Well, now that I look at her pf picture that seems to be the case, although it doesn’t answer any of my questions

Source? This is cropped exactly so that you don’t see what the first guy/gal is responding to. Mighty sus

Who is attacking libraries and where? Did the first person just make that up? IDK

Apparently the previous adaptation skipped and changed things.

Too bad this site is too niche to have it’s own vore_irl

Why is a smaller version of the picture superimposed onto a larger, blurry version?

I blame all three + the driver again for buying this stupid fucking truck they probably don’t even need and won’t benefit them 99% time. But hey, it excels at killing children in driveways, so that’s something.

Why would golfscript be more verbose than some others? Isn’t it made for golfing?

deleted by creator

That’s something you may think if you’re 5 y/o and going on vibes. Every decision you face not only has the consequences if you choose it, but also if you don’t.

A pure hypothetical to demonstrate the general principle on an extreme example (not a direct comparison): you have an election with two candidates: one runs on a promise of Holocaust 2.0 and the other will twist your ankle after he wins. Would you say you can’t choose because both are bad? Obviously you would under any case want to avoid the worse outcome. Because not doing anything is risking that bad outcome, even if the alternative is bad. The upcoming election is not that extreme, but my example should have demonstrated the principle: inaction in face of greater evil is wrong.

There is no absolute good in this world, and if you can’t choose between Kamala Harris and those horrible people you moral compass is out of whack. When you don’t vote, the choice is made for you. Whether something is good or bad has to be evaluated considering possible alternatives, you can’t just not choose and expect a miracle to happen.

Compared to what? Trump? DeSantis? I don’t think so.

Never say never, but I don’t think it matters all that much, with Trump in jail. But to answer your question, incumbent changing their running mate seems tantamount to admitting failure and you want people to view your administration as successful.

Well, that is what I said if you read it again (“control some parts of your PC from your phone”). I did forget about controlling your phone from your computer though, which can also be done.

KDE Connect is an android app that allows you to control some parts of your PC from your phone if you have a corresponding app installed on your computer, not a file manager.

You’re missing out. The trackpad function is amazing, not having to get up from bed when your desk is too far is a god send. I know I could buy a wireless mouse, but why if you can just use your phone?

Armenia is the weaker side. Azerbaijan has to deal with refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh because of Armenia but they have been overstepping their previous claims in recent years. I don’t see a good side to this, but currently Armenia is the least bad side.

It’s so rare to see someone speak the voice of reason on future technology matters. People think we’ll be able to do anything, when there are physical limits to just how far we can advance current technology.

Even if we invented something new, you have to deal with the size restrictions of atoms. Silicon has an atomic radius of 1.46 Å, gold 1.35 Å, and our current process for manufacturing that’s in development is a 2 nm, or 20 Å process, although that number doesn’t mean much, since the measurements are closer to 20 nm (metal pitch). There are experiments dating back about a decade where someone created a transistor out of a phosphorus atom. We’re a lot closer to the end than we might realize.

when you’ve never held an actual floppy disk

This makes me feel old and I’m only in my mid twenties

I think it’s dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.

Why? Is this a religious statement? If it betters the world then that’s it, it should be used. CRISPR is just a technology for editing genes, it’s not some sacred tool that should have arbitrary restrictions, or a nuclear weapon. If the utility of using it is positive why not?

Most of our crops, that we rely to feed the world today would be barely usable for consumption before we domesticated them. Same with fruits and plenty of other food sources, like cattle.

You mentioned little dogs in another comment, and while some will have more issues, others have rather long lifespans for dogs (chihuahuas). Important thing is, this is what happened when we had no idea or precise control of what we were doing, which we have now with gene editing. Can’t get more precise than that. I also think this objection is moot since trees don’t think and therefore don’t experience suffering in the way animals do, unless you think your flowers scream in terror whenever you forget to water them, this isn’t even a moral conundrum.

Edit: leaving this in to clarify what I’m responding to.

without caring about what happens to the thing modified?

Making paper? Capitalizzum. Marx would have cried if he heard people equate economy and production with capitalism.

Arrivederci