I found the movie kinda bland when I saw it but I just read the book and it was really good. Not sure why the movie made it kinda hard to care about the characters

Real headline: gamers design olympic women’s track outfit for nike

The idea that Malcolm Gladwell is smart is the funniest thing he said

This is a great resource for illustrating different regions of the brain, like the tomgfcerty, the Endecelest racion, Galagacrial region, and Intervaiscailance Raclan. There is even a good illustration of the Olmformforlmery!

5. Its Java and this is a personal project. Might as well say, “loving you is like developing an api for an insurance company. I can’t bear to touch you without two drinks and a subscription to jetbrains” This is how relationships end up on the garbage heap.

Yep. GrapheneOS

Do it.

I will start a free lunch program the next fucking day, I have a whole city full of fucking commies ready to go, I will feed your babies bellies delicious food and I will feed their minds revolutionary proletarian theory. I will teach their parents about Marx and Lenin and Fanon, Luxemburg and Kwame Ture. and we will take this shit over.

Ideologically driven psychos forget how this shit started in the first place. We remember.

Unlike therapy, installing Arch on a Thinkpad works more often than not

To deface it

International worker solidarity!!!

Omg guess I’ll go buy gold about it

Learn to think dialectically

Why wont Sony let us have any more Bloodborne?? No 60fps remaster, no sequel, not even a fake ass meme racer game

I’ve been doing more hobby-type stuff lately after 5 years working as a dev and doing very little coding outside of work. Before now it was always work, even my free time I’m like struggling to get things running or stuck or whatever. Now I know a few languages and I can just make stuff so its a little more fun for me lately

I was really hoping for a fusion of Lisa Frank + Frankenstein, like rainbows and bright colors and chimeric monsters stitched together from the parts of cute animals

I just bought a Thinkpad, also use mostly for programming, installed Fedora, very happy

Thanks for your input! I’ll see what I can find on Haldane, that seems like a good place to continue for me

You shouldn’t reject parts of evolution because Malthus used them to justify his political theory

This is not what I said. I said that, according to David Harvey, Darwin based his theory of evolution on the writings of Malthus. I’m saying that I believe that this has flawed the theory, as it is based partially on a flawed premise. It doesn’t make the theory completely unusable, a good, incomplete, flawed theory can still make correct predictions. but in certain circumstances the inherent logic, the way it handles certain questions, it will produce flawed conclusions. This is true for every system of formal logic, it is an inherent contradiction of all logical systems (epistemic crisis and incompleteness.) But to varying degrees, and to what extent, and how it produces these flawed conclusions is important to consider.

The best example I can think of while sitting in my car about to go unload groceries is gynecology. Does it effectively diagnose or treat disease and abnormalities? Yes. Do we have a good enough mastery of human reproduction to alter the likelihood of pregnancy? Also yes. The science is sound. But the practice of gynecology is often needlessly, senselessly painful, almost cruel, even when practiced by conscientious caring doctors. Why? It’s because the founder of gynecology made his discoveries by torturing and experimenting on living slave women, without anesthetics, and many parts of that tradition persist. Because they haven’t been readdressed or reconsidered. And maybe because it serves some other social purpose as well.

Science often fails as a form of critique and self discovery. So I’m just out here asking questions to improve my own understanding. I’m a little skeptical of your use of the term “scientifically sound.” Especially coming from a fellow hexbear who should know about bourgeois scientism.

So is a crucial part of the theory no longer “survival of the fittest?” Because that’s straight Malthus. I’m not a biologist, but I study and read and try to pay attention.