![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/045a2049-eb61-4960-88ba-97e7f1ffbf31.jpeg)
I hearby announce that I am also not buying Valve & Counter-Strike for £12 billion. You heard it here first!
I hearby announce that I am also not buying Valve & Counter-Strike for £12 billion. You heard it here first!
I believe that animal agriculture is going to end us before I believe that we are going to end animal agriculture.
Germany: https://www.bbk.bund.de/EN/Prepare-for-disasters/Personal-Preparedness/Stockpiling/stockpiling_node.html and that’s not new. It gets updated every few years. I thought every country in the world has this. If something can be said about it then that it is true that some families in Western countries, imcluding Germany, have a hard time to afford every day food and can’t stockpile and THAT’s something governments should address too but don’t.
Also, most all US small to mid sized business transactions are by check.
Why? It is a bank transfer with extra steps. A check can get unreadable, get lost… No one in Germany would write a check for a permit fee or to pay a business partner. You pay online. Fast, safe, can’t get lost, easy to proof what, when to whom you have paid for years to come. And the transfer won’t get through if you do not have money on your account or are allowed to overdraw, while you can write whatever you want on a check and then run.
It is not cash or check it is bank transfer or check and the bank transfer is the safer, faster option. All they do at a bank is to scan the check and to turn it into the exact same bank transfer it could have been in the first place. All you do is adding a layer of risk by writing on a piece of paper.
I find that really funny, because many Germans still refuse to buy their groceries without cash, many like me do not own a credit card only debit cards, but no one younger than 90 uses a check. I am 58 years old and have never owned checks.
At that age they have no understanding what “dead” means. We do not know if the child kept quiet or if just no one took his ramblings seriously and kids that young often have no words for what happened especially if it is dramatic, the kid might have made drawings instead that went unnoticed. We also do not know if the gun owner threatened the child to stay quiet.
Please let people who know children and their mental capabilities and have experience in treating them as is needed do their job and stay away from making such brutal assumptions. It is ok to not know things, that’s why specialists exist. It is not about “believing” when it comes to a decision of life or death, feelings need to stay back. It is ok to find a child murdering someone disturbing without following a gut feeling for what should be done.
We still share and it works flawlessly because non of us uses a television, all PC/laptop only and they can’t find out as it seems.
To be fair, the project was the dumbest thing I have ever seen, but it was one of the only big projects that got rid of cars completely and in that one thing it was actually refreshing and futuristic and not the same old. A walkable citiy with a fast train - I hope they keep that, but it will be the first thing to go says my cynical brain.
It is NOT an “early access period” it is a “late access punishment” for not be willing to overpay for a game. Journalists should call it that and nothing else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAJEHZDIEw Crazy Baby - Joan Osborne
It is more “stuck for a lifetime”, because this song saved my life and will stay on my “emergency playlist” forever. She sings out of my soul, when depression has me and at the same time sings hope into my soul, if that makes any sense, because it is so hard to describe.
I wish that for every human a song exists that can do that for them!
What a shit guy who cares more about people who live in thousands of years than people who live today:
https://netzpolitik.org/2023/longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology/
https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo
Why do I think this ideology is so dangerous? The short answer is that elevating the fulfilment of humanity’s supposed potential above all else could nontrivially increase the probability that actual people – those alive today and in the near future – suffer extreme harms, even death. Consider that, as I noted elsewhere, the longtermist ideology inclines its adherents to take an insouciant attitude towards climate change. Why? Because even if climate change causes island nations to disappear, triggers mass migrations and kills millions of people, it probably isn’t going to compromise our longterm potential over the coming trillions of years. If one takes a cosmic view of the situation, even a climate catastrophe that cuts the human population by 75 per cent for the next two millennia will, in the grand scheme of things, be nothing more than a small blip – the equivalent of a 90-year-old man having stubbed his toe when he was two.
Bostrom’s argument is that ‘a non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of global civilisation is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback.’ It might be ‘a giant massacre for man’, he adds, but so long as humanity bounces back to fulfil its potential, it will ultimately register as little more than ‘a small misstep for mankind’. Elsewhere, he writes that the worst natural disasters and devastating atrocities in history become almost imperceptible trivialities when seen from this grand perspective. Referring to the two world wars, AIDS and the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he declares that ‘tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things … even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life.’
This way of seeing the world, of assessing the badness of AIDS and the Holocaust, implies that future disasters of the same (non-existential) scope and intensity should also be categorised as ‘mere ripples’. If they don’t pose a direct existential risk, then we ought not to worry much about them, however tragic they might be to individuals. As Bostrom wrote in 2003, ‘priority number one, two, three and four should … be to reduce existential risk.’ He reiterated this several years later in arguing that we mustn’t ‘fritter … away’ our finite resources on ‘feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy’ such as alleviating global poverty and reducing animal suffering, since neither threatens our longterm potential, and our longterm potential is what really matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism
He does not care about us, why should anyone care about him? Unfortunately other rich people are also into this, because it helps them to ignore the worlds problems and to do whatever they want to the people living now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka9GALExUeo I guess this is too fast then?
deleted by creator