Meta’s Vice President of Communications Andy Stone complained that Wired waited until the fourth paragraph to note the facial recognition feature was “not enabled,” and doesn’t note until the 16th paragraph that the feature is exploratory.

Why is the code pushes to the customer downloadable app of its an internal experiment.

As an autist I don’t really know how to feel about wether i am or am not in the mood to express my theoretical frameworks to explore causality with faster then light mechanics to a random stranger in public

it would be an accurate response to their question and easier then confronting a long pause as i try to gather and organise my spacetime thoughts back into a decisive communication about wether i consent to conversating.

Who was being petty? They asked, they got an honest answer.

I think the general gist is as beginner self hosters we get more and more comfortable too “easily spin up a docker webserver”

At some point we arrive at “what other services can i host” and email is a pretty obvious addition expecting it to at least not be more difficult then running nextcloud.

It may be doable but hell is it not a comparable challenge.

Not quite the same,

Anubis is open source and changing/removing it can actually be done for free without any laws stopping you,

They kindly ask you to pay them to do it as part of a kind off enterprise service, using the logic that if your website is professional enough to care about a logo, its professional enough to support the work it is relying on.

I think the universe itself is the value that ecology and nature sustains.

But this subject is stretching what i can articulate in words without sounding like a religious nutjob. (Re reading post script, this was foreshadowing)

Consciousness is an emergent property of natural dynamics in the universe. The universe is some sort of contrast complexity between nothing exists and everything exists. Similar to light/dark either both exist or neither does.

Without universe to act as the natural wealth of physical interactions there is no stage for consciousness to form.

Without universe where things we judge as “immoral” “bad” can occur normally there is no universe where things that we judge “moral” “good” can occure. This is a step to say morality in nature does not actually exist.

The system of nature is destructive, it is finite. Bleak as we pay perceive it is is part of its complexe beauty. For everything we use we work towards destroying ourself conceptually.

So many words to actually say that isolated from context “acts of killing and eating of animals/others cannot be considered “wrong” trough any logical reasoning.

It is not the killing part that is “bad” to reference the earlier question.

But what we can conclude trough logical reasoning is that if we want to appreciate this insane universe we can instead of wailing in the (optimistic) nihilism of possibilities and inability to eliminate the inherent self destruction of what your kind emerged from. You can prolong its existence, strech it on more time by simply being mindful not to waste, to respect the values of nature around you and to use them to mindfully, optimally enriching the experience of the life that is now as it lives.

Its not just eating plants i am talking about but the grand total of destruction.

Every breath of air you take, every sip of water, every footprint in the dirt. It is impossible for any being, herbivorous or not to live with no ecological cost. Every fart is methane. Your housing takes space other life could claim. Your body blocks light to reach the moss spores behind you and your lungs convert oxygen to co2 as we speak.

My philosophy is to personally measure the cost where i am aware, lower it where i can but accept that there will always be a cost. Enjoy life regardless so that costs is not wasted.

Were speaking on completely spiritual different levels it seems. I am not religious but to me system of nature itself is a bigger consciousness with other life (like us) just sub parts of it, harming another being equals harming myself. Not wrong on itself but an important part of what makes life what it is.

The keyword is balance and awareness. Life requires destruction to persist and continue but to much destruction and it seizes to be also.

You lost me on assuming i don’t value consciousness but i read that you agree that is moral to live even knowing that doing so is an act of destruction?

Then i think we are in agreement?

Trying to reach what goal?

“Life inherently is a destructive action”

What i mean to say with that is not that life (or eating meat) is immoral, but that the result of simply living is destruction to nature and other life is a normal part of the cyclus… Its way more then just animals, its also the plants, the air you consume, the ant that happens to end under the leg of your chair…

The only way any being could ever to get a “neutral footprint” is to never get born to begin with.

I am perfectly happy with my meat consumption, but i do wish it was normal in my society to be more personally involved in what the natural costs is of what we have on our plates.

A melancholic reality, the act of life is inherently destructive, not really a problem in a technical sense.

“No ethical consumption under capitalism”

I enjoy eating meat,

I could also enjoy the natural balance of having to kill my own food rather then relying on the industrial grinder.

I could definitely enjoy the thrill and sport of the hunt.

I could never enjoy killing an animal,

trying to make it as quick and painless is an essential part of hunting.

Luring a deer with frozen corn and then sledgehammer to the head is a psychotic and has nothing to do with hunting for food unless your actually starving and there is no other way.

There now is a real app dor samsung tizen and before that you could sideload one from github (though thats a different flavor of technical then a docker server)

Thats what i mean, we theoretically can redistribute the majority of wealth to end all poverty and there would still be enough centralised wealth for the current rich to still live in royal luxury and feel special about.

Of course there would be massive opposition unless we figure what that does to inflation. So I don’t think it’ll ever happen but its a point that we absolutely could redistribute wealth without eradicating the upper class.

Instead as an actual solution i think we should count differently and consider all wealth to be a personal cost of a human taking resources from the shared planet. What you consume and possess is what you cost to others. Life is inherently a destructive action.

By measuring the cost and aiming to keep it low we can allow free access to groups (elderly for example) to a share of industrial output.

They don’t need to pay with money, society just needs to count the cost of their transaction. Invite for a welfare talk if there is a problem with overconsumption.

This project is a wip but i imagine that using what is called fountain pen money now could be used to pay classical industry with classical money. The fountain pen money is technically a debt but its the natural debt of human life with no expectation to ever close it.

In theory though impossible in practice:

If we halved the wealth of the current richest person.

Equally divided that wealth to the 50% poorest household.

And repeated from their till there are no more Billionaires.

Musk would end up at 800 mil after having his wealth divided 10 times. While people who had no money to start now have around 50K

(Broad numbers, Not an accurate calculation)

Not sure what tv that is but some have clients that can be side loaded.

I have accidentally observed a reflection of a Disney movie in the reflective windows from a house i do not live and saved that information trough my retinas into my brain.

Who needs to go to jail in this situation? I who now possesses illegal information in my mind, or the careless home owner who flashed their copy onto me?

I saw the writing on the wall when they kept pushing me for needing an account on their servers. Glad i left.

Actually both profit and debt are just global loss.

Sell a forest to let a company turn it in firewood for sale but it doesn’t sell so the company make a loss.

In the end nothing of value got created but the temporary heat of the logs that got sold. For the profit that is now used for a new casino or famous art, the world has lost a forest, a local contributor of healthy air.

All life that consumes life generates loss. To live is to destroy. That is inevitable.

Maybe we should aim to embrace that fact rather than hide from it. Hold the knowledge in 2 hands.

Because the problem is not that to live we must destroy, its the excessive disrespectful way we go on with it noting the profits and value without the damage we have done to obtain those numbers.

Maybe public display of loss and debt, proof of how little cost there is for the creation of a measurable value could be the new winning.

Once we start counting loss and not profit or economy will make more sense, as money to first have and then buy with becomes obsolete in contrast to measuring how much damage you have done compared to your peers. Socially, winning means being able to brag with how much you can do with so little.

No more bloating numbers for the appearance of success, but actual success in showing how creative and efficient we can be to get the most life out of our species.

(This is a wip btw)

Uhm actually ddg is just bing with marketing, does not block microsoft trackers, giving them a monopoly on that data. Use Searxng if you actually want no trackers.

And like. The economy isn’t real. You need to stop getting so worked up about these semantics. Debt isn’t a real thing, money is not a real thing, its all just psychotic monkey scribbles. Made up shit.

The only type of debt that does exist, is the one humanity has towards earth. A debt that exits in the labour, resources and energy that it will take to balance our planet out so it can continue to co-exist with us.

Sorry, just trolling by acting “stoned teenager”