People who would start co-ops are usually decent and don’t care about profits that much. They wouldn’t exploit their workers or other obvious strategies that would put profit more important than wellbeing.

All the companies that don’t care about this have much less costs. Thus the companies that don’t care about morality can offer lower prices than the co-ops, and since most customers care about that more than anything else, the co-ops are driven out of business much more often.

What is “useful”?

I didn’t think we were talking about the law. I thought we were talking about personal moral considerations, which don’t have much to do with the law or courts.

There is actually no contradiction. I’m pretty sure everyone would be on board with those CEOs going to prison for life instead of them being killed.

The difference is that a convicted murderer is being punished. Healthcare CEOs are instead rewarded with a life of luxury for killing people. The law does not punish them for their transgressions. A citizen can not imprison the CEO for life. What they can do is shoot em.

So what many people are saying is that “rather a bad person gets punished than rewarded”. And if the only realistic punishment possible is killing them, because it’s fast and easy to do, then that’s deemed as acceptable even though killing is bad. Being rewarded for being evil is worse.

The only difference is the immediacy. If exploitative strategies by healthcare companies directly caused harm to you or a loved one, it could very much be interpreted as self-defence to kill their CEO.

I would definitely want to see them prosecuted. However, the sentence should probably be light. I’m not perfectly familiar with the justice system, so I don’t know how much of this is currently the case, but I think vigilante justice should result in smaller punishments than for example if the reason of the murder was personal gain. If it can actually be proven that the murder victim did those terrible things they were killed for, depending how terrible those things are, the sentence should be reduced. If for example someone killed Hitler, there should be no punishments for this murderer.

Of course that allows murderers for personal gain to claim they did it for vigilante justice, but they would have to find something they can actually prove their victim to be guilty of. This will probably be hard. But I think if they actually find something on the victim, as twisted as it sounds, I think it’s actually fine if the sentence gets reduced. Because in the end I think the murder of an unpunished morally bankrupt person is less bad than the murder of a completely innocent person.

I’m pretty sure most torrent applications have a “set location” button on the torrents, which automatically moves the torrent to the location you choose.

I know that qbittorrent also allows you to rename files and folders within the torrent.

The only thing that I have not seen possible is to change the directory structure within a torrent - i.e. move files one directory level up to “flatten” it. If a file is within three nested folders, then it is always like that, but you are able to change both the file and folder names, just have to do it from within the torrent client so that it can pick that change up.

But what you can always do is use filesystem links instead of moving the actual files around, keeping the actual torrent files in some invisible data directory and only “operating” on the links. Works more or less well depending on your OS :D

Beyond All Reason is incredibly fun and approachable. It’s a completely open source strategy game that’s basically built for big battles, 8v8 is the most popular mode.

No

What if you don’t know anyone willing to help you get a job?

They simply don’t exist anymore. The only choice is to do this with a smart TV and never connect it to the internet.

What is “better in general”? I don’t particularly mind the human species going extinct, it’s unlikely there’ll be no life left over. No one knows the nature of the universe.

In any case, it’s incredibly unlikely we’ll go extinct anytime soon. Maybe climate change etc causes extreme loss of life, but humans are so adaptive, some will surely survive.

No one can even define “enlightenment” either. Maybe we already are, maybe such a thing doesn’t exist. Currently, it’s just a story element.

Friend, keeping a partner is also necessary for reproductive success. A child historically had a higher survival rate when parents stayed together. I didn’t say that you actually want to pick anyone up with your conscious mind, I’m just saying that the decisions you make are motivated by reproductive success.

Why do you think you even feel the need to cover up your balding head. It’s the same reason, just suddenly even more obvious.

Then you should probably leave every game, because you can probably find some dumbfucks that argue about this everywhere. There are less than 30 people posting on this Steam discussion linked.

You may not believe it, but most of our behavior is motivated by sex and appealing to our desired mates. Even if you rationally say you don’t want to pick up anyone with your rainbow hat, the original impetus to do it at all comes from a biological mind that is designed to reproduce. Being confident in who you are is a desirable trait in a partner, thus making you more attractive, thus contributing to your biological goal of reproduction. Yes, you have more rational reasons for it than just that, but it’s extremely likely that the wearing of the rainbow hat feels good to you because of million years of evolution to optimize reproductive success.

And yes, even homosexual people are subject to that, even though they technically can’t reproduce. Which I think is pretty funny honestly xD

It’s also interesting that you bring all the heterosexual signals up as some kind of counterpoint… but they serve the same goal.

TSS? Totally sexy speech? “Text sucks” software? Tangible speech service?

Maybe because the whole “blue light in displays” has no real effect on our sleep

I’m sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I’ll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting “back in your industry/career”? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think “once I reach this, everything will be better”. In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don’t think it’s important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it’s important that you’re fine with not reaching it. I think it’s important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD