Looking at those feet I feel like some people could get jealous.

I imagine only way shorter people would have trouble pulling them off.

I’ve tried it for a few hours (reached level 5 quests so far). I’d say it’s not bad. It’s reasonably fun with quite an interesting setting and story, though some gameplay parts could certainly be better. (eg. inventory&item management, skill and enemy diversity)

I guess it should be the other way around. More money (per person) means you should be able to afford reducing GHG. For example by better isolating your home, using cleaner sources of energy or constructing more power efficient machines.

Well it’s still asking for a subscription and hides the entire article. I could only read it after some manual HTML/CSS cleanups.

I think linking directly to the quoted source instead would’ve been a better choice considering it’s not behind an - albeit very weak - pay/subscribe wall.

Do you still like catching sticks and eating food from the floor?

human population growth is the biggest driver by far

I argue that the biggest driver for CO₂ emissions at the moment is not population growth, but rather the rise of the quality of living in high population low income regions such as China, India, etc.

preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives

Does that mean you also want the many inequalities to remain? CO₂ emissions per person are spread as unequal as wealth. Demanding that people are allowed to continue living far above the carrying capacity of the Earth while others live far below is not a solution to the problem.

People argue something along the lines of “spending a lot of energy gives a good quality of life” and to some extend this is true. Though when people spend an hour or two to drive to work in a private car 5 days a week that doesn’t seem like a good quality of living to me.

To fight climate change without having to miss out on a good quality of living it’s important that people get the most “bang for their buck” as far as CO₂ emmissions are concerned. I argue that things like watching Formula 1 drivers, owning private jets or even just doing long communes to work by car are among the WORST bang for your CO₂-buck anybody can get. Riding a bike, having a picnic in a local park or commuting via public transportation (which lets you do other things like playing on your phone, reading a book or chatting with people while waiting) seem to be way better options.

I feel like Lemmy probably lacks the expertiese on pickles. Beans on the other hand…

deleted by creator

Yay! It makes my-current-self happy that your-past-self said nice things about my-past-selves comment. Go, my-past-self!

With that silly comment of mine out of the way, there’s one thing I want to add which is that I think we should maybe show a bit of leniency towards our past selves. Keep in mind that our past selves had less experience than us. They didn’t have all the experiences that shaped us. For better or for worse. When we say “I didn’t know.” maybe to make things more interesting we could instead say “My past self didn’t know.” at least once, just for the fun of it.

Physically speaking, what our past selves did have though was a lot more potential than us. They had the potential to become our current self and at least in theory they also had the potential to become different versions of our current self. Some of them we might consider better, others worse. These versions would all have a different experience than our current self. Maybe even a slightly different thought going through ones head can be an experience with a big impact on the future.

I guess some people do say that they need to makes ones past self, or even another persons past self proud. One thing that I thought was funny was hearing another person saying “That will be future me’s problem.”. So in a way we really do take snapshots and project things onto them.

Well if you were to decide to take the two identities out of context and compare them to each other, then they would definitely be different. You know, some people do take their past selves and make fun of them, they can hate them, they can insult and loathe them. Similarly, if they could see us today, our past selves might be disappointed or even offended at what we have become. Imagine growing up in a very conservative family, perhaps adopting prejudice views and as you grow up, you change and maybe even find yourself befriending and loving the things or people you used to hate. Your past self might attack and kill you if you were both put into the same room.

I’m aware that that’s a very extreme example. It’s just an idea I wanted to bring across. Of course it can go both ways. I guess the topic would make for very interesting stories in media, I’m sure it was already used often.

You know that reminds me, this whole concept is already a very realistic daily occurrence. Say two people fall in love, but then years later they break up. Oftentimes people say things like “you’ve changed”. They fell in love with each others past versions. I’m sure we all know humans or mechanical devices or software programs that we used to love, but then they changed and we started disliking them. I might like my new comb, or my new phone. But when they break, I might get angry and hate them.

Maybe another way of putting it is “the information that makes you up remains the same”? As in, it doesn’t matter if one electron is exchanged with another, it’s still the same component? Assuming two things have the same physical properties, it doesn’t matter which one you use. You are not just the objects you consist of, but also the way they are positioned/aligned/etc.

Maybe a bit like binary code/data, if you copy a file then the copy will be able to do the same thing. Though I guess it’s more complex than that, because it all depends on where this data is located, so not only the building blocks but also the context in which they exist matters.

How about a different way of putting it?

Ones past self is a book with more blank pages than our current self. The blank pages represent things that are unknown, things that could be, different possibilities. Perhaps I dislike some of the pages of my current self and would rather not have experienced them. My past self would then be a clean version of the book, where the pages I dislike could still turn out to be different.

But then the question remains of whether the pages are blank because the author is still thinking about what to write or whether they just didn’t find the time to do it yet. Is it actually a book with blank pages or is it more like a folder where you continuously add pages - and furthermore, are the missing pages actually still blank or are they already printed and only need to be added to the folder? Is an incomplete version of a book still the same book? If you only read the first book of a three book series, is it still the same story? Are the pages actually missing or do they exist and I just haven’t read (=experienced) them yet?

I really like this topic and think the idea of ones past self is a very interesting concept to think about. Personally I’ve thought about it in a different way, specifically about whether I own my past and it’s also a question about how we own our body.

For example, let’s say ten years ago someone took a picture of me and I demanded that this picture must not be shared or posted online. Now if ten years later I ask the photographer to send me the picture and I post it online, then the photographer and I broke the rules. I certainly did not get consent from my past self. So now the question of whether or not I am my past self comes up. Most people would probably say yes, but it’s still an interesting question.

To continue this chain of thought even further one can be creative and add themes like time travel and meeting ones past self. That expands the idea to a crazy big scope of possible questions though and is perhaps a bit too unrealistic for most people to bother thinking about.

Coming back to a more realistic idea, would posting a picture of my baby self online and insulting the person in the picture be considered morally wrong? It would certainly be considered rude by people who don’t know the context. But how many rights do I actually have here? How about using it as a profile picture on social media? There’s many different possible interesting questions here.

I understand that this is opening a whole other can of worms and a different idea than the original post, but I feel it’s a similar direction and also brings up the question about the relationship between a person and their past self.

edit: Also I just now noticed that I tend to write “past self” as singular while you write it as “past selves” in plural. I guess that’s because you talk about the topic as a more continuous thing that happens constantly. That reminds me of a theory according to which the universe splits up into many different paths every time a random quantum thingy happens. I think it’s this thing: Many-worlds interpretation (wikipedia).

1024 = 2⁷

I’m confused, why this quotation? 1024 is 2¹⁰, not 2⁷

Personally I use a browser extension called LibRedirect.

How about an alternative Link to the same video? https://inv.vern.cc/watch?v=qcfuA_UAz3I

And sites are still more than happy to show those in the popup, just to muddy the waters and make it more complicated than it needs to be.

As far as I see it, displaying information regarding strictly necessary cookies that do not require consent is good practice.

The website linked above states that “While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.”

I think the complicated part is mostly the deliberately bad UI that is often used for cookie banners. They purposefully use a bad layout and color scheme in an attempt to push the user to just click “Accept all”. As far as I understand if a websites only had strictly necessary cookies then I think they wouldn’t even need a cookie popup in the first place though and could simply list this information on a separate “Privacy Policy” page or such.

Probably worth noting: Only things like non essential third party cookies need consent. Essential cookies for things like the users active session that are not shared don’t need a cookie banner.

Source: gdpr.eu/cookies