Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P

To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.

I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)

So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.

And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.

Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.

And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.

It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.

I can see both sides on this one I think?

Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.

I think he was talking about some of the questionable representation of the tribal peoples in the film.

A few I’ve been big on lately:

The Meat and Dairy Network Podcast - A British humor surrealist comedy podcast about the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry.

The Horror Virgin - A guy who hates scary movies has two friends who make him watch them.

The League of Ultimate Questing - High production actual play DnD podcast. Very funny with some fun hooks.

Midway Games stock is gonna shoot through the roof selling all the extra copies to make this system work. :P

I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless.” What’s being conflated?

And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless,” clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

Yeah, it can for sure. Definitely worth mentioning. Gotta watch what interface is set as the default router, or you’re bound to have a bad time. That said, the same is true with his originally proposed solution of pushing a trunk port to the VM, so it’s not any worse in that regard.

But yeah, full agreement on the correct solution. Keep it simple.

I wouldn’t let every VM have an interface into your management network, regardless of how you implement this. Your management network should be segregated with the ability to route to all the other VLANs with an appropriate firewall setup that only allows “related/established” connections back into it.

As for your services, having them on separate VLANs is fine, but it seems like you would benefit from having a reverse proxy to forward things to the appropriate VLAN, to reduce your management overhead.

But in general, having multiple interfaces per VM is fine. There shouldn’t be any performance hit or anything. But remember that if you have a compromised VM, it’ll be on any networks you give it an interface in, so minimizing that is key for security purposes. Ideally it would live in a VLAN that only has Internet access and/or direct access to your reverse proxy.

I’m well aware of the existence of alternatives. But you must agree that what is achievable with an implant far outstrips the current alternatives?

Maybe someday, but that’s not the point of the tech as it stands. It’s accessibility.

They guy who it failed in (Noland Arbaugh) is a full on quadriplegic. The ability to use a computer in a semi-normal way is absolutely beyond life changing for him.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks! :)

Maybe it’s cause I’m on mobile, but I just see the intro paragraph, unless I’m missing something on how to see a full article?

I feel like you’re taking a bit of a dissonant position here, no?

If it would be a moral tragedy to kill a cat and eat it, why is that not true for a cow? If life eats life, it’s not murder for me to kill and eat the cat, correct? So why is it a moral evil if killing and eating the cow is not?

I think you’re saying that this is just one of the “fucked up” stances that society has taken? But then why participate in it?

I’m fine with either answer. Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

Haha, we responded at like the same time lol. Wild.

And fair on all counts, but it does seem at odds to an “a life is a life” position, no?

Like, I’d assume you would be more upset if they were farming humans for meat than you are that they raise chickens and cows for meat, no?

And are you against all farming, or just factory farming? If an old school farmer raises a cow in a field, and then kills and eats it, is that acceptable?

And are fish’s lives not valuable? Less valuable than a chicken’s or a cow’s? It’s still a life, no?

I’m truly not trying to be combative. I’m actively trying to understand how to jive these two positions.

Fair. I’d be curious how you square that with the idea that “a life is a life”?

I don’t mean that in an accusatory way. It just seems like an inherent contradictions to me.

And to be clear, not that you’d save your cat over a stranger or enemy. Like, I know people who would save inanimate objects before either because the emotional connection is that strong

I mean more in the abstract that human and animal life are of equal value.

Like, would you support the farming of people to sell their meat at the grocery store? I’d assume not, but then it feels like a contradiction to me, and I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you square that circle.

I feel like the idea that an animal life is worth less than a human life is demonstrably true at a societal level though, right?

Like, we don’t sell human parts at a grocery store to eat, and I feel like people would call it a moral tragedy if we did.

If an animals life is equivalent to a humans, then meat is in fact murder, no?

Yeah, I didn’t mean it as a jab. I just thought it was an interesting assertion that “a life is a life” in this context. Seemed a strong stance, and I wondered how far they carried it.