Havatra
@Havatra@lemmy.zip
- Comment on Russia vows to 'firmly defend' interests in Baltic after Estonia HIMARS test 3 days ago:
Just to counter your arguments a bit:
- NATO does not forcefully enter any country; countries have to apply to become a member.
- There were already many weapons on several of Russia’s borders before NATO was there. NATO has only reinforced this (as part of the agreement signed with the country in question).
- “Economic warfare” (aka. economic sanctions) NATO has nothing to do with, that’s on the country’s government.
- Terror attacks on civilian targets? Please provide sources.
- Comment on Do the needs of the many outweigh the whims of the few? 3 days ago:
I think there are two more questions that need to be answered first, before being able to tell whether we should prioritize the many.
First question is what is the ultimate goal behind prioritizng the many? Happiness of the population? Infinite growth? To conquer the stars? Depending on what the goal is, there are occasions where minorities should be the focus if we want to approach the goal the fastest.
Example is moon landing: The amount of resources that was spent on “simply” building a rocket, space suits & equipment, and send a couple of humans over there was prioritizing the few. Despite a lot of people watching with curious eyes, it did not benefit the many’s needs much. There were several goals here: Being before the USSR, explore the unknown, satisfying shareholders, and more. By the many working hard to send the few, we approached all these goals faster than if we would allocate some of these resources towards the many’s needs, like health (prime days of smoking cigarettes).The second question is what timeframe are we talking? Is it long-term or short-term success we’re aiming for? Because in many cases, if we want long-term success fast, the many are those who should “suffer”.
Example is where the long-term goal is the glorious evolution of mankind: In one way, we downprioritize the few who are those born with defects, either by culling them or by ensuring they do not make offspring. In another way, we downprioritize the many who are on- or below-average intelligence/capabilities. But then we get the question of how we quantify the few/many; where do we draw the line? And as we get more smart/capable humans, the average constantly shifts - what is the concrete goal?Suffice to say that this is written without emotion, as that makes this discussion the soup it really is: Ethics, benevolence, discrimination, etc., as you mentioned.
- Comment on Windows seemingly lost 400 million users in the past three years — official Microsoft statements show hints of a shrinking user base 2 weeks ago:
400 million, that’s quite substantial! And I image that number is far from done growing…
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Unsure why you’re getting downvoted (this is “No Stupid Questions”, after all), but I’ll give my 5 cents:
Reason 1:
The people is essentially the reason why a government has power. Without the people (and their support), the government governs a whole lot of nothing, and they will be forced to do labour themselves.Reason 2:
Poisoning the water is not very accurate, and may lead to both the death of many whom already are supportive of the government (which will create distrust), and people only getting sick depending on the amount they drink (the dose makes the poison).Reason 3:
Despite a population having a lot of dissidents, these people still work and contribute to society in some ways. It has to get pretty bad before it will be “worth it” to remove them from society.Reason 4:
Even if it’s so bad that you’re looking at an open revolt against the government, poisoning the water will only really yield MAD, which is usually undesirable.Ultimately, it’s unlikely desirable for any government to do this, as there are better ways (for the government). However, there have been some attempts at genocide through water supplies before, so it’s not completely unheard of. Check out Project Coast.
- Comment on With all the animals that die in the sea, is it possible they get pickled in there? 3 weeks ago:
Depends on the conditions, I’d say. If you have an area that has low oxygen and high saline concentration, one could potentially preserve large parts of the carcass. A big challenge though is the substances brought by the carcass itself, like enzymes and bacteria that are not directly exposed to the oxygen-deficient saline-abundant water, which can thrive and remain active for a long period of time. However, if this carcass sinks to incredible depths, where the pressure is really high, temperature is a constant 4 degrees, very low concentration of scavengers or thriving organisms, and potentially sinks a bit into the sediment for a long time, you’ll essentially get
pickle juicefossil fuel. - Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
They only recently made it mandatory for three visa types, but since introduced in October 2016, it’s always been an optional field when applying for an ESTA.
- Comment on Scientists achieve 1,000-fold increase in solar electricity using ultra-thin layers 4 weeks ago:
As biber@feddit.org pointed out, this 1000-fold increase is compared to barium titanate by itself, not to standard silicium solutions. However, it’s still worth pointing out:
Panels made with this technology could be much more efficient and require less space than current silicon-based solar cells,
(…)
The material is also simpler to manufacture and more durable, as it does not require special packaging. - Comment on Lemmy.zip 2nd Birthday Giveaway! 🍰 5 weeks ago:
You’re an awesome admin, Demigodrick! The transparency, the hospitality, the constant positive engagement with the community! As long as you remain, this community will thrive, I’m sure of it ;)
- Comment on Lemmy.zip Turns Two! 🎂🎉🥳 5 weeks ago:
Happy Birthday! :D Love the microsite - great choice of stats!
And a big cheers to the admins for the incredible efforts! 🥂
