My hot take is… It depends. If I produce a product and call a specific business with proper preparations, like calling someone who is the correct contact point while a specific business idea in mind for the business, that isn’t really spam, as spam is about sending many unsolicited messages or call a bunch of more or less random people, but that one prepared call might be a cold call.

So for me, spam is about amount and not about how annoying it is.

Technically 0% of their problems and 100% of their former problems.

That is the good kind of conditional love; condition is “love yourself and work towards a better tomorrow”

Never donate if you don’t have the money. You can put a imaginary bill in an imaginary jar and turn those imaginary bills in real ones once you get better off.

Thanks for caring but care for yourself first.

Why aren’t they doing anything?

I wished they won’t do shit. But in reality, they actively harm young people in their attempt of buying a home. E.g. I don’t know if it is something that exists in the us but in Europe there are plenty of countries with laws to protect old buildings but most of the time these laws are flawed as fuck and result in less affordable housing for people who want to live somewhere and cheaper real estate for big fraudulent dickheads who want to build new rental buildings

I kinda like the depiction of a man, visually disconnected to life and focused on wealth/social norms, asking for the meaning of life from a guru instead of seeking out his own meaning, highlighting the consumer/capitalist mindset of the man in suit. And the guru is taking advantage of the flaws of the man to radicalize him and eventually making bringing death the meaning of the man’s life. Assuming the man is American, potentially even bringing his own death.

The perversion of life itself in the society that we all know too well.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

While I understand and agree with you, the obvious counterargument is how many people get serviced and the generated value of them being served. I mean people won’t argue that a car is better than a bus because the car produces less carbon. What I think is the better way to highlight the ridiculousness of those icons, a newspaper website produces more carbon (if energy source is producing carbon) than a server that just return the certification icon. So newspaper website is worse? That is how this certification works… Low information density gets rewarded. Which is contra productive if the goal is an energy efficient web.

To be fair, the service in the screenshot, tries to estimate the average carbon over the year and collects data to improve estimated that counter some of my critic, but it doesn’t fix the ignorance to the kind of data provided and rewards low data density to some degree

With the awareness that some people might call me names for saying that… AC4: black flag wasn’t even that good of a game in my opinion

How is that related to my comment and how does that answer my request for clarification? I am sorry but this seem completely unrelated.

Yes but what about this whataboutism? And honestly I am fairly certain it ain’t as much as Bitcoin. People usually focus on 1 thing to get it done because moving to the next. I bet you try to do that at work too.

Could you show me that assumption? I don’t see that assumption present in my comment. Please help me to understand your perspective. Thanks.

You typed so much and understood so little.

I don’t think pascal’s wager works. Which is why I said, I said he is right about one thing which is the infinites reward fucking up everything. IF!!! there is a god, and he rewards and punishes you like pascal believed, then everything becomes irrelevant compared to it. Failing to follow god would be an extremist action. Unacceptable due to the unmeasurable damage it would cause. Think about it, in an atheistic world, a Terror Attack is bad, like really bad, but the damage is finite. In pascal’s world, disbelief has worse consequences. The harm is bigger, to a literally infinite amount. For pascal, your disbelief should be worse than bombing a Christian church while there is a service.

Which misses the point of my argument.

I don’t say you are wrong. But my point is strictly about what people believe and how these beliefs should be quite important and turn “moderation” to “extermism” from their pov.

I think the argument for moderation is the worst in the religious context.

Pascal was right about his Wager in one way. If god exists, it should change everything for you. Especially the christian one. Eternity in pain or pleasure outweighs everything.

If that is your reality, how is failing god moderation?

Seriously if you don’t want people to die from cancer at all, how is that not extermist?

Are reference point defines “moderation”? Look at us vs eu politics.

Even if you want to define moderation as the average or median position in a society, then Nazism can be moderation if you get enough Nazi together.

Wake up, my fellow extremist.

I am sorry to disappoint. I don’t know.

Seems like they don’t have anydesk installed. :/

Did they have hackers on their computer?

Are you working as a it support at international world wide net tech support?

Interesting… I think I quit windows shortly after skipping 8 to go 10. So I might haven’t given windows 10 a fair chance