This is a secondary account that sees the most usage. My first account is listed below. The main will have a list of all the accounts that I use.
Personal website:
- 1 Post
- 99 Comments
Docker performs some syscall filtering as well which may reduce the kernel attack surface. It can be pain to set up services this way, but it could help frustrate an attacker moving laterally in the system.
Processes in the container cannot see external processes for example as I think interested the OP.
So they support widespread access to free birth control and contraception resources, especially to disadvantaged women everywhere, right? Because if your problem is the abortion itself wouldn’t you want to do everything in your power to prevent it, including preventing pregnancy in the first place as an alternative to what you perceive as murder? Why wouldn’t you fight the same battle through compassion instead of oppression?
Are you telling me that you’re all in for extensive social programs to support single mothers and provide a strong viable alternative in situations where the mother feels financially incapable of supporting her child? Free childcare perhaps? Reducing the cost of childbearing? There are many peaceful options that are quite thoroughly documented to reduce the number of abortions that could be deployed immediately at a reasonable cost. Yet, you’re not interested in using any of these.
Alas, these same organizations also seem to be against contraception, childcare, or generally anything that supports the health of the mother and child. This is where you can see their true colors; they don’t want to prevent abortions. That’s a lie, else they would’ve taken many alternative actions that can achieve the same goal. Instead, they choose the course that oppresses women.
This is the epitome of a bad faith argument. Those who would tell you that abortion is genocide do not believe in their own claim.
There’s actually good reasons for this design. It’s easy to write a Scheme interpreter in assembly, but it’s hard to write a C compiler in assembly that handles everything correctly. Much rather write it in higher level language if possible and Scheme lowers the bar to getting there, so you can get away from using assembly as quickly as possible. Or you can copy somebody else’s Scheme implementation of a C compiler because now you’re platform independent.
Then you can write your C compiler in C (or steal a better compiler already written in C) and close the loop. For your final step, you use the C compiler to compile itself.
Meant, in this context, refers to the conditions that humans have faced over a long period of time and may be more suited to coping with from a survival point of view. I’m an atheist, so I find it strange that you chose to read my comment as highlighting intentional design. Certainly, AI has existed for a much shorter time than the phenomenon on a human encountering the death of a loved one. Indeed, death has been quite a common theme throughout history, and the tools and support available to cope with it and relate to other human experiences far exceed those for coping with the potential issues that come with AI.
I think one can absolutely speak of needs and adaptation for something as common a human experience as death. If you find something belittling about that opinion, I’m not sure how to address you further. I may simply have to be wrong.
I had this conversation with my wife once. I let her know that it is my advance wish that you must allow me to complete the cycle of life. Anything else, any reconstruction of me that technology allows, is to me, an abomination. Keep the pictures, keep the memories, but don’t keep me here when I am gone.
I refrain from judging the decisions of others where possible, but this is my personal wish.
I don’t believe humans are meant to manage loss in this way — stretching out an imitation of our loved one. As painful as it is, I personally believe humans need to say goodbye. I feel this gets in the way of feeling and truly accepting the loss so that a person can move forward.
Loss is truly heavy, but I do not believe this is better or healthy.
There will always be bots on the Internet. I do not believe this is a solvable problem. Instead, we focus on mitigation.
However, Reddit has little incentive to fight the bots because it increases engagement metrics. In fact, it costs money and reduces profits to reduce bot activity. Hence, so many bots.
Right here on Lemmy, because nobody financially benefits from turning a blind eye to the problem, I think we have a head start. This platform is created by users for users. For that reason, I think we should never have the problem quite to the same extent as they do.
Tax the Church.