If I say that receiving 2 olives on my side salad instead of 1 is “a premium experience”, it’s not possible to prove that assertion false but it makes the word premium completely meaningless in any practical way.
My point is, I’m not going to argue with you about your definition of premium.
Semantics.
Because they’re not premium features they’re just somewhat less shit.
Premium would be hookers and blow.
He has money.
People want money.
I’m not going to watch a video about polishing a turd but I assume the turd remains a turd.
You’ll not I didn’t actually make the claim that its not possible.
There’s a popular phrase “you can’t polish a turd”. The meaning in this case being that if you put a nice UI on chromium it’s still chromium.
Hey check out this turd I polished.
Anyone who says preserving the status quo
This is an epic straw man. Usually I avoid calling out straw man arguments because you can frame almost any assertion as a straw man and ultimately it doesn’t further discussion. In this case though, you started it.
If you’re into logical fallacies, I will say that your argument is a false dichotomy. Between “societal collapse” and “status quo” there’s an obvious third option: “try to fix all the broken things”, which is what most people are trying to do. Both societal collapse and status quo are absurd propositions that no reasonable person would subscribe to.
You haven’t annoyed me. I’m sorry if my manner offends you.
No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate that human extinction is likely.
I didn’t say that the commenter said that. Ironically, you’re just strawmanning.
Anyone suggesting that societal collapse is a good outcome doesn’t really understand what societal collapse entails.
I also didn’t suggest that capitalism will save us - that’s another straw man.
Your metaphor is disingenuous.
This commenter is the fat guy eating burgers all day trying to bring on a coronary because it’s inevitable so you may as well get it over with, all while claiming that’s a better outcome than wasting time and effort at the gym trying to lose weight.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or you’re just not very bright.
“much higher extinction probabilities” doesn’t really mean anything.
The probabilities referred to in this paper are very low. Less than 1 in 14,000 in an extraordinarily conservative estimate, 87,000 is probably a more useful number. So each year you roll that 14,000 sided dice with 1 chance of becoming extinct that year.
This is where it says that:
Using the fact that humans have survived at least 200 kyr, we can infer that the annual probability of human extinction from natural causes is less than 1 in 87,000 with modest confidence (0.1 relative likelihood) and less than 1 in 14,000 with near certainty (10−6 relative likelihood). These are the most conservative bounds. Estimates based on older fossils such as the ones found in Morocco dated to 315 kya result in annual extinction probabilities of less than 1 in 137,000 or 1 in 23,000 (for relative likelihood of 0.1 and 10−6, respectively). Using the track record of survival for the entire lineage of Homo, the annual probability of extinction from natural causes falls below 1 in 870,000 (relative likelihood of 0.1). We also conclude that these data are unlikely to be biased by observer selection effects, especially given that the bounds are consistent with mammalian extinction rates, the temporal range of other hominin species, and the frequency of potential catastrophes and mass extinctions.
So, a “much higher probability” might be 2 in 87,000 for example. Much higher than 1 in 87,000 but still not very likely. More to the point, the paper is saying it doesn’t consider those factors, they’re out of scope, the methodology used in the paper is incapable of assessing the likelihood of nuclear annihilation.
Honestly, if this paper is the best argument you have that human extinction is likely then you really have nothing.
It’s impossible not to sound condescending when talking to someone who’s just making stuff up and claiming that it’s a plausible assertion.
You’re not being realistic, you’re being dramatic.
Human extinction is not a realistic nor likely outcome to the problems humanity presently faces.
Even in the worst projections for climate change, some areas of the globe will still be able to support life.
Oh yes, silly me. Anything is possible.
Let’s all bemoan the possibility that a nearby supernova destroys all life on planet earth next week, rather than confronting the nuance of the problems we face and developing constructive solutions.
Oh sweetheart.
Did you google “human extinction science” and link the first result without reading it?
The part you quoted just says modern extinction risks are out of scope for this study.
It does not say that extinction is probable or likely.
What a silly thing to say.
You realise extinction requires no living specimens to exist right?
Some number of humans will prevail even if the only thing left to eat is slime mold.
Climate change is a big deal. The future is very bleak. People with the power to mitigate the damage are doing the opposite.
Claiming that human extinction is possible or likely about as helpful as suggesting that ancient aliens have the solution.
Is anyone actually claiming that we’re on a path to extinction? That’s hyperbole.
This type of thinking is not constructive in any way.
Do you actually think that?
As though we just do societal collapse on Wednesday and then start living our best lives on Thursday?
Ooh.
Thanks.
I’ve been running the fork for a long time but somehow figured it was a soft-fork and maybe not really viable without upstream development from syncthing.
Now @[email protected] 's comments are making a lot more sense.
This whole thing is more or less a non-issue then?
It’s been forever since I looked at resilio so this may be an unfair appraisal but… I seem to remember it’s one of those OSS projects that feels a lot more like free tier commercial software. Do you think that’s the case or nah?
Honestly just a dumb rsync client would be enough for me.
It’s like you didn’t read my comment.