To pursue my point, something is definitely happening on the disgust front. A few decades ago, it was normal in the West to eat offal. Now plenty of Westerners are grossed out when they find bits of bone in their chicken broth at an Asian restaurant. For meat to be widely palatable these days, it has be only the best cuts, if possible in a sealed packet with no indication that it comes from an animal. Part of the explanation is surely a subconscious awareness of the horrors of factory farming. But I think something more fundamental’s going on. Something about disconnection from nature, ironically.

Absolutely agree that legislation must bring transparency to factory farming.

telling them that their culture and way of life is “gross”.

Hard to deny that in most cases. But not all, because people’s minds work differently. Personally I rind risible the idea that somebody is attacking my “culture and way of life” when they question my diet. Am I really so rare in my individualism and openness to new ideas?

Because here’s the thing: I personally have stopped eating certain foods simply after thinking about what they are. Cheese is literally the congealed secretions of the mammalian reproductive apparatus. Pretty yucky when you think about it like that, right? No rational arguments or statistics required. That’s a pretty cheap conversion to veganism. Yes, I know that most people will not be open to this kind of novelty thinking. But presumably some will, especially if it can be done with humor.

Also, some of the best plant based food is totally gross. Fermentation is life.

True. I’ve always found mushrooms a bit icky too, but I soldier on and eat them anyway because they’re so healthy.

Of course I don’t, although in my case it is. The deeper point is that if people were to reflect more closely on the origin of their food, this would certainly be a win for veganism. After all, plants are seen as many things but “gross” is not usually one of them.

Disappointed you had to jump straight into censorious mode and tell others literally to shut up.

The main reason for not eating cheese is that it’s gross! Just think for a second what it is. Think harder. Gross. Admittedly pizza is kind of tasty - IF you can stop yourself imagining what it’s made of.

Unlike meat, even the best fake cheese is not very realistic IME. But if someone else enjoys it, all the better.

Your point is a bit off-topic but I for one agree with you.

Actually, it doesn’t just benefit “geeks who use NoScript”. The original audience for accessibility was disabled users, which is why some of the best websites ever made are for government agencies. But sure, they don’t count much when there’s a deadline to keep. I know what you’re talking about, I know that progressive enhancement and respecting WCAG etc is just time-consuming and time is money. I was in the meetings. But it’s also just hard, for the reasons you describe, and few developers have ever been able to do it. Maybe precisely because the skillset straddles different domains: not just programming but also UX and graphic design and information architecture. The first web developers were tinkerers and lots of them came from the world of print. Now they’re all just IT guys who see everything as an app. Even when it’s in essence a document.

This seems to be the argument that the web was designed for documents and that we should stop trying to shoe-horn apps into documents. Hard to disagree at this point, especially when the app in question is, say, a graphics tool, or a game. I still think that, in the case of more document-adjacent applications, a website implemented with best-practices progressive enhancement is about as elegant a solution as is imaginable. Basically: an app which can gracefully degrade to a stateless document, and metamorphose back into an app, depending on system resources and connectivity, and all completely open source and open standards and accessible. That was IMO the promise of the web fulfilled: the separation of content from presentation, and presentation from functionality. Unfortunately there were never more than a tiny minority of websites that achieved this. Hardly any web developers had the deep skill set needed to pull it off.

I was once skeptical about WASM on the grounds that it’s effectively closed-source software - tantamount to DRM. But people reply that functionally there’s not much difference between WASM and a blob of minified JS, and the WASM security can be locked down. So I guess I accept that WASM is now the best the web can hope for.

Interesting read, somewhat enlightening.

But IMO, from the point of view of interoperability, it was bad enough having competing corporate social networks. We don’t want to replace that with competing open meta-networks. And yet ActivityPub and ATProto seem to use completely different paradigms, which would make bridging them pretty hard. Frustrating.

Interesting. Possibly useful to some. I have also discovered that the simplest, most privacy-friendly way to update location is just to do it manually when you change location.

I have a simple script that does this by querying OpenStreetMap’s Nominatim server with the city name. It feeds the resulting coordinates thru a Python library that deduces the timezone, and sets the system time to this.

Useful. I hate shorts and portrait-format video in general.

NB for those who don’t know: a server is not needed to make Youtube RSS feeds, they exist natively: https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=UCxxxxxxxxxx. You just have to find the channel_id buried in the page source, which admittedly is a bit of a PITA. But no native way to exclude shorts, though.

By no reasonable definition of the word “liberalism” has it caused those things on a scale remotely approaching that of communism. This is not controversial.

Arguing is tiring, and here the payoff will be small since the conversation has moved on, few others are reading. I’ve made my point.

Look on the positive side. Humans being what they are, it’s not usually reason that wins debates, but rather the agreeableness of the participants. So you’ve probably won this one by default.

This feels like arguing with a Jehovah’s witness. To your credit, you’re not getting annoyed or abusive in the face of my contradiction. But then that’s also a hallmark of religious people: absolute certitude, which provides a certain peace of mind.

I’ll admit that I had to look up “AES”, which appears to refer to countries that pass the magical litmus test of Marx-Engels Compatibility.

I will simply sum up my own analysis. The precise terminology of the PRC’s political system is unimportant. What is important is that wherever the recipes of Marx have been tried, the result has been violence, brutality, oppression, famine, economic ruin. I say that as a student of history. Literally: it was my degree. But the facts are in the public domain for all to see. And so I agree with Orwell, who saw it before so many others: there comes a point where you have to accept that the thing is irredeemable, and instead try something else.

That’s really all I have to say on the subject. Of course I respect your right to your own viewpoint.

Do you not think your remarks have a bit of a religious flavor to them? Quoting a couple of eccentric academics from 150 years ago as if transmitting their divine revelation. Defending your interpretation of their holy words as if you were a lawyer or a priest. Why not just look to first principles instead, to the values you considerate important, rather than citing a gospel like this?

I must admit that I am puzzled by people’s determination to defend the record of communism. It’s not worth defending. There are much better ideas for how to replace capitalism, though - spoiler - none of them involve a bloody revolution. This doesn’t mean that Marx had nothing interesting to say. Of course he did. His description of society was revolutionary. But the prescription was disastrous and I feel we would do well to just move on from it at last.

Seriously? I’m not trying to convince you, I’m trying to convince the people reading us. That’s the way a forum debate works! But I admire your earnestness.

Hair splitting. Some ideologies are more dangerous than others.

This is a bit reductive. I accept that liberalism and capitalism are closely intertwined in the historical reading. But the fact is that capitalism won the economic battle, for better and (I agree) for worse. Attempts to replace it completely, in an interconnected world, invariably end in disaster or (China) in a reversion to capitalism. Just look at the list of them. To me this whole question feels like a disconnected high-school philosophy debate.

True but that is a proper name, not the generic definition. Russia’s Liberal Democrats are ultranationalists.

Disingenuous or ignorant. By definition a Quaker or a Jain cannot commit brutality in the name of their beliefs. Conversely, an ideology which puts the collective before the individual, such as fascism or communism, is, a straightforward recipe for brutality.

When I say right, I am using the typical definition, supportive of Capitalism. Social Democrats, Liberals, American Libertarians, fascists, and all their myriad forms.

For two of the words this is not a typical definition. Social democrats do not code as “right” anywhere in the world. And liberals are only “right” when viewed through a partisan US-progressive lens, or else perhaps in southern Europe (where the word is mostly an economic term). Elsewhere they would be closer to left or center. This whole discussion illustrates the limited usefulness of the left-right axis at describing ideas.