To be fair, one person’s “politics” is another person’s life. When you say “politics” in the sense and context we have here, what does it really mean? It probably means something like “controversial topics related to gender, race, or sexual preference”. When you think of it that way, it is easy to see that excluding discussion of these topics could be seen as excluding or devaluing people with non-mainstream characteristics. An example of that would be the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida, or the US military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy whereby they would allow homosexuals in the military as long as they kept quiet about it.

However, those conversations can be delicate and fraught, so I can see why many people want to keep them to a minimum in certain communities. I have a lot of sympathy for mods that have to moderate such conversations. In general, though, I don’t think it makes sense to remove comments or people unless they are clearly malicious. There are plenty of people for whom topics related to identity are alien or controversial or too painful and personal. Simply calling people “sealions” or “concern trolls” or “transphobic” or whatever and removing them from the conversation is not only wrong, but counter-productive, in my humble opinion. I think the vast majority of people come to conversations with good intentions, but different levels of knowledge, conflict tolerance, and interest in perceived off-topic digressions.

That’s a thought-provoking article you linked. Thanks. Unfortunately, ideological purity testing is a major problem across all sectors and spans the political spectrum. I was particularly struck by the part of the article that discussed whether “marginalized” status should be considered permanent or temporary.

I’ve worked in social services for a long time. Social activism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, marginalized groups need activists to push their agenda. On the other, activists often adopt that social activism as their primary identity and sometimes even their career. This sets up an incentive structure whereby they don’t actually want to solve the problem of marginalization. Instead, they focus on ideological purity rather than pragmatically solving whatever problems they face.

Sexual orientation, indigenous rights, trans rights, disability rights, race, gender, even recreational drug use, are all marginalization issues that have all received a reasonable degree of social acknowledgement and formal protection.

In all the years I’ve worked in social services, the one issue that never goes away and is never solved or even seriously tackled is the intersection of poverty and mental illness. We are getting better as a society with treatable mental illness like depression and anxiety. However, major mental illness or untreatable/undiagnosed conditions like lack of impulse control that make it hard or impossible to work lead almost inexorably to poverty, addiction, and involvement with the criminal justice system. The activism on that front is itself marginalized because the “fix” isn’t a matter of changing language or mind set, but rather a massive investment of resources. It is easier to sit behind a keyboard and advocate online for nebulous issues like representation than to get out there and make people care about issues that cost real money.

As someone who works with seriously impoverished and mentally ill people, I find the sometimes extreme drama associated with identity politics, representation, pronouns, etc. rather ridiculous. A lot of it is just people trying to externalize their personal issues and force others to acknowledge them, which is unfortunate when it poisons a project or community. It is a form of narcissism, essentially. People who do that should go down to the tent cities, homeless shelters, and jails to get some perspective on just how “marginalized” they actually are and whether publicly exorcising their personal demons is worth destroying the enjoyment of others in a project or community. Their energy could almost certainly be better spent in less narcissistic pursuits.

There is a pervasive idea on the internet that the popular vote is the “real” vote, compared to constituency-based voting. I don’t find that to be a helpful attitude, especially when applied selectively. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The House of Commons is a constituent assembly, which is a valid and reasonable form of democratic representation. The election system could be changed to better reflect the popular vote, but the popular vote is not automatically more valid than the constituency-based system. There are pros and cons to both, with constiuency-based voting typically giving somewhat more weight to under-populated areas.

The fact is that the UK voted for Brexit, directly and indirectly, multiple times and in multiple ways using its long-established voting system. There is no way to escape responsibility. Indeed, being a democracy, the citizens of the UK are ALSO responsible for their own voting system.

David Cameron may have gambled on the referendum but he still only had one vote in it. The citizens of the UK as a whole own the results. Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.

Also, anti-EU sentiment is one thing and may be common in various EU countries from time to time. However, voting for separation is quite another.

In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.

Fair enough. I chose to read it as Nordic rather than Scandinavian given the extent of the map.

Yup. I had no problem with snaps or Ubuntu until I saw that underhanded bullshit.

Finland. Because they were total bad asses in the Winter War. Finnish ski troopers versus thousands of Soviet tanks in -40 weather? Fuck yeah.

Also, the Finnish sauna is the best sauna.

I want to do the same, but I’m on the fence between Nobara and Bazzite.

The act of transmitting a digital file does not directly cause harm to anyone, but by creating a demand for it, you are in turn driving an industry that violates the rights of people in order to keep supplying it.

We already know that people are killed in order to feed the black market for transplantable organs, so why would we allow an industry with all of the same risks to exist purely for the sake of art?

I think you may be making a logical error here. Wanting or needing a transplant, or buying sneakers, or any other consumer product for which there is a legitimate and legal supply chain, does not make you responsible for any parallel illegal/unethical/immoral supply chain. There are black market supply chains for everything from food and basic necessities to luxury goods. There is no fool-proof way to ensure that ANY product you purchase didn’t derive at least partially from an immoral supply chain. It is impossible to track all products that closely. The fault is not with the consumer but rather with the immoral supply chain participants. Don’t take away the agency of those who participate in such things.

Could be. I’ve seen a copy the original one, which may have just been called Brass. I can’t quite recall.

Brass: Birmingham - the art quality and dark Victorian aesthetic of the board and cards are evocative of the early industrial revolution. This game also gets the “most improved” award, when compared to the original edition. The add-on iron clays are fantastic. The other components are very average though.

War of the Ring - beautifully painted over-sized cards

Pax Pamir: top notch, unique components and a cool cloth board, but the card design could be better.

Everdell for the card art, of course. They give you the feeling that there is a story behind the game.

Beyond the Sun. Just kidding. It’s a great game but the art is pretty much non-existent.

