I don’t know why it wouldn’t be a practical conclusion to draw, considering that the points made on that video are basically in line with the points brought up by the video game corporations and trade associations, who as you might have guessed are very firm opponents of the movement.
Yes, courses and materials coming with terms and conditions for its use is not really a new concept for most reasonable people.
Specifically related to the posted picture, the regular firefox mobile (and desktop) can be configured to not show your history inside of your search/address field, so that you can have your history without it being discoverable to unintentional inspection.
the shared culmination of all human knowledge
A good amount without their consent yeah. You tried to justify it earlier in the comment chain by saying it’s not an exact reproduction and that the cat’s already out of the bag, which is what ai bros typically say to cope with that aspect.
You say you are being swept up like some sort of unrelated bystander but it doesn’t look like your justification is too different from the typical ai user’s justification.
Why do you think people get upset with you every time you point this out, if you don’t mind me asking?
all done in user space, you just have to disable this security feature preventing user space programs from calling these privileged cpu instructions 😅
even mathematically impossible to do formally (reducible to the halting problem).
Nah, if the programs are not arbitrary (and I hope they’re not, considering that you chose them) then it doesn’t reduce to that. But you are right that it is not feasible for most industries and he is right that in some industries it is not only feasible but required.
If by installing you mean the data is received ready to play on the computer that you will be playing on, probably not. The rest of the computer will be too slow to receive such a bandwidth even if the Internet service could provide it to you.
These requirements are set as to be impossible because Chesterton was a horrible person in favour of maintaining a racist and patriarchal Catholic society. seriously try and answer those questions without speculation.
He literally holds up to his own standards right afterwards: “It is now necessary to recite these truisms; for only by doing so can we begin to get a glimpse of that reason for the existence of the family, which I began this essay by demanding.”
He doesn’t say you can’t speculate: “People ought to decide in a philosophical fashion whether they desire the traditional social order or not; or if there is any particular alternative to be desired”. It would be weird if he did considering that this chapter brings up speculation on practical ramifications of social reform rather than historical context.
He wasn’t exactly in favor of the status quo either (in his case it would be more from a reactionary perspective): “The family, especially in the modern state, stands in need of considerable correction and reconstruction; most things do in the modern state.”
What purpose is patriarchy supposed to serve? What about homophobia? What about racism? How did they arise? What purpose does excluding women from voting serve? What about anti abortion laws?
All of those things are very well studied now from all lenses and perspectives, I don’t think anyone reasonable will say that there is no understanding on these topics. Certainly not in a philosophical fashion.
No, Call of duty doesn’t even store all of its full res textures on your hard drive lol. They could make it much bigger if they wanted to
Every tradition and social structure has some important reasoning behind it, and if you want to get rid of some prohibition or institution because you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress then that is a demonstration of your lack of qualification to make such a change.
Where did you get this impression from? If you think it’s outdated, useless, or obstructing progress that’s understanding. Seeing that it’s useless is different from not seeing its use. There is literally a quote about that in the same chapter.
If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served.
“it’s weird”
“it’s gross”
“other people won’t like you if you do it”
I thought neurodivergents hated such reasoning lol
Imagine doing remote tech support for someone with such an attitude lol
There is an entire profession dedicated to stopping violence against capital
i thought when u said “Do you need me to explain economics 101 to you?” u were going to explain economics 101 to me lol
yes please
Yeah, I already got the impression that you didn’t give a shit about the consent side from your earlier posts.