Watch enough Drey Dossier and you’ll start to really despise that Larry Ellison guy. The guy is excellent at doing really big moves from the shadows. Like collecting data on everyone in a country, or combining healthcare with military data, or… or so much stuff…

Melted.

If you park on the street, and it’s level, might not notice until you’re up the street a bit.

If steam wants lower prices, they should subsidize the cost of games for their users. The problem is solved.

It’s not that hard.

1. The supreme leader
2. The Alibaba guy who was kidnapped
3. The guy who stood in front of a tank with his groceries

That’s gotta count, right?

Edit: shit, they said alive.

Edit 2: ByteDance CEO, because he was at Trump’s inauguration wasn’t he?

You can’t fuck open source. Open source obliges the status quo, it is not subject to the status quo. Because once it’s source-available, it can’t be made unavailable. This stands because you can’t control who does what with a copy of your code, which is a good thing. I’m not talking about OSS licensing, which is also a good thing DGMW. I’m talking about your fundamental ability to broadcast your ideas, even in code, to other people’s machine via the web. That’s a powerful and fundamental ability.

To really drive the point, we need to fully socialize the open source stack. Nothing “open” should be hosted on GitHub, for example. That’s not “open,” it’s “approved.” Open is open regardless of whether you or anyone else would like to approve it or not.

A bigger disaster than dumping it into the atmosphere?

Interesting. See, I was thinking closer to the mechanistic function of capitalism wherein productive assets (“capital”) are primarily owned and controlled by private individuals/organizations. My brain was thinking, what would a political system look like if you replaced “productive assets” with, instead, “political assets.”

Is it a political ideology of capitalism — which honestly sounds quite weird and interesting — or is it political romanticism of capitalistic economics?

Capitalism is a vehicle. It’s only really a problem when you have aggressive (or drunk) drivers. Would do us wonders if corporations were co’ops, even under capitalism. Because the people driving direction are the same people employed by the company — I.e., the only group that is de-facto simultaneously concerned with both the company’s success and the workers success.

Not only that, but they believe the active enzymes in the microbe can be optimized and engineered, then mixed into a liquid substrate. Becomes an enzyme-based CO2 filter with the byproduct of Calcium Carbonate, which can be used in concrete. The article talks about filling trucks with these and passing the emissions of coal-fired power plants through them.

It reminds me of Prototaxites.

You’re making several unsupported jumps.

First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.

Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.

If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.

Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.

Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.

What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.

What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.

You are overstating your sources.

A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.

Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.

Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.

The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.

Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.

“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.

Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.

if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.

It’s bad for health.

True.

It offers nothing.

False. It’s actually most addictive to those who it offers the most. Hence, ADHD risk of smoking is much higher. It’s not just impulsivity, but also the short term mental benefits that help reinforce smoking.

What’s ironic is that tattoos introduce intent to the matter, thereby providing something to romanticize.

I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.

In their head, the mission is ensuring the security and stability of an empire. They’re the Central Intelligence Agency for that authority, after all. With that in mind, I’d wager they actively seek out people with sociopathic traits. You need employees who are willing to do bad things because they believe we’re the good guys. Things like operate within a sovereign state, coercing its citizens and officials. Providing weapons to Iranians. Operating business fronts. Flat out spying. Their resources are practically limitless if the matter includes gratifying a subject. College entry, money, family fortunes, a visa, a new identity, weapons, … again, for any instance of which you might think… “gee, that’s pretty immoral,” you’ve got to remember that the CIA believes it pales in contract to their larger responsibilities.

How long ago was it when they were testing LCD on American citizens?