I’m a German trans woman (female pronouns) working as a post-doc in cryptography.
I think there is a decent case to be made that the systematic and irreversible destruction of contemporary art for no good reason whatsoever is a pretty cut-and-dry act of barbaric destruction of culture. And preventing that is generally considered a worthwhile thing.
When I got my gender-dysphoria diagnosis, one part was to look into any other disorders I might have and OCD did come up. The problem is that a lot of these disorders have descriptions that are so relatable that you can feel genuinely insecure.
Even OCD sounded so relatable at that point, that what really ended the discussion there was when my psych asked in the end after I was saying that I wasn’t sure, whether my symptoms were clinically relevant, to which I immediately responded with “no”.
So yeah, it’s probably relevant to remember that most things come on a spectrum and that people can be OCD-adjacent without crossing into the boundary of where it is enough of a problem to be a disorder, but rather a mere personality quirk.
And that’s okay! In both directions!
I don’t care if Karen can’t eat them because she is allergic or because they taste like shit to her; if she hates them so much, then you are the problem for trying to make her eat something that she hates so much that she feels her only choice is to tell you it’s an allergy.
First of all: It’s not clear that they want nukes. Like, seriously, they have been accused of almost having nukes for thirty years, it’s much more plausible at this point that they are much more interested in the ability to acquire them quickly in case they need them.
But even then: It makes no sense for them to use them aggressively, but it makes an unbelievable amount of sense for them to want them for defensive purposes. Like: They have time and time suffered from western interference, including the extremely bloody Iran-Iraq-war and have a hostile, nazi-run rouge state running a genocide and storing nukes without NPT-approval that is receiving unlimited support from the US in their vicinity.
The fact of the matter is that there is no country on earth that is as justified in pursuing a nuclear deterrent on earth as Iran.
And none of that changes anything about the government being made up from horrible tyrants that are almost as bad (but definitely not actually as bad, let alone worse!) as the one in Israel. They absolutely should be overthrown, but that’s not the job for the genocidal nazis in Israel.
Why? It’s definitely better than webp, even if google’s chrome team uses it to justify not including JXL.
webp is absofuckinglutely inferior to JPEG-XL and that one is where you actually have that problem. I’m literally providing an avif-fallback on my website, because otherwise pretty much no browser would support anything.
(Speaking of it, avif is also superior to webp.)
The F22 in the image is about 7 diagonal pixels long, that is √2⋅7 pixels length. The ship in the picture is 1727 pixels long, which equates to an actual length of almost exactly 3300m.
As a bonus this allows us to calculate the barrel-diameter: At 14 pixels width, this indicates a 27m diameter or a barrel-strength of a bit over 12m. Not sure if that is enough to contain the nuclear explosion that is mean to be fired inside it…
They have to have a lot more barrel strength though: If you look closely, the propellant charge is literally a nuke.
Anyone who thinks this was about getting AI working was the idiot from the start, there still isn’t even a real use-case for it. This was always about funneling huge amounts of money from the government budget to a bunch of rich assholes. The outcome doesn’t matter at all here.
I suggest you look up what most concentration camps were like. Auschwitz was an exception even by the standards of concentration camps and is nowadays usually called “extermination camp” for that reason.
That doesn’t mean that the other camps weren’t horrible, they were, but they were also awfully comparable to a lot of things that happen in the US prison system.
Except in the Netherlands, where your risk a response of “I’m not your Dutch teacher, we will speak English”. (Actually happened to a former colleague of mine.)
Thanks, but I’ll take the euphoria from being unable to open it.
Honestly: While it may feel wrong, and requires some emotional distancing, if you start thinking about it rationally you’ll find that there isn’t really a fundamental problem with this one. Note that you gave an argument why the first case is bad but not for the second.
If we think things through, the main issue we have with killing is that people whom we don’t want to die die; [while I reject capital punishment in the vast majority of cases](https://fiona.onl/positions.html#no-death-penalty-for-individual-crime), the assumption here is that we have made a decision that we want someone to die, so causing that person to die is within the deployed ethical framework not unethical.
And if there is someone who wants to perform an act that is usually highly unethical, but in some instances is, according to the accepted ethical framework, not, then there isn’t really a clear issue to let that person do that thing in those cases, especially if others don’t want to do it.
The issue here is the framework in which the death penalty is a commonly available punishment itself, not that some things feel wrong within that framework.