Most of the solid bodies in the solar system are literally a bunch of airless, irradiated, toxic rocks, with either no life at all or potentially some rare bacteria-like stuff hidden somewhere we haven’t been able to conclusively examine yet. They already are in a more “fucked up” state than even the most polluted wasteland we’ve created on earth. What could we possibly do to them to mess them up further?

Depends on the time frame. In the period immediately following such a venture, sure, but if you actually properly establish settlement off earth, the total resource base and thus carrying capacity of civilization as a whole increases and continues to increase until we either hit the limits of that part of the universe one can theoretically reach (which is so big as to make the entire earth less than a speck of dust by comparison), you decide to just stop space colonization (which gets more difficult the further on you go, because the number of potential polities to launch a new mission increases the more space is populated), or you find yourself boxed in by alien civilizations in all directions (since we haven’t seen any, they’re most likely far enough apart on average for this to still leave an extremely vast chunk of space). A hypothetical spacefairing civilization should be able to reach sizes so vast that it would be physically impossible to create enough jobs on just one planet to equal it, even with just this solar system even.

Job creation by itself is not exactly the best motivation to pursue this though, since the jobs created will after the initial period be generally far away and therefore not likely to be worked by anyone except the people that end up in those colonies, who wouldn’t even exist otherwise.

They do that anyway tbh, it’s not like they’ll just be nice if nothing ever happens during their time in power

As an asexual atheist with both grandmothers still alive, I can’t say I ever have, no. Were those things not the case, I’d say anything they saw would be down to them using their ghost powers to violate my privacy anyway.

There was a reasonably popular musical made about his wife at one point, so its possible Trump might have heard of him through general pop culture at some point in his life.

I think that the general idea of artificial intelligence in education hold some promise, in the sense that if you could construct a machine that can do much of the work of a teacher, it should enable kids to be taught in an individual way currently only possible for those rich enough to afford a private tutor, and such a machine would be labeled as an AI of some kind. The trouble is, like with so many other things AI, that our AI technology just doesn’t seem to be up to the task, and probably just won’t be without some new approach. We have AI just smart enough for people to try to do all the things that one could use an AI for, but not smart enough for the AI to actually do the job well.

Here’s a wiki article about the topic, because it would be a bit much to list it all out in a lemmy comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_in_United_States_politics#History

The TLDR is though that its existed since before the country even became independent.

Assuming that is that they merely remove themselves from the list and leave whatever dems are on in. If theyre willing to edit the thing to remove themselves however, can they be trusted to not add people they particularly dont like, or remove any dems on the list that they are concerned might out the rest of the list if prosecuted?

Tbf one if the use cases for display technologies with high pixel density is vr headsets.

To be fair, neither of those deaths were “natural causes” as it were.

Once used to the warmth of the water the anxiety that it’ll be uncomfortably cold when it stops sets in.

I’m not particularly fond of the field and roast brand sausages in particular because the texture seems too gummy for my taste, but yeah, my general experience has been that the more processed a meat is and the more it relies on being infused with spices or served with something else, the better the replacement works. Like, replacing a burger works great, replacing a steak is virtually a non starter. For something like ground and spiced taco meat, I actually started preferring the alternatives well before I stopped eating meat just because tvp doesn’t have gristle the way ground beef does.

I saw an argument about this kind of thing recently that I think I’ve come to largely agree with, and it’s something like this: why does it actually matter if a historical figure was a “good person” or not? With a living person, there’s some utility to knowing this, we generally expect a “bad” person to do objectionable things, making such a person someone not to be trusted with power, or avoided, ect. But a dead person isn’t going to be doing anything. There’s no cause to consider if a dead guy would make an acceptable leader, or acquittance, or similar, since those things aren’t in the cards, so there’s not much reason to even care what their moral standards were and how well they actually held to them. What you can get out of those people, is simply what the consequences of their actions were. Judging those consequences by our standards makes some sense, because we can take actions that ultimately seemed to have positive consequences to us as an example and those that we don’t like the results of as a warning.

Might people of the future have some different standards that we don’t fit? Sure, but those are their ideas of right and wrong, not ours. From our point of view, those hypothetical future people are just as “wrong” as people in the past were. From their point of view, what happens when someone does whatever we do will be more useful information than if we’re all a bit evil or something.

If you draw american flags on the covers of the books they want to burn, do they still burn them to burn the book, or avoid doing so to not be burning a flag? 🤔

Donald Quixote.

It is a prefix that isn’t specific to gender (I don’t know of a particular use in sexuality though that doesn’t mean there isn’t one), but in other uses that I know of, it isn’t used by itself as a descriptor of an aspect of a person’s identity, but as part of some other word. It basically means the opposite of trans (as a prefix, so not just “cisgender means someone that isn’t transgender”, but anywhere that the prefix trans- could be used, for example, when talking about spacecraft visiting the moon, the space farther away from earth than the moon is is sometimes referred to as translunar space, and conversely, the space between the earth and the moon can be called cislunar space). In general, if one is talking about people, especially if it’s just used by itself with nothing else attached, it just refers to everyone other than transgender people.

Something I do wonder about these laws: could a person self-hosting a private fedi instance that only they have an account on, argue that they meet age verification requirements by virtue of personally knowing the age of the only user? Or at that point would the whole network of federated servers count as the “platform” rather than the instance?

Did truth not exist before photography?

“saving children’s lives? we can’t have that!” -maga, apparently

Executing someone for being delusional or heavily propagandized strikes me as morally dubious, removing a politician from power achieves a similar effect without having to embrace capital punishment.