My one hope is we will have enough mortally devasting weather before it’s too late so that doubters will convince themselves.

I’m sorry to say that but it’s kinda “too late” already, to some definition. Even if we stop burning fossil fuels right now, human societies will not escape unharmed, there will be more crop failure leading to more famine leading to more war, even ignoring the “minutia” such as heat-related deaths and so on. Of course that’s not to say we shouldn’t fix our shit right now, because we still can reduce the impact and try to save our global “civilization” (or whatever you want to call the sum of human knowledge, connections, industry, material culture etc).

On a more hopeful level, I also think that pretty much whatever happens, homo sapiens as a species will probably survive. As primates, we are excellent at organizing in small groups and adapting our environments to suit us, however hostile they may be. Earth is huge, its flora and fauna is diverse, and even at +6-8℃ there will be some areas with ecosystems sturdy enough to sustain small populations of hunters-gatherers and even basic agricultural societies. And then, in a few thousands or tens of thousands of years, as the nature recoils from the shock and more and more land becomes habitable for humans again, they will rebuild. Since there won’t be any easily accessible oil or gas in the ground anymore, the new industrial revolution will naturally have to be more sustainable than ours.

Yes the speed is remarkable but it has still been much warmer or colder over a longer period.

This is precisely the point that comic is making tho. Yes, our planet has been a lot warmer than it is now, but as far as we know the changes we’re currently making to the climate are by far the most rapid in human history and this is bound to cause some civilization-scale issues. Even ignoring all the usual problems that will happen again due to a warmer climate (sea level rise, desertification etc), there are some novel ones. There will be no time for ecosystems and societies to adapt to different agricultural conditions, leading to widespread ecosystem and crop failures, cascading down to every aspect of human life.

I actually agree with you in principle: both should be legal and regulated. The extent of legality and regulation needs to be decided according to the use value/danger/harm of the item in question. Guns are generally much more dangerous than “party” drugs and so need to have stricter regulations.

Given the zh/jp examples given, I don’t think the OP is looking for palindromes.

I’m not sure I understand your question fully. Are you looking for two distinct words with the same/similar meaning and etymology but with completely reversed letters? That’s not going to happen in alphabetic languages, because it’s simply not how languages work - completely reversing the actual sounds that come out of your mouth is a phonetic impossibility.

You will be able to find examples where two morphemes have swapped places, similar to your manners/etiquette example, but usually the meaning will change too. The first example that came to my mind is boathouse & houseboat - the former is a building used to store boats, the latter is a boat which is also a dwelling.

So you expect every business in the country to have train tracks pull right up to it?

That’s actually a pretty good idea to aim for eventually, yes.

Yes, there were a few times I have managed to convince someone on here, even on “political” topics. Not so much on Reddit.

Plenty of times I’ve been convinced that I was wrong about important things as well, which I always try to own.

I wouldn’t say there’s definitive “winning” or “losing” an online argument. This is a public forum, your arguments are there for everyone to see, even if the person you’re talking to still disagrees by the end it may help someone else form a more informed opinion.

Contributions from russians make up a sizeable portion of Linux and GNU tooling. A myriad of foundational software, from nginx to strace, were created and are currently maintained by russian citizens.

While there has been a lot of brain drain (hello), russia is still a country of 140 million people and the remains of great soviet theoretical education. In such conditions there will be both a bunch computer science geniuses and a small army of half-competent coders which would allow you to roll your own OS, let alone a distro, if the efforts were organized enough.

Baikal went bankrupt in 2023 because they used TSMC for chip production.

Elbrus is barely hanging on but it’s helplessly far behind, you can’t really run a modern DE and browse modern web on anything but their flagship Elbrus-16C, but that’s made for servers, AFAIK there are no “desktop” form-factor motherboards for it at all, and it’s exceptionally pricy compared to competition.

I think a more likely outcome is that russia starts bulk-purchasing chinese CPUs soon.

China is not “among the least LGBT-friendly countries in the world”, even by your own data there are 15 countries in Europe (9 of them in the EU) that are doing the same or worse than China. And because of far-right rising all over europe this is bound to get worse before it gets better, sadly.

You can technically remain conscious and in control of your body for a few seconds after your heart stops, while there’s still enough oxygen in your brain and muscles. So there’s nothing theoretically stopping this from happening. I don’t know if this has happened at any point, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

I think it’s a fair question/point. Different factions within feminism will give different answers to that. Personally as a cis man I am fine with feminism focusing primarily or exclusively on women’s issues (it’s in the name), we should have other movements to deal with the way those same issues affecting other genders. Activism and organizing is almost never a zero-sum game, someone can be a feminist and an LGBTQ activist and a socialist for example.

