[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

Your problems are with capitalism and how we distribute our resources, not with advancements in automation.

This particularly story isn't about wealth distribution though. It's about environmental damage caused by this technology. So that's a whole other class of problem. As for the other problems being about capitalism, I agree for sure that capitalism is a source of many many problems... but while we are in that system we should still try to minimise the problems. So if this technology has major problem when combined with capitalism, then we should either stop using capitalism, or stop using the technology - or both, until we make up our mind which we prefer to keep!

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

Sure. I agree it won't change unless citizens push for a change. But choosing to not participate is not pushing for a change. That's just capitulation. Choosing to not vote is not a signal of protest. It's a signal of someone who doesn't care what the outcome is.

Voting is the first and most basic step in pushing for change. Doing more is good, but you definitely can't skip that step.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

Whenever I see this gif I think of this SSBM version.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

Is it helping anybody act so obtuse? Or maybe you find it amusing? To me it just looks like you're steering a well intensioned conversation into a muddy pit.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Google providing links to dubious websites is not the same as google directly providing dubious answers to questions.

Google is generally considered to be a trusted company. If you do a search for some topic, and google spits out a bunch of links, you can generally trust that those links are going to be somehow related to your search - but the information you find there may or may not be reliable. The information is coming from the external website, which often is some unknown untrusted source - so even though google is trusted, we know that the external information we found might not be. The new situation now is that google is directly providing bad information itself. It isn't linking us to some unknown untrusted source but rather the supposedly trustworthy google themselves are telling us answers to our questions.

None of this would be a problem if people just didn't consider google to be trustworthy in the first place.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

Someone has been feeding you some weird bullshit about 15-minute cities. The concept of 15-minutes cities has nothing whatsoever to do with the things you wrote.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Nar. On Earth we'll 'only' struggle to grow enough food, due to large previously productive parts of the world becoming unusable. We'll still be able to breathe.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, for me it is the ads. No one likes ads, but I hate ads more than most people. So when Windows started putting more and more 'recommendations' into various places... I've been building up a list of registry tweaks to turn it all off - but as more ads got added, just couldn't tolerate it any more. I installed Mint with dual boot (defaulting to Mint). I thought I'd be booting into Window every so often for one reason or another, but as it happens - the only reason I ever loaded Windows was to check that the dual booting was working.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn't be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn't worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.

[edit] Obviously if everyone did what I'm suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But that's not happening. If it was, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. All I'm suggesting is a rough heuristic for what's reasonable for an individual to do on their own.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'd think 'repurpose' is part of 'reuse' rather than recycle. Doesn't recycle mean that you're going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas 'reuse' just means that you are going to use it again. I'd say 'repurpose' means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.

In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago
[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

Peter Kalmus, the scientist who posted the tweet, has been arrested multiple times for his protest actions. So he isn't just lying around waiting for pitchfork time.

58
submitted 7 months ago by blind3rdeye@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml

I'm vaguely interested in having a few different encrypted folders on my computer, with different passwords on each. I don't have any particular strong requirements. It's more of a velleity; mostly just to try it so that I know more about it.

That said, when I search for encryption options, I see a lot of different advice from different times. I'm seeings stuff about EncFS, eCryptFS, CryFS; and others... and I find it a bit confusing because to me all those names look basically the same; and it's not easy for me to tell whether or not the info I'm reading is out of date.

So figure I'd just ask here for recommendations. The way I imagine it, I want some encrypted data on my computer with as little indication of what it is as possible; and but with a command and a password I can then access it like a normal drive or folder; copying stuff in or out, or editing things. And when I'm done, I unmount it (or whatever) and now its inaccessible and opaque again.

I'm under the impression that there are a bunch of different tools that will do what I've got in mind. But I'm interested in recommendations (since most of the recommendations I've seen on the internet seem to be from years ago, and for maybe slightly different use-cases).

view more: next ›

blind3rdeye

joined 11 months ago