Yeah - I just want to be able to run Office in my Linux desktop - I don't care if the windows VM instance takes an extra 8gb ram, I just want it to work seamlessly
Parallels does it on macOS and it works. Windows also provides a way to RDP individual applications so it's "just" a matter of the client hiding the seam.
Why does the technicality that red and grey squirrels are different species hold any weight to you? The effect is still the same: They are two discernibly different populations, of which one is on the decline in its native land alongside the increase of another. As humans, we are orders of magnitude more sensitive to population differences amongst humans than amongst squirrels. Squirrel populations do not have associated music, dress, religion, traditions, and so on. So the question remains: Why does the decline of a discernable population of squirrels carry immense sentimental weight to many people, but not the decline of an ethnic group? Especially when most people would give a very different answer if that ethnic group were, for example, Native American or Palestinian? The only answer to me is that people feel that they aren't allowed to hold these sentimental thoughts, and work to block them from their own mind.
I do not play favorites with nationalism. I have the same opinion of Arabic or Chinese or any other culture.
In any case, you are implying the ridiculous point that somehow culture is some telepathic magic that is inherent to the people who lived there from some completely arbitrary cut off point where you somehow think it drops out of thin air in the blood or something instead of something one is raised into. Do you think for example a british baby taken to afghanistan and raised by the Taliban would turn up to have English culture magically?
Extreme nationalism is a third world culture to me, I would consider a capitalist, liberal immigrant from say Egypt to be more European than a white nationalist. The far right causes problems for and has problems with far right from other places. White nationalists and Islamic extremists hating each other, and so on. I have never heard democratic capitalist people having issues with other democratic capitalist people. If you want to solve ethnic etc conflict I would say the surest shot approach to it is to suppress, deport, eliminate, deal with far right wingers of every stripe whether white or islamic or jewish or any other.
And lastly what exactly has nationalism given us? The bad far outweighs the good. For pithy stuff about language and food, you have genocides, warfare, bloodshed on the other end of the scale.
And Palestinians are being genocided...again driven by nationalism and religion. Genocide and property crimes are obviously bad.
Whites aren't being genocided in England. If someone thinks that, then being a delusional snowflake somehow equating not having enough babies to other races genociding you is their mental problem, not mine.
Correct. For any ethnicity or country. Have yet to see any good in it that outweighs the bad. What useful thing have we ever got by focusing on race and nationalism?
What he was saying is if the total universe was merely a few million kilometers, the earth would form a much larger and non-trivial portion of it compared to the vast size of the observable universe in real life.
What is the difference between subjective truth and objective truth? Do you have a telephone line to god or some other entity that will tell you Objective Truth?
Its a simple question either you have a telephone line to Objective Truth or you don't. If you don't have a telephone line to Objective Truth, you are bsing and trying to pass off your Subjective Truth as Objective Truth. Otherwise all truths are the best approximations we get from Subjective Experience. On matters of this fundamental level, high level of rigor is even more important, if you fail to provide that then it should be completely dismissed. Such a fundamental basis of thought cannot be left to wishy washy nonsense.
You're at liberty to go the Full Bertrand Russell with the rejection of the "wishy washy" all you like; Objective Truth is always going to bring along a Kurt Gödel.
Whether or not you buy off on the notion that Objective Truth paid a visit a couple millenia back and was crucified for explaining that Truth to humanity remains a subjective matter.
It has to remain subjective, lest it tampered with your free will to reject that Objective Truth.
We all get to own our response to that Onjective Truth, free and clear.
One anticipates that this reply will stand rejected as "wishy washy" for having failed to externalize something that does not yield to externalization. All I can say is: best wishes to you, sir.
If a thing close to an objective truth exists, there is no reason that it would preclude freedom to reject it. Flat earthers won't exist otherwise.
The kind of thing you are falsely calling "objective truth", there have been thousands that have passed, and dozens still active that still claim to be also the same type of "objective truth". All of them contradict each other and are blatantly wrong even on really basic matters. It doesn't even try to be objective truth, any attempts to even make it so are treated by the response that one needs "Faith and Belief". Not just yours, all of them.
And even if we ignore the fact that these were sociopolitical movements primarily, even if we take that people were trying really in earnest to find truth, again its ridiculous and disproved by thousands of examples to believe men 2000 years ago could find the "final truth". Much better attempts at this goal, via the physical sciences, have been refined or disproven over the centuries, let alone what those men were doing.
Your problem is that there are thousands of similar "truths" in the past and dozens currently active in the present. Which is true? None of them are able to show theirs is true and the others are wrong.
The problem with these groups is that they are taking a really hard problem and going the opposite direction of feasible ways to begin solving it. Mathematics and the physical sciences came the closest, after much pain and effort. And these groups have as yet only been able to contradict each other and each claim to be the ultimate truth.
r/flairedusersonly , the great bastion of freedom of speech, of course feels it "scary" to even allow anyone posting who hasn't been safely found to be part of the Inner circle. And even downvotes or the slightest disagreement from cultists already in the circle disagreeing must be "infiltrators".
That's exactly it. If you have to actually do this for survival or to make functional products at the pace of making a profit it's no longer "wistful and whimsical". These fetishes come from living in a time where industry and automation has dealt with most of our problems and we can romanticize hand work, etc.
It matters when you have a rabid, screaming fanbase who ignores even blatant in your face contradictions and fellates everything God, I mean, Trump says.
They are too smart to repeat the mistake of the IBM PC again. Even with "open" ISAs, kernels, they will rules-lawyer out the blackbox part out just like with Android phone makers etc.
Weird mobile SoCs are increasingly open. There's device tree. Modern Pixel devices use UEFI.
Why bother with obfuscated nonstandard schemes when it gets you bad PR and increases your own development costs to get a FOSS stack up and running? Manufacturers just lock the bootloader instead. That can't be reverse engineered around.
Thats what I meant. They will find some other part of the stack to lock down to rules lawyer against the openness of whatever the rest of the stack is. You have an open source Linux kernel, you may have an open source chip, so as you said they might cryptographically lock the bootloader. And now Android I believe is trying to make an end run around drivers in the Linux layer too. If thats true then manufacturers will jump to shift drivers into the Apache layer instead of the GPL kernel. ie if they even provide source dumps at all.
edit: It seems I am misinformed about the moving drivers above part. Perhaps I might have confused this from Fuchsia. In any case the main point was that as you yourself gave the example of, they will always find some part of the stack to hide all the real power/real logic into even if the other parts are open.
Those who do will in the first place have to be actual Libertarians. Most "libertarians" are Trumpies who somehow don't like calling themselves Trumpies and gladly support censorship and so on of "others". A very few of Libertarians are actually Libertarian, and they might or might not regret Trump today or at some future date.
