Untested feature. User is using the product after the End Of Support date.

Not really.

I may do a walk like that if I incorporate the walk as a leisure. But if I have to just be in a place I won’t be walking more than 30-40 minutes to get to it if there’s a fastest more convenient way.

Why Hulk can defeat Wolverine in one comic but in the next one gets obliterated by someone weaker?

Among european countries we were one of the worst, afaik.

I mean if the axiom is “any negative about immigration is bad = racism” then yes, there’s no argument against immigration that could not be racist as those two concepts would be equivalent.

I think those are just semantics.

I get the feeling of not wanting to criminalize the existence of a person.

But it’s common language to say that civil infractions are illegal.

You could totally say “It’s illegal to park here” even if you would just get a ticket for that.

I get the feeling. But I don’t think it is rational to think that anyone writing “illegal immigration” is racist.

I’ve heard a very compelling one actually. It’s not about ilegal immigration but against immigration in general. I heard it in a youtube talk maybe like a decade ago.

It starts stating that the thing a migrant person wants the most is not having to emigrate. No one wants go have to leave their country because they cannot safely live a prosper life there. So the best outcome would be that the origin countries would change, so people wouldn’t have leave everything behind to start a new life abroad. The problem is that the country have to change from inside. And the people leaving a country is usually the most qualified to make that change happen. So by leaving the country they make the change harder or even impossible.

I’m not arguing in favour or against this argument. But I do not think it has anything to do with race whatsoever. As it doesn’t even talk about anything related to migrant presence in a receiving country.

Is your opposition to ilegal immigration based on race or skin color?

If the answer is yes then, yes, you are racist. If the answer is no, then no, you are not racist.

Depends on the region. Where I live mostly as soon as they know your name.

Being very touchy and physical.

Cheek kisses are usual for strangers. And it’s normal to touch people you barely know or have a small friendship.

Country is Spain.

It seems that there has been a massive short lived ddos attack all over the web.

There have been several in the later years. Sone of them are linked to a botnet called AISURU that it’s supposedly infected millions of devices worldwide.

Timing links most likely with an attempt at hybrid warfare against europe. My bet is israel or Russian linked due recent events.

Not going places they charge you money for.

You can go to a park, or spent a lovely afternoon at home, cook your own meals and clean your own clothes.

I loved the star wars films that came out while I was a child, but the ones that were made after that are really bad.

That is fair. And a sensible part of a school age curriculum (already included in my country, that’s included in philosophy mandatory courses). But I don’t see it having a extension to be included “everywhere”, once taught in school is taught. I won’t see a point continuing that formation in universities, same as I won’t see why someone studying history should have an algebra course in university.

But that’s not advocating for everyone studying. It’s advocating for everyone being taught it. By a teacher. That implies that there would be a specific curriculum. And that curriculum will follow a specific dogma.

With other subjects you can have neutral teachings. Math is math. Others may be more complicated, like history, but there’s some degree of neutrality to be found

With ethics I think is inherently impossible to teach it on a neutral way. You would need to teach some particular set of ethics. And there’s not a scientific way to describe a set of ethic norms as the right one. Quoting Professor Farnsworth “Science have not prove that human life is important”. A set of ethics would be chosen as the correct one, and it will be taught by a teacher that will most likely come from a particular political scene. And even while agreeing with that political school of thought, I see great dangers in trying to officially push it as the correct one.

I remember in my school years. I had both religion subject (because it was a religious school) and moral subject (a subject mandated in school curriculum by the government). And it was just wrong, trying to push things like that into children (or adults) even if it was good (moral subject curriculum was written by a left wing government).

I think the members of society should conclude to the best ethical norms, not by indoctrination, but by experience. It should be the set of norms that they would see better for their experience in the society. Thus the way to “teach” people about the ethics we see as good is building a good society with those ethics. Basically teach by experience.

But ethics and morality emerges from society. Giving a small group the power to decide and indoctrinate over that is dangerous and ultimately “unethical”.

I get the feeling of trying to push it. Nowadays most people studying philosophy is left wing. So pushing that those people should control society ethics is basically pushing our political agenda.

I’m leftist, but not the kind of leftist that would do “everything” for the cause. Because I see the dangers of it. What if we do that, we leave ethics of society into a small group and that small group now or in the future diverges from what the society or myself consider moral?

That’s why I’m also against that idea of trying to push a “ethics” course on every major. Now it’s seen as a way to push a particular agenda that we agree on. But surely in the future it will be used to push an agenda we don’t like (as it had happened in the past), that’s a big risk.

I prefer to leave ethics to the individual and society as a sum. An not giving a small group power over it.

I have nothing about people choosing to study whatever they want.

I get a little bothered when people suggest philosophy majors as the “moral compass of society”. For instance, I’ve been hearing more and more on how “philosophy is central to society because we need philosophy majors in ethical committees everywhere”. And while I agree that ethical committees are important, I disagree that studying philosophy makes you more fit for a ethical committee than any other person. As moral of a society derives from the whole society, those ethical committees should follow more a popular jury structure imho.

My point is that when people follow this position they are, inherently saying “a philosophy major is more moral than you” which is the thing that ultimately bothers me.

I agree with journalism.

They should pay me if they want to wash my brain with their propaganda.

AFAIK “woke” started being used by woke people as something good.

Then the right stole the term to turn it into something insulting.

I have just set up a normal computer with the specs I wanted, installed debian and docker/podman and I’m golden.