I have a similar relationship with math. Only that I learnt to admire it through 3D and shaders.

Check out Shadertoy.com

People there create works of art from something, that’s usually perceived as “cold”. I’m still in awe of how people, using “cold” analythical methods achieve something so full of soul. I think it deserves to be appreciated far more than it is now. This is literal magic.

I’m so glad that people finally start to grasp, how bad excessive specialisation really is.

society is healing

i see…

Take that, nerd!>:D

rustles your hair

tbf, if we extrapolate ad absurdum, not reproducing with the first mature enough person we meet, and rather chosing partner based of arbitrary traits we wanna see in our kids already sounds eugenic-y

i was talking more so about a hlant doing adaptaition “with purpose in mind”

yeah, you’re right, but, i guess i’ve chosen my words poorly, as you’re arguing not about what i had in mind.

OP asked about the end purpose of ihe reproductive mecanism of said tree going so complex, it can no longer reproduce, wether it did that, so we would reproduce the the tree ourselves instead. They obviously said that half jokingly, but i still was trigerred.

after i read your comment, i actually asked myself a question: “why tf one would even like taxonomy?”

and i’m still asking

pls someone answer

damn, i had so much arguments with creationists around myself recently, that just the words “plan” and “evolution” put together make me unhappy

If we base the morality on whether there would be any harm done to any side, given everything goes as intended, and whether they are capable to communicate (even pretended) pleasure, and consent, then fuck yes, slay

I’m not a philosopher btw, i just have lots of free time (at least in this i’m akin to them lololol)

but in this case, actually, I proposed it bc i’ve seen synthetic tests that compared this distro to others, and it yielded interesting results, so i actually wonder about what the results would be in the gaming context, as the testing specific varies greatly.

in other words

I’M THE NERDEST NERD, AND THOSE NERDS AREN’T NERDING THEIR NERDY STUFF ENOUGH

or… something like that

i guess it’s my new version of archbtw

i just find this distro to be genuinely worth everybody’s try, as it’s easy to set up, and it comes with custom-built packages (they mostly just add some comptime flags), that favor optimisation for the modern hardware over backward compatibility.

cough cough

cachyos

give cachyos a try someday. It offers some good optimizons to the system, that would be time-consuming or problematic to setup otherwise

your analogy doesn’t quite work here tbh.

It’s not a transparent lock, a transparent lock would be easy to pick. It’s more of a usual lock, but everyone can see all the blueprints and changes done to them. You can make changes to the blueprints yourself, and if the locksmiths approve of it, the next iteration of the lock will have them included.

Everyone who’s in the set of users of OSS software can contribute, therefore the set of people in control of the software that want it to have no backdoors whatsoever is always larger than the set of people who want to let the backdoors in, unlike in closed source, where corporate can singlehandedly decide to include a backdoor on purpose, not to mention, lots of OSS projects have such a large quantities of different people working on them, corpos won’t be able to gather so much humanpower under a single project ever.

like any opensource project, it largely depends on how much widely adopted it is. OP’s case is actually a good example, as as they brought attention towards the problems with this certain software, it’s now more likely that someone will get to fixing the issue.

Also, there still are lots of well-maintained x11 wms and this fact doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon.

you have no idea about how scientific method works. It’s the furtherst thing from being dogmatic and claiming to know everything. When you look at modern science, you don’t look at a “that was like this” statement, it’s more of “that’s what we discovered so far, it’s weird, so we re-checked it with every method availeble to us, here’s all the data we have and how we checked it”.

I dare you to read at least one actual scientific article before you claim anything about modern science. It’s easy to badmouth it and fentasize about your own reality when all you read are nothing more than rewrites and interpretations of said articles, made by journalists that want to write front-pagers, not to represent the data correctly and substantionally.

yeah, i got that at least. What’s up with it in America tho?

can someone explain pls?