• 23 Posts
Joined neljä kuukautta sitten
Cake day: heinä 13, 2022


We talk and think about ideas, statements which are not concrete. And so an important question directly tied to yours is: do ideas exist in the world?

One view answers affirmatively, for instance that mathematics and numbers do exist in the world, and they can only be perceived through so-called lohical construction of the hard data. The opposite view asserts that mere thoughts and ideas do not exist intrinsically outside of the mind and so they have no actual existence, at least not independent from us.

If it’s the former case, then it’s probably impossible to cover all existing ideas. If it’s the latter, then the mind is the limit.

Jordan Peterson /s

Veritasium and Tom Scott make interesting videos from time to time.

If it is on F-droid then their team have built it themselves so the code should technically be out somewhere right? Still alarming that it’s not on github which means nobody can actually fix the issues.

Can you elaborate please, it would be a good opportunity for the community to debate and learn.

I like using wikiless instances too, what does that mean for the future of Wikiles Should we keep using them?

That is a fair point. I understood ‘right’ as ‘prerogative’ and not as a moral notion. Still, I think that my argument gives an interesting legal perspective to the discussion herein.

the rule is that the State always has the exclusive and discretionary right to regulate immigration. The exception to this rule is it being legally tied to an international treaty, notably the 1961 convention relating to the status of the refugees.

According to classic international legal theory, the State is the political organization beholding discretionary power over its territories. What lies within its borders is nobody else’s business. That being said, times of disarray and conflicts require flexible solutions to mitigate humanitarian disasters, which may be seen to a certain extent as being derogatory to the State’s sovereignty. This is how for instance the law of war, jus in bello, came to be. Same case for the refugee law.

So all in all, regulating immigration is the principle, limiting this regulatory power is the exception.

Hello Johnny, and welcome to Lemmy. I see your point there and I agree that people’s behavior online becomes dehumanized and anormal. Sadly, this is a common phenomenon on the internet and you can’t always avoid slopperies. Just ignore whatever you see as a waste of time and effort. I hope you have a great time here.

Since switching to lemmy, I’ve been browsing it anonymously with no account. Despite the alleged toxicity and circlejerking in some of its creeks, Reddit is a high sea of knowledge. I mostly look there for educational material and resources and for tips to guide my niche interests.

Going back to the previous point; Reddit, while it seems like a mainstream website, its users constitute a small, opinionated minority. I wouldn’t take much of what they say (especially in politics) seriously. Also, the internet gives regular people are thick layer of anonymity which encourages them to act (actually to type) most precariously and intensely, which is totally different from how they act in the real world. That goes to all online platforms, even here. If you’re self aware enough, I want you to do a tiny experiment: try to act and treat people online the way you do in real life, and see if there’s any difference between your usual, online behavior and this one.

There are no humans or other species to kill off on life-barren rocks.

Has it been confirmed that no other species exist in the entire universe? FYI, everything that is sent to the space and vice versa passes through a process of disinfection to reduce the chances of infecting alien ecosystems with Earth bacteria which may be invasive. There are areas (with potential life) on Mars that are still intact by human machinery due to this exact fear. Space isn’t exactly life-barren, there’s bacterial organisms and maybe flora at the very least.

The future of dictatorships in an era of space exploration
This is my personal take on what possibilities could space exploration and colonization offer to authoritarian regimes in extending their control and consolidating their rule. Hypothetically speaking, with how space and transport technologies are progressing, we may encounter a second phase of globalization which connects planets and galaxies together within an ecosystem maintained by big intergovernmental, law-making organizations (I'd call this the international sphere/order 2.0) . Subsequently, the territories of a given State may be distributed on several planets and bodies. Now, let us assimilate this futuristic reality with more concrete elements. We've encountered in this century few examples of dictatorships' aggressive behavior in consolidating their power and mitigating revolutions. This was manifested in the construction of new capitals restrained only to the elitist classes and the governmental bodies; this is notably the case in Egypt, Myanmar and Brazil. The logical reason behind this initiative is to reduce the possibilities for popular uprisings to topple those tyrannical regimes. For instance, Egypt's new capital is located in the hit desert 45 km away from Cairo (former capital and big centre for lower class); if a popular uprising was to be born in Cairo, it would be virtually impossible for it to reach the capital. Tying the strings together, a post-space-exploration dictatorship may establish its capital on a remote body away from the revolting populace, thus squashing the phenomenon of rebellion once and for all. This is of course assuming that the lower classes would still have limited access to the outer space, and I don't see that as far fetched with the ever-increasing inequality. The same thought process, I argue, could be applied to the sphere of international affairs and politics in many respects. Access to space is like the birth and expansion of civilizations but this time it's in a wider, spatial cadre.

depends on the State’s goals ;)

From a philosophical, metaphysical perspective it certainly does. Many prominent theories have been based on the idea of human particularism. So proving existence/possibility of existences of extraterrestrial, sentient, and complex beings would require a reflection on past conceptions on the nature of reality, an eradication and reconstruction of metaphysics so to speak.