The way this ties into the OC is that it is OK for feminist activism to take away privileges from men if that means improving rights for women. Even if there was a dichotomy of “there are fewer hetero relationships but women are safer from sexual harassment” as presented by OC — which, to be clear, is a false dichotomy and not actually what the vast majority of feminists are advocating for — it would be a fine step to take.

To expand on what @FishLake@lemmygrad.ml said, this analysis ranges from reductive to completely ahistorical.

Women have been part of the productive workforce long before the notion of equality was even on the table. The idea that women were exclusively bearing and rearing children before the industrial revolution is nonsense, women were crucial workers in agriculture and manufacture and it was impossible for a family to be fed only by the patriarch.

The relationship between capitalism and feminism is actually partly the other way around from what you are presenting. Industrialization required centralization and urbanization, which meant it was easier than ever for women to organize with their colleagues and comrades and demand equal rights. It also eased access to weapons, which allowed for direct violent action to force the ruling class to pay attention. Capitalism accelerated or even sometimes spawned feminist movements, which were always in direct contradiction with the actual capitalists who were entirely male at the time.

The idea that women haven’t won anything is just bullshit. You are right that they didn’t “win” the “right to work”, because they had that “right” forever. But what they actually did win is a smaller gender gap in pay and economic opportunities, access to better education, right to political representation, legal prohibitions on some kinds of gender violence. If you think all of this was somehow “granted” by (male) capitalists because it is profitable, that’s just untrue, most of it was directly or indirectly hurtful to the ruling class when those measures were first introduced.

Brushing away “sexual harassment going down” as not an actual improvement is a real tell on yourself. I’d wager if given the choice most women would prefer to not be sexually harassed even if that meant they wouldn’t have a “serious relationship”, or at least they need to be able to make that choice.

has it improved the relationship between men and women?

You seem to be making things about men again. Men are already an exceptionally privileged demographic compared to other genders, feminism does not need to help them, it needs to help women.

women today all have mental illness.

I’ll ignore that part to keep the discussion good-faith and I sincerely recommend you to remove it from the comment

that comes from instagram, where they learn that the world is bad and they have to fear everything. women get told that the circumstances are unacceptable, that other people are out to hunt you, that you can never be satisfied. all of it contributes to an general unwellness.

Actual statistics and history back up the fact that the world is bad. Men have systemically oppressed women for centuries and still do, which lets them get away with some awful shit. Men are more likely to be trusted by police or courts, they generally have more wealth and power, they are on average stronger than women. Men are statistically way more likely to engage in abuse and violence, both psychological and physical. It is reasonable for a rational woman to take precautions when interacting with men, even those she knows already.

it has just caused women to be angry at men all the time for being “predators” or something.

One in three women have experienced sexual violence at one point in their lives. About 15-20% have experienced rape. Almost every woman has experienced some form of sexual harassment. The vast majority (>90%) of perpetrators of those crimes are men.

It is not unreasonable to be angry all the time when you are being sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped, and the society enables and protects the perpetrators. In fact it would be totally unreasonable to ignore an issue as serious as this.

I think you’re joking, but in case you’re not… This is just like the paradox of tolerance, everyone has a right to privacy and freedom but if they violate other’s rights, society will in exchange take away theirs. We don’t (generally) called imprisoned criminals “victims of kidnapping” either.

There is clearly a push coming from these companies in the past month to present AI as something extremely dangerous. The way I see it, it’s just marketing for the industry to keep the grift bubble going a while longer still: (1) there’s no such thing as bad press, (2) if it’s dangerous it must also be good. IMO public statements like this is just another element in that marketing campaign.

Maybe the bubble is closer to bursting than I imagine and they’re trying to stretch it out until the US midterm elections end.

I suspect in reality it’s a combination of all those reasons, probably in different amounts for all three.

Because it is the correct use of the word. It is the american conservative propaganda machine which gave it the negative connotations.

Being antifascist matches at least two definitions of radical: “Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter” and “(slang) Excellent; awesome”

Can’t believe this is the only mention of Conquest of Bread and Capital here. They are what turned my intuition of “the we’ve structured society seems unfair” into at least some basic understanding of the reality around me.

Although I think for most people (myself included) radicalization mostly comes from lived experiences rather than anything you read.

If you just pipe an LLM straight into a feedback loop with a console, it is going to destroy things rather soon, depending on the context window and other factors. All the agentic fluff is basically the workaround for LLMs going off the rails.

Pipe it into root on your laptop for a couple days and see how it fares.