• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle



  • I used to consider myself republican, and I think I’m still closer to republican than democrat. I prefer small government, which is at least sometimes a republican ideal. I am also against identity politics of any kind, so I am against affirmative action. I am in favor of gun rights, with regulations that allow for appropriate tracking of who has guns where, how they are stored, how they are transported etc. However, regulations that prevent particular people from owning guns or ban any particular weapons should be very conservative. Even felons should regain gun rights after an appropriate period of time. Only ridiculously dangerous weapons, like nukes, should be outright banned. Stuff like full auto weapons should be legal, but restricted to only be stored at a gun range or something. As far as LGBT goes, I don’t think the government should have anything to do with them. Let them do what they want, let people react how they want (as long as it isn’t violent of course, which is already illegal under other laws). I’ve never been really sure about abortion. My gut reaction is to just let people do what they want, but I struggle to logically justify it as anything but murder. Not to mention the impracticality of banning it.

    I wouldn’t really call myself a republican anymore though. This is largely because of the religious aspects. I don’t know if republicans have actually become more authoritarian or if my perception has just changed, but either way they don’t seem to prioritize the same things as me anymore. Things like right to repair, net neutrality, and E2EE are important to me, but they don’t align with that at all. The party also keeps embracing identity politics, just with different identities than their opposition. Religion should be a non-factor from a governmental perspective. It doesn’t need any special protections, just to be ignored.

    If I had to call myself something, I guess I would be a ‘libertarian socialist’, however much of an oxymoron that seems to be. For instance, I like the idea of UBI, largely because it would allow almost all welfare/social programs to be eliminated (including social security). Doing so would reduce government control, because they no longer have an ability to tweak who gets what, since everyone gets the same amount.





  • If a person’s life is not their own to take then they have no autonomy at all

    That’s just not right. Autonomy isn’t some absolute, all or nothing thing. If it was, then everybody would have “no autonomy at all”, because we’re not allowed to commit crimes.

    Of the full range of possible actions, killing yourself is a relatively small portion of those. Considering that death eliminates all possible future actions, I’d argue that preventing a suicide (of a person that’s not dying anyway) actually preserves more autonomy than the alternative.



  • Trantarius@programming.devtomemes@lemmy.worldjust in time
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have a metal cup on my desk. This cup used to be a rock. Humans took that rock, and placed it into an environment specifically tailored to remove just the molecules we want from it. It was melted, using temperatures far exceeding what a human could survive. It was formed into a sheet, then pressed into shape, using tools specifically crafted for that one purpose. It was painted with a compound not naturally found anywhere on earth, because someone thought it should be green. It was packaged in organic compounds carefully formulated and shaped through hundreds of processes to ensure it couldn’t be damaged on its trip to the other side of the planet. All of this for a cup. Why? Because it’s slightly more comfortable to drink out of. A problem that wouldn’t even register with any other living thing, solved with efforts far beyond their capabilities. And that is our closest competitor.

    Humanity has accomplished more in the last hundred years, hell even the last ten, than anything else on earth (or beyond, for all we know) ever has. Yeah, war, greed, and racism are a thing, but it hasn’t stopped us before, and won’t stop us now. You are comparing real people to some idealized fantasy. A fantasy that only seems attainable because of what we have already accomplished, not in spite of it.

    We only aspire to do better because we know what we are capable of.







  • You are right in terms of in-development and future games. But unity is also trying to enforce these terms on already released games. This could potentially bring a challenge to their subscription model, which essentially states you must continue to pay as long as your game is available. I don’t know much about the law, but I do know that there are legal limitations on how rented/subscribed products work. These limitations are to prevent straight up scams from stealing from you and making it technically legal with some fine print. Which isn’t too far off from what unity is doing now.

    This is comparable to you renting a drill from someone to make a table. You agree to the terms that you must continue to pay a subscription as long as the table exists. Then unity drill co. decides you must also pay a fee every time someone sits at the table. Even though the table is already made, and you already had an agreement to pay for the drill you had previously used. Your only alternative is to destroy the table.

    Just because the terms said they could modify the deal doesn’t mean they can force anything on you as if you had already agreed to it.