

I don’t think YouTube has ever left me feeling like it had any regard for me as a consumer or even valued my time. It appears, from the many complaints I’ve seen by YouTube content creators, that many of them don’t feel valued or respected either. By the time Premium came along it had long lost me as an interested customer. There’s no feeling that one should honor a one-sided social contract because that requires an actual relationship. If I felt that YouTube actually cared about anything other than being the middle-man that ensures that I get served ads, and demands–but not delivers–respect for it, then maybe I would reconsider. Until then, I will enjoy their competing products. Ad-Blockers and supporting alternative hosting sites that make me feel more valued. They’ve assisted in creating their own black-market for ad-avoidance, and that’s the free market working.

Maybe tone down the extremism and personal attacks against a stranger, huh?

🥱

Good counter-point, except that your local supermarket has to respect three separate market pressures that Google (edit: to be clear, I mean YouTube) clearly has no regard for:

• Tight regulations.
• Respecting its consumers.
• Robust competition that isn’t prone to monopolistic enterprise.

So no, I don’t feel that we should ‘fuck them, too I guess’ because when I go to the supermarket I feel like I’m the customer, not the product. I feel that I get what I’m paying for and that my time is respected. Nothing about YouTube leaves me feeling like that. There’s no sense that I’m a respected customer and therein no sense that there’s any value in trying to respect a clearly one-sided relationship.

Did YouTube make all of those videos? If not, then how much should YouTube get from hosting them? This whole argument that people just want free shit isn’t just wrong, it’s also annoying. People have proven time and again that we’re willing to pay for quality and convenience. And not in that order. Once again it’s an issue about access, how they’re fighting tooth and nail to gatekeep that access to continue to control the flow of capital so they can also play the kingmakers in digital media. Messages like yours are so off base that it’s hard to believe you’re not projecting your own shitty world view, but also somehow think that because you’ll gargle some shitty ads every once in a while that you have some moral high ground. AKA; one of those people who believe they’re right and that’s all that matters and you don’t actually have to think any deeper. PS: I hope I’m wrong. Please feel free to correct my own world view if I am.

I’m not experienced with RPN but at a glance think there’s a solid argument for it.

Base 16 is superior and once you learn binary math, easier to divide and multiply.