Technically, yes. Practically, it’s complicated. It doesn’t really exist within the same ecosystem as other Linux distros.

It’s not as different as Android (which is also technically a Linux distribution), but running a normal DE and all the programs that come with it is very clearly still an advanced user thing locked behind knowledge of how bash and virtual environments work.

There are plenty of new age wuwu types that do define reality as a god. If I thought they had any legitimacy I wouldn’t be an atheist, but the core idea is that we essentially exist as constructs within the imagination of this god.

Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?

Sorry, I edited in the stuff about deists and pantheons as you were responding. What’s your opinion on that?

No, but most people do think of Reality as a god.

But they don’t think He is a god

These two statements directly contradict eachother. Either you think of Reality as a god, or you do not. If you don’t think reality is a god, then you don’t think “he” is a god (wow, the tautology was weird to type).

Also, there are many examples of religious people who don’t think reality is a god. Deists, for example, believe that god showed up, made the universe, and left. Under that belief system, the deist god and the universe it created are two entirely separate things.

There’s also pantheons, where gods exist within their own higher reality with their own set of rules, limitations and powers that interact with our reality. Reality (either ours or the supernatural plane in these belief systems) are clearly separate from the gods operating under these rules.

People are perfectly capable of worshipping, praying to, and generally being religious towards someone they refuse to believe is a god.

What’s your opinion on people who do neither? That don’t believe in a god and don’t pray to anything either?

I’m not a lawyer, first of all! I’m not very knowledgeable either.

Mens rea, as far as I understand it, definitely doesn’t apply here. Bringing it into question undermines the case if you’re trying to build a conviction around it. Better to have a wide variety of provable smaller claims than one big ticket item you’re doomed to fail, as far as I understand it.

Never happening, but even if it was wouldn’t the correct charge be criminal negligence? It’s not like the companies killed those people in a calculated, pre-meditated way. They’re “just” externalities.

Wait… could Just Stop Oil have done some 5D chess move here? Force Sunak to publicly claim he cares about Stonehenge just before the UNESCO report comes out?

What normal people hear: “He took down the routers with some crazy complicated algorithms. He’s Neo in the matrix.”

What IT professionals hear: “He hired a bunch of people to keep sending spam letters to their tiny mailboxes until they were so stuffed that they couldn’t receive any legitimate mail.”

There are plenty of people right here on Lemmy that confidently describe LLMs as “thinking” because it’s a neural net, so it must be just like a brain. Based on that, a debunking is useful.

The pithy version of that is that we know more things than our ancestors, but we’re not smarter than them.

deleted by creator

Does it come with a coupon for their hitman service too?

destroying paintings and monoliths

But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.

In Romania, quite rare. Maybe one every 3-4 months. They’re clearly identifiable as spam calls, at least on my phone, so they’re easy to avoid.

Even if this manages to pass, it’d only apply to those currently in or candidating for the Senedd. This wouldn’t affect the UK government (and thus Farage) at all, even if he were attempting to get re-elected.

hay, grass or silage

All of the above, as well as other feeds such as corn. That percentage includes pastures and growing crops for feed. Here’s a pretty good breakdown.

Interestingly enough, if someone doesn’t care at all about veganism but wants to reduce agricultural land use, removing beef, lamb and dairy from their diet would be enough to get there (while continuing to eat chicken, fish, etc).

sweeping, emotional appeals

I don’t think my comment was very emotionally charged.

Surely, there are stronger arguments against eating meat than that

The power of an argument is determined by the reader. There’s compelling reasons in terms of zoonotic diseases and rampant antibiotic use, there’s other reasons from a moral point of view, there’s others in terms of environment (like this argument), there’s others in terms of human health, etc. Which one is convincing to which person depends entirely on what that person cares about.

Yeah, that does sound very comparable to what I was talking about. Your example and mine both do not have the state deciding what university you apply to though, which is what I understood from “the state decides what you’ll study”.

No, I’m disagreeing. You could study anything you wanted, not what the state wanted. It was just hard to get a slot.

I guess it’s similar to how it’s incredibly hard to get a scholarship at a great university today. You’d hardly say that the modern scholarship system “forces you to study what the state wants”.

This is not true. At least here in Romania, the issue with colleges under communism was that there were VERY limited slots, so you had to either be the best of the best or have a high up party member in the family or as a close personal friend.