Or you opened pycharm (ಥ﹏ಥ) 5 gigs of RAM is fairly audacious for a single program :/

Across all of Europe and all of the middle ages? Sure probably. Never hear of them, see them in art? I dunno, it’s hard to say because we don’t have a lot of documentation on what normal people’s lives were like.

In the cosmopolitan cities like Prague you probably would. Also any major Mediterranean trade port. Anyone who went on pilgrimage to those places, or along them, probably would. Cutting off Jerusalem to pilgrimage being such a big political deal indicates that many people went there or wanted to, and people loved sharing stories of places.

It’s called speciesism and it’s how people justify eating cows.

Dude: ports exist, people trade, across the Mediterranean you can find lots of different skin colours and customs.

Nobility and their favoured travelled extensively, skilled tradespeople would undertake elaborate pilgramidge if they could afford it all the way to Jerusalem. Even serfs got to go on pilgrimage although usually not to Jerusalem but to other cathedrals.

Stop with this ahistorical nonsense. Maybe someone in the British isles might not have much contact of the greater world but the HRE? Spain? Italy? The eastern Roman empire? Of fucking course they did.

This is a pretty flawed understanding of history.

Humans have always travelled, in Europe even serfs would hope to go on pilgrimage and Lords generally had to allow it. Although it may only be to a nearby cathedral. Italy was a trade hub, and a relatively short trip by boat to north Africa.

European painters knew that people came in different shades. As proof, go look at the school of Athens painting.

Here is how ethics works:

• if I push a boulder on you I’m a murderer
• if I push a boulder that squashes you but on the way down the hill it grinds some flour your death is an externality and I am industrious.

Since we are in the latter case, it is not self defense. Too bad, so sad.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

One cannot really argue that science as practiced is very effective at certain things but it is also extremely far from being objective in practice. Especially the further you stray from simple physical systems.

Also like I never saw someone formulate a hypothesis in any sort of formal sense haha.

Look I understand you’re trying to be positive but this doesn’t work. It’s not really viable for me to put more effort into explaining why each specific thing doesn’t work but take e.g. paper towels, well they rot. Unless you pack them up in an environment which they can’t rot in. Like a sealed mineshaft, which you could just pump co2 into. In either case you’re filling an empty coal mine with low density coal while using energy that could go to something with exponential payoffs like sustainable power infrastructure.

Protecting greenspace is good, reforestation is good and has all sorts of positive effects from stabilisation of local temperature to cleaning the air of pollutants. It is not however a solution to climate change. There is only one, and it is not burning fossil fuels. It is completely impractical to reverse the damage we have already done. We have added 0.02% of the atmosphere’s mass in co2, that is 1.E17 kg or a hundred million billion kilograms.

Trees don’t permently sequester carbon. A forest is a bunch of bound up stuff, but since fungi can now digest trees when they die they don’t become coal anymore.

So unless you want to make the surface of the earth rainforest somehow you would need to bury trees in a sealed sterile mine or something. Or you could just do that directly.

Carbon capture is kinda dumb though, coal and oil are what ideally captured carbon looks like. We should focus on not digging that up and burning it.

Heh, nice try at having standards but since it is impossible to not harm anything then obviously possibly harming for pleasure is fine. Checkmate loser.

Now I am going to depict you as the crying wojack and me as the handsome wojack.

More than that sort of people that make these posts, no bee has ever said anything that has convinced me they have zero understanding of philosophy of consciousness.

my garage, the old fence, and a good chunk of my house is asbestos.

They’ve been standing 60 years and you wouldn’t know it.

Damn shame we can’t use the material. Proof god hates us.

As the day goes on

fixup=fixup -fuck

fuck

bleh

some bug squashin

implement stuff

Fixes configuration issues, and improves the UI for setting it up

Basically no Australian wildlife can or will seriously hurt you. There are some snakes which if you try really hard you might run into (for reference I’ve had 2 encounters with dangerous snakes in my life), a couple of spiders one of which is extremely common but not at all aggressive and does not roam, kangaroos if you hit them with your car you will be fucked up, emus and cassowaries if you go where they are and try really hard to make them angry, crocs up north if you approach them can be dangerous, box jellies up north will kill you if you swim when they’re about, dingoes in the centre are wild dogs so if they’re hungry they could harm you.

you can go bush walking with no plan and just some water. Wander off the track all day, and your biggest danger is getting lost. Avoid that and it’s dehydration or falls. If you stick your hands into dark crevices and overturn bark and stuff I guess spiders and snakes?

I read a chunk of his work like 15 years ago because one of my stoner friends was into it. I recall seeing shit like “women are weaker than men” or “women are trying desperately to prove they’re not weaker than men, makes ya think dun it?” typical reactionary man shit, I recall various shit about queer people being vaguely disgusting to him, including some episode of visiting a gender clinic but ‘coming to his senses’ or similar disgusting crap.

I’m gonna guess you’re not a woman, and probably hetero white? people say things in certain ways and it indicates how they think about you. If you’re in a majority the remark “Oh I didn’t think someone like you would enjoy that” is almost certainly just innocent expression based on how someone has modelled you as an individual, if you’re not it’s very likely to be be someone excluding you as a class of person. you get sensitised to spotting shit like that in how people talk/how they behave and seeing the broader picture.

Keep in mind we’re talking about someone who bombed broadly random individuals. He was a sadistic, broken, piece of shit.

I read this shit years ago and I’m not really interesting in inflicting that on myself again. If you are interested I’m sure you can search up some feminist or queer critiques of his writings.

If you’re just doing the internet debate me thing well, good luck with that.

Well it’s nice he changed his mind after having nothing to do but think about it for a while.

Marx doesn’t come down against rights though, Ted did. He specifically wrote about how women should be subservient to men, it’s vile stuff.

fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you

Why do you care more about a painting frame and disrupting a day at the gallery than the likely prospect of entire fucking inhabited islands being submerged? Will you hide in an art gallery when millions of refugees are pounding at your door demanding the entirely reasonable right to resettle in the less ravaged land of the climate ravagers?

What have you done to try target oil execs? How much money have you put on the line paying the legal fees of people that target them? Have you risked your safety and freedom in radical protests?

From what position do you criticise them? What do you see as the likely outcome of the future? Do you see people living like you changing that?

He also went full reactionary sexist and homophobe. Plus bombed random people like a guy selling computers.

I really dislike the way he’s venerated by some. There are actual revolutionaries with cohesive ideologies that properly critique society and direct anger at systemic problems. This guy was just mad things were changing.