[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks! Can you walk me through here: what exactly is a Free software driver? As with everything in linux - you either know, or don't)

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

What an analogy! Summarises my experience with Win vs linux. Still on "early dates" with linux, but it does get better and better, while MS seemingly deliberately tries to alienate me with every new update. Won't be a returning customer!

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Same here. Was surprised to read this comment, went to the Android app, played a few playlists. Shuffle is off by default, first song on a list starts playing. Switch it on, go to another playlist, it is still off by default. Is it some a/b testing by Spotify I am lucky not to be part of? Would certainly cancel my sub if that was the case.

I mean, there were quite a few elements of the ux I was mad about, like promoting stuff I'd never want to listen on the front page just because Spotify paid a gazillion to creators, but shuffle is not it.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I do have that setting! Thank you. When I was doing the set up i concentrated on denying permissions and blocking useless stuff, and missed this one.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Teach me! How to do that sound routing?

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Blondes are people, fetuses are not - that is my view. Moral arguments can form opinions, not legislation.It is ok for you to hate me if you choose to do so, it however does not grant you a right to stop me doing my immoral in your view thing. That is, unless my immoral thing infringes your rights, then we can talk and see what can be done.

As mentioned, I am always keen to accept a rational argument (as in vaccination, where there is science behind), so can i please politely ask you to point me in the direction of academic studies on the immorality of abortion? Never saw one, so forgive my ignorance.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Oh, my bad, apologies. Scan reading sometimes leads to mistakes like that, and that one was too funny for my brain to let go.

But now it makes even less sense to me with the body thing. I would never accept someone else forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own body - and i see no reason whatsoever for anyone to accept that.

There is an issue of vaccination where some enforcement is justifiable, as there is a true risk for other people in you not doing it. How does someone's decision of not having a child threatens you?

Any and all restrictions or instructions should be based on a rational argument, otherwise it is just a limitation of your freedom.

And given that the argument in favor of imposing the limitations in question lies in the area of someone else's beliefs - that becomes even more ridiculous.

On the taxes side - there i can see a strong argument for it in principle, as it allows the society as a whole to do better. You want to use infrastructure built by society - you pay. Now, there is a whole other problem of how exactly the monies collected on the basis of a rational idea are spent. Holding the people in charge accountable is truly a big issue, not for this thread though.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

There is actually another myth: the planet will do just fine - it is the humanity that will die as the result. Not that we would care about this nuance at that point...

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Here in the UK there are in general 2 categories of ppl who are still wearing suits: corporate managers and real estate agents. Not sure which is the worst, a close competition.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

There is a world outside the US, as they say... Regardless, why would a federal government enforce the control of someone's body? There are in general 2 people involved in this, and they should be the only ones responsible for this type of decisions. Not a state, not feds.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Thin ice. I believe there must be a balance between free capitalism and a moderately strong government with a safety net. People do fail in life, that should not necessarily lead to death. Children in particular are hungry not because they failed, but because their parents did. And there is a role for the government to support the children in need. This was a role of a tribe in the early days, or community slightly later; then governments took over. This safety net has to exist for other categories of people in need, the extent of this support is to be debated in a healthy society. Personally I do see a merit even in the universal income. Not because this is everyone's birthright, but because it may soon become a necessity.

[-] Bloodyhog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

NHS is a government service you explicitly pay for (unless you are exempt from NI). It is not a right, it is something you purchase. You can be exempt from paying due to your personal circumstances, but if all is well - you pay. The fact that our beloved government does not deliver what you pay for is another topic, but it certainly should.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Bloodyhog

joined 1 year ago