I will never understand why these corporations spend big bucks on this cringe. I’ve been to one such event and I was shocked. What’s worse is that long-serving people said you had to act as if you were enjoying it or else you’d hear from your manager afterwards. Imagine a bunch of middle-aged men at a sales conference shaking their hips and pretending to enjoy a cheesy rap battle. What an utterly soul crushing, suicidal-thought-inducing experience. I can’t tell if senior management actually believes that this sort of corporate cringe is inspiring, or if they do it purposely to crush your soul and make you into a servile automaton. Are they out of touch or is it an Orwellian power move?

We humans have these things called “boats” that have enabled the British Isles to receive regular inputs of new genetic material. Pretty useful things, these boats, and somewhat pivotal in the history of the UK.

A key piece you forgot to mention is Nordstream 2, which was only completed in 2021. Prior to the war, both Russia and Germany were planning to increase natural gas delivery to Europe, not decrease it, and certainly not to eliminate it by 2025!

I agree that AI is just a tool, and it excels in areas where an algorithmic approach can yield good results. A human still has to give it the goal and the parameters.

What’s fascinating about AI, though, is how far we can push the algorithmic approach in the real world. Fighter pilots will say that a machine can never replace a highly-trained human pilot, and it is true that humans do some things better right now. However, AI opens up new tactics. For example, it is virtually certain that AI-controlled drone swarms will become a favored tactic in many circumstances where we currently use human pilots. We still need a human in the loop to set the goal and the parameters. However, even much of that may become automated and abstracted as humans come to rely on AI for target search and acquisition. The pace of battle will also accelerate and the electronic warfare environment will become more saturated, meaning that we will probably also have to turn over a significant amount of decision-making to semi-autonomous AI that humans do not directly control at all times.

In other words, I think that the line between dumb tool and autonomous machine is very blurry, but the trend is toward more autonomous AI combined with robotics. In the car design example you give, I think that eventually AI will be able to design a better car on its own using an algorithmic approach. Once it can test 4 million hood ornament variations, it can also model body aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, and any other trait that we tell it is desirable. A sufficiently powerful AI will be able to take those initial parameters and automate the process of optimizing them until it eventually spits out an objectively better design. Yes, a human is in the loop initially to design the experiment and provide parameters, but AI uses the output of each experiment to train itself and automate the design of the next experiment, and the next, ad infinitum. Right now we are in the very early stages of AI, and each AI experiment is discrete. We still have to check its output to make sure it is sensible and combine it with other output or tools to yield useable results. We are the mind guiding our discrete AI tools. But over a few more decades, a slow transition to more autonomy is inevitable.

A few decades ago, if you had asked which tasks an AI would NOT be able to perform well in the future, the answers almost certainly would have been human creative endeavors like writing, painting, and music. And yet, those are the very areas where AI is making incredible progress. Already, AI can draw better, write better, and compose better music than the vast, vast majority of people, and we are just at the beginning of this revolution.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned yet is Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports is a membership-based non-profit that has been around since 1936. They are funded by membership dues, donations, and some corporate partnerships (mostly for research projects, I think). Their mission is to create unbiased reviews.

They do well reviewing large purchases like appliances. They also review consumer electronics and some software, though not in the highly technical way of a site like Tom’s Hardware.

Anyway, Consumer Reports isn’t perfect or entirely comprehensive, but the $40 per year membership pays for itself if you are a homeowner. Just in the last couple of months, they saved me $500 by directing me to a less expensive dishwasher than I otherwise would have bought.

Flying the national maritime ensign upside down is an internationally recognized distress signal. A UK-flagged boat wouldn’t fly the Union Jack upside down (which would be rather ineffective), but rather the Red Ensign (for civilian vessels).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ensign

Change “user” to your actual user name.

I think it’s because most religions, by their exclusive natures, are divisive and offensive to many. Many current and historical wars have been fought over religion, so some of their outward symbols carry a political message, whether intended or not.

Wearing outward symbols with a political message is banned among civil servants. If you wonder why, ask yourself how you would feel showing up to the welfare office and asking for service from an employee with a gold Trump necklace or a MAGA hat. Or, more prosaically, imagine getting pulled over by a cop for speeding. You are a Muslim wearing a keffiyeh and the officer is a Jew wearing a yarmulka (skull cap). You know that police have discretion to give you a ticket or a warning. He eyes your keffiyeh skeptically, you respond with a look of defiance, and he gives you a ticket. You might suspect that you got a ticket instead of a warning because the cop is a Jew and he saw your apparent support for the Palestinians. Now, of course, all of this could happen without the overt symbology, but the government would rather not open itself up to such obvious accusations.

These laws ban overt religious symbols only. If you want to wear magic Mormon underwear or a small cross or star of David or crescent moon under your shirt, you can. You can even wear Trump-themed butt plug if you want to.

But fuck all of these cults and their symbols.

My brother, I didn’t say it was “nothing”, I said it was middle class. I worked a second job in the evenings to save up enough to afford the first boat. Then I sold the first boat for the same amount I paid for it and used that plus some savings and a small loan to afford the second boat, which I just paid off. And I drove a rust bucket for an extra five years so I could afford to save for the second boat. I didn’t just have a spare $45k laying around. And even if I did manage to save $45k over a decade, that’s still not rich by any means.

Middle class is not rich. Fundamentally, it means you have to work for a living and make more than the bare minimum needed to get by. Middle class means you can save a little and be able to afford a little nicer house over time, a decent car, and a few luxuries. If you only make enough money to scrape by with no ability to save, then you aren’t middle class, you are poor. Being middle class also means you need that pay cheque every two weeks and that you are vulnerable to becoming poor if you lose your job.