walkercricket

@walkercricket@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google promises a rescue patch for Android 14’s “ransomware” bug⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Chromium doesn’t need Chrome to exist either: it’s a separate project and if Google doesn’t want to support it anymore, someone can easily fork it to continue having Chromium-based browsers. That’s the property of open source: anybody can inspect and fork it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google promises a rescue patch for Android 14’s “ransomware” bug⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Edge and Chrome are both closed source and owned by companies, so your comparison is just not valid. Using AOSP is certainly not supporting Google’s monopoly: AOSP is totally open source, was bought by Google a long time ago and they don’t own it due to its license (aside from the name maybe). Meaning you can still flash Android on a system without paying or using Google’s services or products.

  It’s like saying you contribute to Google’s monopoly because you use Linux and Google (also) used it in its Chromebooks.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Religion and science are orthogonal. Science seeks to answer the question of “how?”, while religion seeks to answer “why?”

  Religion doesn’t try to answer anything: it’s just blind faith. You’re not gonna try to tell me religious people are “looking for” anything. The definition of religion is “belief in a deity”. It doesn’t try to explain or find out anything.

  It’s dependent on ignorance of basic philosophy, and attempts to derive any kind of morality based solely on science results

  Since when atheism prevents philosophy? Haven’t you heard of atheist philosophers? They exist, they’re not fairies, you know. About morality, it’s still a subject and a lot of philosophers have different opinion, with the subjective or objective moral, relativistic moral, etc… And whatever you mean by “derive any kind of morality based solely on science results”, it’s still better than arbitrarily define a moral based on a book written by some people a long time ago to then enforce it for centuries, with violence if needed, and then when the bad atheists come to clean all the mess by making moral laws to have everybody end up agreeing on after few decades, claim it was just a misinterpretation of the texts or whatever, which is the dumbest excuse I’ve ever heard of.

  Atheism isn’t a religion either: atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of an unproven (and certainly unprovable) entity. So a lack of belief certainly didn’t kill anybody.

  And atheism was never the reason or the foundation of the sentence “the end justify the means”, it existed long before atheism was even a concept.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨data secured⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I didn’t have to spend hours getting my GPU to work on Linux… What were you using exactly, as a distro and as a GPU? Not that I try to invalidate your experience, but afaik, if you have a AMD or Intel GPU, it should work out of the box and if you have an Nvidia GPU, any user friendly Linux distro that is optionally made for gaming have drivers preinstalled and can easily be updated through a GUI or a two words command so that you can directly play as soon as you installed the distro.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Man I really love Lemmy for that kind of shit. I’ll change the link right away

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Stating mathematics is a tool doesn’t answer if mathematics are real or not. But I would say, from my humble experience, that mathematics is both unreal and perfectly tangible. Mathematics is totally a real thing as it obeys strict rule in logic that are true in our real world, axioms, on which everything else is based so that it can’t be used to state things as being true out of the blue, without any justification before using those axioms, which you can translate into our real world. But math also has its limits and has been used to demonstrate that it itself is incomplete, undecidable and inconsistant (mathematically, of course, it’s not our common definition here). Meaning, as mathematics are imperfect, it can’t describe our world perfectly and therefore isn’t real.

  There is an excellent video from Veritasium on the subject of the limits of math: youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  And it’s great. Though, as a religious person, thinking this way is no more than shooting yourself in the foot, which is quite sad because religion has only two choice: either cultivating the ignorance but going against science, which is wrong, or cultivating knowledge but overtime, disappearing as a religion. Either way, nowadays it’s doomed.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Math is a tool of the mind to describe our world, imaginary numbers is only a extension of that tool to allow us to go beyond what mathematical logic prevents us to do, while still getting in the end a real number. Math, despite being powerful, is a flawed tool, so getting around its flaws by creating things like imaginary numbers isn’t absurd and doesn’t make the result any less real at the end.

  On the other hand, I don’t think calling everything we don’t understand “magic” or the new trending words “supernatural” and “a miracle” and give god or anything else (like karma) credit for it would be more clever. Back then, we didn’t understood the concept of thunder and interpreted it as god’s wrath. Now, we understand it’s a transmission of electricity from the negatively charged clouds to the neutral ground through ionized particles in the air. I don’t think that scientists now, despite referring to the same phenomena, are talking about the same thing as we did a long time ago.

  So no, no scientist will discover the afterlife “but we’ll just call them “Post-Human Conciousness Wells” or something, and insist it totally isn’t the same thing as that ancient superstition.” as it won’t be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What game feels 'timeless' to you?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I would say Borderlands 2. This game is so good in terms or story and gameplay creating its own type of game + the graphics that are sort of cartoon/drawing like definitely makes it timeless for me. I would still restart a gameplay today if it wasn’t for the 4 or 5 times I finished it at the time it got released haha