When the rat presses a lever, don't blame the rat. This is super reductionist of course, but I always keep it in mind.

As I posted elsewhere, you can read some of this for yourself: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).

You've stated it, but not evidenced it. This is certainly the right-wing talking point, but never strongly sourced. The meaning of this phrase was viciously debated. Would it surprise you to know that many in Congress hated it for similar reasons as nationalists today?

Let me say this again: the meaning of this phrase was openly and viciously debated in the public record! Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy.

Feel free to read some of this: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).

Accordingly, different brands use different video processing hardware and software to rebuild that compressed data. This absolutely results in color accuracy variation, shadow detail, and overall picture differences.

It's only achievable in a real sense if there are video providers out there offering the content at that bitrate. The absolute best you can hope for in optimal conditions is from Apple TV+ at between 30-40 Mbps which is equivalent to what you get with a non-4k blu-ray.

I also do not, and have never, experienced this. I've been using Pixel phones since the 3a in 2019/2020.

Or if we're above wet bulb climate conditions again, we just watch the newest algorithm invent stories for us built on the uncredited labor of real artists.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48283457

Points: 7

# Comments: 4

A different way to say it: restrictions on freedoms are necessary to enable other freedoms. There is no such thing as total freedom when one lives in a society because one for of freedom for person A will impugn on a different freedom for person B.

The weak state and cash economy being romanticized also tend to mean no enforced worker safety, no recourse when a business defrauds you, and no accessible courts for the poor - all freedoms that disproportionately belong to whoever is strongest or most corrupt. Regulations are often irritating precisely because they encode hard-won protections for people who aren't you.

To repeat myself in another comment: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works? In the same way, how long will it take the earth to return to such complexity and diversity of life? Many, many millenia.

And, if nothing else, many of the efforts you can contribute to can have a clear and demonstrable impact at a more local level, or for a more limited time, even if it doesn't solve or mitigate the larger issue in the long run. Is it a waste of time for me to get involved in river clean-ups, or to work with a crew to re-wild an abandoned golf course, or remove asur honeysuckle from nearby native forests? Maybe you'd say "yes" because we'll have to keep doing it again, but that's the work with most things that matter.

I understand what you're saying. I appreciate the thought behind it. But in the end, I do not agree. I cannot be certain where my actions will and won't ultimately help accrue to impact; the pebble knows not the impact that its ripples will have. If you care about something, I think you should be involved.

It is true humans are part of nature, but we are unique in our capacity for causal understanding and foresight. We are the only species that can understand the long-term consequences of our actions and actively choose to change course. If our ability to exploit is natural, our ability to act with foresight and restraint is equally natural. Framing the present-day destruction as a natural consequence of some "evolutionary law" to me is an "appeal to nature" fallacy that can be used to absolve both individual and collective responsibility.

Yes, this is perhaps a way (it seems far too presumptive to say "the way") planets with intelligent species evolve. We are perhaps entering the Great Filter, or one of them.

> Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this

Literally true, but I'd argue a semantic deflection. It doesn't engage with the core idea of the destruction of complex ecosystems that we are witnessing and commenting on.

That said and to the point: I have tried to really focus on and take comfort in the idea "deep time", and the sincere belief that for as much destruction as we create, there will be more and different beauty in the far, far future. Yet where the Louvre to burn, how much comfort would it be to me that over the next 1000 years other artists will create yet more great works?

All that said: you might enjoy the book Robot & Monk by Becky Chambers, if you're one to read fiction. It kind of depicts what you're describing as your fantasy.