Every time you don't want to have a kid for whatever reason is ethical to abort.
What's not ethical is to have a child you don't really want.
I live in a opt-out system. That means we are all donors unless we explicitly said the contrary.
I have never heard of a murder for an organ match.
Also I think we are the top one or two in the world on organ transplants.
If this was nottheonion I wouldn't be surprised
This is going to translate into "more sells" same as drm.
People who want to pay will pay. People who doesn't want to pay won't ever pay. With digital media there's objectively any loss if someone who didn't pay played your game. So just let it be, you are not going to sell more just because you removed or made smaller the steam refund window.
The thing that worries me about wikipedia is that they are increasing the expenses as the donations go up. So if someday donations stop they will not have as much saved as they should.
Also most of the massive increase in expenses that Wikipedia has each years seems unjustified.
I'm, for once, jealous of the USA.
Here in Spain to open a business is bureaucratic hell.
Before doing anything you need to register in several administrations, not one, several. Once registered no matter you have sales or not, you have to pay a monthly social security quota. Several hundred euros a month even if you are not yet made a sale.
Then even if you don't sell absolutely anything, because your business was shit or whatever, you have to present sale tax models, even if they are at 0.
And there's no minimum, you have to do all this even if tou just want to sell one cool t-shirt you made for 1€.
At the end even the smallest business end up hiring some specialized person just to handle the bureaucratic mess for them, which add up to the monthly cost of having a business opened.
JavaScript and electron were the slop before AI. But people is not ready for that conversation.
Jesus was 50% terrorist, 50% delusional.
Jesus was Jewish as we all know. But he was not the main Jewish faith. He was part of the Baptist cult. As his friend/family John the Baptist. When John gets executed, Jesus radicalized.
It's a story old as time, someone in a movement gets killed and the movement becomes far more radical. That happened with the Baptist cult which were opposed to the mainstream Jewish faith of the moment. Jesus took the leadership role with his friends, and was probably delusional about the whole thing.
I've known people who has done drugs just because "party fun" and ended up hooked.
There are plenty of people out there. Some would have take on drugs because their lives where miserable, or even as a form of anesthesic, but other just because they were fun (at the beginning)
One of the most used drugs, tobacco, people start smoking "just because it's cool", and end up hooked for life. Never underestimate how addictive are drugs and how social pressure or just social behavior could make someone try a substance.
It feels like macOS is somehow over represented there. Specially for a global statistic. In many countries macs are completely residual, where I live I almost know more people using linux than mac.
Also it's again the false sense of security pf "if you don't use vibed apps you'll be fine", making people forget basic security procedures.
I, for instance, had a service vulnerable and discontinued without noticing for months. It was something 100% made before LLM was a thing. Still had unpatched vulnerabilities and the project was abandoned. It was my fault for not checking more often is the services I host are safe or not.
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
I think one of the issues with online arguing, from most takes on it, is that the main reason people have to argue is to spread an idea. Whether it's by convincing the opposing part of the argument and making them change their mind, or by changing or reinforcing the mind of anonymous readers of the argument.
Most of the time this leads to one of two conclusions: If someone tries to change the other person's mind they will, most likely, find themselves hitting a wall, which will lead to frustration, disinterest, or personal attacks once it's seen that the other person will not change their mind. If they do not care about changing the other person's mind and just want to make clear that their own position is the right one to have, then the argument becomes a game of winning and losing. This could be achieved by many ways, depending on the context, it could lead to insulting and trying to put group pressure (via downvotes for instance) to make the other person's opinion seem as the "bad" one. Or via creating a game of rules, and play that game better to become a winner. Please excuse the small attack I'm about to make on this very space, but part of this second approach is the rules of debate, as in consider arguments without sources, emotional responses, or fallacies as losing points in the game of arguing. And often when the other part falls into one of this issues the goal quickly becomes to point out all this "faults" the other person made, so they are clearly shown as the loser. Don't get me wrong, it is important to argue without fallacies, and to be able to prove any statements that one's make. But I don't think anyone gains anything when the argument becomes a match on who is able to ask for more sources, link more articles and identify more fallacies.
That being said I'm going to just link some literature that support the basis of this statements. Can Arguments Change Minds? . This article goes into great lengths to show something that's easily seen when arguing online: People don't change their minds from an argument. The process of changing someone's mind is very complex. The article explains some study cases where people from extremist backgrounds changed their minds over time, in a context of discussion, but it's stated that this change had a lot more going out that just a proper intellectual discussion.
Why bother then? In my opinion, the best thing we can get when arguing with someone whose opinion differs to our own is to understand them. To find out their way of seeing things, their motives, their reasoning. That's a great value. And to get this often we need to let them talk the way they want to talk, this tend to lead to some undesirable things, like mentioned fallacies, unsupported claims or straight up bigotry and name-calling. But I think that it is still valuable knowing if that's their only reasoning, or trying to push past those to see if there's something more in depth about why they don't agree with us. But, ultimately, focusing the discussion in getting a win, will often make us miss a lot of valuable information that we could have gotten if we just saw the argument as a way to understand the other person, and of course, to understand ourselves. And not only for us to understand them, but to them to understand us. Explaining our point of view in the clearer way possible, and focussing not on winning when we talk about our opinions, but on showing why we have those opinions. To be able to reach a point of "I don't agree with you but I understand you".
Of course the big elephant in the room here is that taking this approach to it's logical conclusion would mean letting some people express ideas that we don't want to be expressed. The obvious example here is hate speech. Should hate speech, or extremist arguments be allowed, and discussed? If allowed, what's our goal when engaging into an argument with them, to convince, or to understand and make the other part to also understand us? This is where I'm more torn apart, as the logic of this reasoning leads me to believe that the best is the later, but it confronts with everything I've learn about how to deal with hate speech and dangerous ideologies until now. Thus why the (OPEN-ENDED) tag, and why I hope for anyone to jump and give their opinion on this.
Nah. Take out the greedy fuckers that make money out of making technology miserable and give me fully automatic space gay communism.