Pineapple is pretty common in curries, the jump to apples and raisins isn’t that far tbh

One country cozying up to print is hardly a reason to call the entire EU divided

it means you’re getting fucked by them and not in a good way

So anal sex is a not-good way to have sex? Yeah sorry but that does sound pretty homophobic to me.

without lube

Ah, well that changes things. Anal without lube is a pretty universally bad experience, so sure, use that. But just framing being the receiving end of anal as bad without further context, we can do better than that, that’s all im saying

And Romans can’t be homophobic for some reason, or what’s your point?

Maybe we don’t need to resort to casual homophobia though to criticize corporates

I’m German, and I would not want that. German grammar works differently in a way that makes programming a lot more awkward for some reason. Things like, “.forEach” would technically need three different spellings depending on the grammatical gender of the type of element that’s in the collection it’s called on. Of course you could just go with neuter and say it refers to the “items” in the collection, but that’s just one of lots of small pieces of awkwardness that get stacked on top of each other when you try to translate languages and APIs. I really appreciate how much more straightforward that works with English.

the argument that “being selfless is selfish” is not useful

Yes, that’s my entire point.

and provably false

Depends on how you define “selfish”. Again, that’s exactly what I’m trying to demonstrate here. Reducing the definition of selfish to mean “getting something out of it” makes it meaningless because every decision is made in the hopes of getting something out of it in some way, even if it’s obscure. To make it useful, you need to look at what someone is getting out of it in order to get to a useful definition.

That would be an extremely reductive definition that doesn’t really tell us much about how caring for others is actually experienced and how it manifests in the world.

Exactly, that’s my point.

How would this for example explain sacrificing yourself to save another person, if the very core of caring is to create positive emotions in yourself?

In this case it would be about reducing negative emotions, choosing the lesser of two evils. Losing a loved one and/or having to live with the knowledge that you could have saved them but chose not to can inflict massive emotional pain, potentially for the rest of your life. Dying yourself instead might seem outright attractive in comparison.

this idea that caring is in its essence transactional

That’s not actually how I’m seeing it, and I also don’t think it’s a super profound insight or something. It’s just a super technical way of viewing the topic of motivation, and while it’s an interesting thought experiment, it’s mostly useless.

Well, but what does “caring” mean? It means that their well-being affects your emotions. At its very core, you wanting to help people you care about comes from wanting to create positive emotions in yourself or avoiding negative ones (possibly in the future, it doesn’t have to be an immediate effect). If those emotions weren’t there, you wouldn’t actually care and thus not do it.

Edit to clarify: I’m not being cynical or pessimistic here, or implying that this means that everyone is egotistical because of this. The point I was trying to make is that defining egotism vs. Altruism is a little bit more complex than just looking at whether there’s something in it for the acting person. We actually need to look at what’s in it for the acting person.

I mean, you’re not wrong, but your point is also kinda meaningless. Of course, you only ever do things because there’s something in it for you, even if that something is just feeling good about yourself. If there was truly nothing in it for you, then why would you do it?

But that misses the point of the “people are inherently selfish” vs “people are inherently generous” discussion, because it’s not actually about whether people do things only for themselves at the most literal level, instead it’s about whether people inherently get something out of doing things for others without external motivation. So your point works the same on both sides of the argument.

The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.

Oh awesome, thank you so much!

I’d love to know what font was used for the big “Saturday” there!

Now please explain to me how C works.

That’s not what they’re asking. It’s not about how C works, it’s about how specific APIs written in C work, which is hard to figure out on your own for anyone who is not familiar with that specific code. You’ll have to explain that to any developer coming new into the project expected to work with those APIs, no matter their experience with C.

Right, that’s definitely an important thing, that at least with gog, you can defend yourself against that possibility.

My “best we got” was in regards to the potential to become a lot worse because of shareholder pressure. Given that CD Project is a publicly traded company, GOG is much worse in that regard than Steam.

I fully agree that GOG, as it currently is, could be the better product for you depending on your values, but its defenses against enshittification are objectively much worse than Steam’s*, and that’s all I was talking about.

*That is, until Gabe dies, I guess, who knows what’ll happen then

Nobody is talking about “no potential”. Just “a lot less potential than any other option out there”, and that’s currently the best we got

The German saying says “Hut”, which is a less broad term than the English “hat”. And it definitely does not include that.

Will if we’re only talking charging, USB-C should be as easy to implement as any of them, basic 5v is gonna work even without most of the pins connected

In that case it becomes a violation again. At least according to the law