As a guy who has been on plenty of dates, I can tell you that there are also plenty of woman who are like that. I suspect that the datingpool in general is saturated with people who are like this.
Rednax
joined 2 years ago
Large beer containers are "rare" for the same reason large soda containers are rare: carbonization. If you store an opened bottle of beer for a few hours, it will go flat, killing part of the taste with it. Beer is even worse in this regard than soda. You want to finish the whole thing in one sitting for beer. Very few people consume 2 litres of beer in one sitting. ... But ... Every single self respecting bar has beer from the tap, right? That stuff doesn't appear magically. It comes in kegs. You can buy those kegs from a wholesaler, or from the internet. These kegs work by inserting CO2 to pressurize it. So you will need CO2 tanks and a system to pressurize the whole thing. Not super hard to get, but not something you find in your supermarket either. But if you consume enough beer, it can absolutely be worth it to buy a tap, CO2 and kegs instead of bottles.
Most people here are taking the moral high road or talking about the current state of society. Lets look at game theory instead to get some fundamental understanding.
Consider a game with 10 players. Each player has two options: be charitable or be selfish. If they are charitable, they add 3 points to the collective score. If they are selfish, they add 2 points to their own score. All players decide at the same, and afterwards the collective is evenly divided among all players. So if all players are charitable, everyone ends up with a personal score of 3. If everyone is selfish, everyone ends up with a score of 2.
If you are the only selfish person in the game, you score a jackpot. You get a total score of 4.7.
Now consider the idea that you play this game over and over with random players, accumulating score in each game. If everyone is always selfish, no-one will score higher than 2. But if you, individually are never selfish, you never score higher than 3.
If we consider all players to follow the same strategy, then we get an optimization puzzle for individual score. How often do you randomly choose for selfish? Instinct and DNA, but also culture and social norms create a common recipe in humans for how to make this decision. So while reality is more complex, we still act anough alike to get some wisdom when applying this assumption.
But it turns out that we don't play these games with random people, but we are grouped by our strategy for choosing selfish or charitable (e.g. grouped by culture). And the groups also compete. If a group does particularly bad with their global score, they will be removed from the game (conquored, culture changed, etc). So not only does your choice for selfish or charitable need to optimize for personal gain to get a survival edge within your group, it also needs to optimize for survival of the group. A group with only selfish people will never thrive.
Hence, in this simple example, randomly doing good can be good for the survival of your DNA and culture. Real life is much more complicated, but a similar balance of interests may be at play. After all, evolution means that life is constantly competing with itself, yet it also benefits from working together with itself.
Whether you feel survival of your DNA and culture are relevant, is up to you. But when entire groups exist that don't feel like that, they tend to go extinct.
If scientists could make you immortal but could only do it by transferring your consciousness into a single video game for ever, which game would you choose?
And you might eventually die, after you have become a fallen empire yourself, and get stomped by some next level crisis, while the AI empires are less than useless. I consider this a plus though. Eternity is a very long time, and boredom is a very strong emotion. No game could keep me entertained for eternity.
Do you mean that programming languages are hard to read/write, or that the languages themselves are poorly designed?
In the former case, I invite you to read machine code. Not assembly, but straight machine code. Just zeros and ones as far as the editor can see. Any popular language is better than that.
In the latter case, I invite you to look at the design of an arbitrary natural language. Weird grammer rules, regional differences, loan words that don't fit in, etc. No programmming language is worse than that. Although I would argue that Javascript has all of those problems too in some degree.
I played for several hours yesterday, and had no issues with crashing at all. They released a patch since you made this comment that fixed several crashes, so I guess you found at least some of the causes stated in the patchnotes.
The biggest issues I encountered were a problem with selecting submodules of a storage while editing the storage, and a lack of explenation on what watchman actually do other than stand there and look pretty.
view more: next ›
Reddit was a decent solution, till it enshitified to make money. Before then, it was already flooded by the masses. Clearly their method worked fine. Not perfect, but at least fine. So I don't see why the masses are the problem. I personaly put all the blame on the need to make money of a vital piece of digital infrastructure.
The tricky part, is that we also cannot put it in the hands of a government, since it can become a tool for propaganda. So the EU hosting something like reddit, would also create a conflict of interrests. I'm curious if we can find a good solution to this problem.