A few users said that it would matter only in the future, but, for the reasons argued above, I think it would matter right on the spot. Arriving at a definitive answer will remove so many ambiguities plaguing intellectual discussions. It may even lead to revolutionary overhaul of the generalized conceptions and structures of the human world.

It’s driving me crazy. What I’m doing right now is either write the url word by word in my browser or I copy the url of the lemmy post, open it in browser then open the shared link.

I used to use jerboa and this happened quite often. You can instead subscribe via the web ui or if you have access to the mod’s profile you can access communities they moderate.

What's a book that you passionately criticize but still recommend it?
For me, it's a non-fiction by Ahmet Davutoglu (Turkey's former PM) titled "Alternative Paradigms". Without entering into extensive details, Davutoglu contrasts the Islamic and Western worlds from a philosophical and political aspects in assertion of the theory of the clash of civilizations in the globalization era. While there's some merit to his postulations, there are many discrepancies. That being said, I find myself recommending it because it has some truth even if misguided, so I always suggest to read it with caution and scutiny.

We have to make the concepts of decentralization and federation clearer to newcomers
In the last two days I witnessed three separate instances where a new user doesn't understand that lemmy is bigger than just lemmy.ml They would either vent or attack lemmy for say its moderation or users' opinions when in fact they're only criticizing lemmy.ml It's perplexing how they end up on lemmy.ml when [the instances page](https://join-lemmy.org/instances) doesn't put lemmy.ml on top. Is it because of the high userbase? If that's the case, devs still got to make it absolutely clear on their website how lemmy functions as a whole. Maybe insert extra dialogs when trying to sign up and move the "join a server" button to thr bottom of the page so people would scroll through and read.

This was posted via lemmur
The app was recently updated in F-droid!

What's your opinion on this? Is curing hereditary diseases on a genetic level a scientific possibility? If so, why there's a focus on supressing those diseases or their symptoms?

(available on [libgen](https://libgen.rocks/ads.php?md5=8FDCC7DB0FD00C666C331641440D2F92) ;) This book is a reality check for us modern people. In today's day an age, Science and the Scientific method are glorified just like religion was in the Medieval Ages to the point of pure nonrational belief. But this seems contradictory to the ideals of Science, no? What happened to the objectivity, to seeking the truth, to be the last frontier facing the prejudice and dogmas of society? Contemporary scholars have enough data that suggests some of your most beloved, influential scientists had plagiarized, modified or even faked their experimental results that they claimed to obtain: from Galileo Galilei, to Newton, to Mendel and others more whom science textbooks seemed to forget. And day after day, dozens of cases of fraud emerge, while hundreds more if not thousands of fraudulent researchers pass unchallenged into the walls of fame. And the scariest part is that the medical domain is one of the most susceptible environment for fraud and neglect to the truth and to the health of innocents. The scientific community has always brushed off these cases as the "bad apples" that do not reflect the integrity of Science. But Broad & Wade see this issue from another grim perspective. After a thorough and extensive research, they deduced that in fact the problem lies within the core of Science, the conventionalist Scientific Method. Invented and developed by the philosophers and sociologists who looked at Science “from the perspectives of their own disciplines”, the conventionalist method fails to do its supposed function of self-policing whether through replication, peer review, or the referee system. “The philosophers have said they are objective, so scientists strictly forbid any reference to subjective experience in the scientific literature. The sociologists have said they are disinterested, so scientists disdain any overt manifestation of competition or credit-seeking. The historians have said that science is the defense against unreason, so scientists deny with a passion that human passions have any place whatsoever in their work.” (Ch.7) Broad & Wade, giving along the way numerous, vivid examples of the types of fraud that took place systematically, criticized the practical discrepancies of the Scientific method and blamed the Scientific community for turning a blind eye to them. Criticisms vary from opportunitism and careerism, to dogmatism and elitism among the scientists. The authors do not try to mistrust Science per se. Instead they aim from this book to highlight an alternative way into looking at Science and its method. And I believe they have done a pretty good job. ⭐ 4.5/5 If you plan to read the book, please let me know your feedback!

Piracy? We've heard numerous times what r/books thinks about it. But how does c/books view it?
"Piracy" here is used in the context of books and all sorts of manuscripts. r/books have three main arguments against it: - It is technically theft - It damages the author's job and income (as well as the publisher, illustrator...etc.) - Why go through the tedious path of pirating books when you can borrow the books from a library legally and for free. What's your reply to those arguments? Are they satisfactory?

To what extent are you commited to a certain book?
Basically, sometimes one may find out too late that a book isn't quite up to one's taste. The book might not be gripping enough due to many factors. In such case, would you quit reading it? Does the amount of progress you put in make a difference? Or would you be nontheless determined to complete despite not feeling any meaningful connection?

Do you listen to music when reading? Why or why not?
For me, I try to find music that fits the setting and resonates with the exposed culture.