100 years ago? Really? Why are you assuming I’m talking about the past? Educate yourself.
Also, here’s a scientific study completely disproving your unfounded suppositions
Note that while domestic cats are unlikely to venture far, they don’t need to, as native birds fly into residential neighbourhoods without issue. Regardless, they are between 10 and 100 times more effective at killing wildlife than a comparable predator such as a weasel or owl.
I wholeheartedly agree that humans are invasive, but one need only look at a place like New Zealand to see how one of homo sapiens’ most environmentally-damaging qualities is that it brings other invasive species with it. Treating birds at bird feeders as if they’re all invasive is deeply reductive and objectively wrong. Animals migrate in some cases hundreds of miles in a day.
Cats are universally deeply invasive once feral, and humans letting those cats (and dogs) get out has been the primary threat to the wildlife of New Zealand. Not humanity itself. This is almost universally true on any island, from islands that have been completely taken over by rats, to the Spaniards’ tendency to leave behind feral hogs that outcompete even the most deadly of predators within a couple generations. But in only one case does everyone treat this like it’s some endearing quality: outdoor cats.
Just because there’s a much bigger problem doesn’t mean that the small one doesn’t exist. That’s just whataboutism. ALL of these need to be dealt with, but you know which one is the easiest to tackle FIRST? (Hint: it’s not the pigs)
If the concept of an invasive species is an insufficient response in your eyes, then I maintain that my prior response is not insult, but observation.
Tell me you cannot even conceive of an “invasive species” without telling me you are incapable of understanding that basic concept.
Man, mind like an ocean indeed… Mostly empty, with a few bits of bacteria and just enough sentient meat to function.
Look, if YOU find a fluid that is incompressible in liquid form, liquid at room temperature, gaseous at temperatures lower than the melting points of most construction materials, has a low viscosity, can dissolve almost anything but is completely nontoxic, has a high heat capacity, is capable of ionic dissociation, is polar, and, oh yeah, also incredibly cheap, do let us know!
as the monkey’s paw curls one finger down.
The mouse doesn’t expect you to like it. The mouse expects you to endure it.
Look at this guy, thinking he’s worthy of “respect”! The fucking temerity, the absolute gall of these poors!
Yeah, sorry, I learned that the hard way. I just eventually said fuck it, and now I run 'doze on a VM in my Linux mint.
Don’t forget “skills you can use to make yourself valuable to a small community”, especially the skills to grow and prepare food, locate and purify water, construct and maintain shelter, maintain and upscale off-grid power, and use ammunition and weapons.
Fair! The only reason I’m still here on Lemmy is because it’s open source and I can defederate from them, but Ladybird’s motives certainly bear scrutiny. However, I’m sure that we’ll get a full rundown on privacy and security when it’s in a truly unable state.
Is the ladybird dev an authoritarian? Because that’s very different from a racist, or a transphobe.
I would sooner criticise Lemmy for being developed by actual, self-declared authoritarians, unless I have evidence of similar positions from ladybird. After all, that’s why I left Proton. The CEO’s a supporter of the US’ Authoritarian regime. It doesn’t bode well for a closed-source project.
Fair enough, would you prefer my original term, “ideological purity testing”, at which we leftists so excel? I was pointing out that this guy’s original comment could just as easily be applied to Lemmy, so how is it relevant? If, for instance, The person who discovers, say, the Haber-Bosch process, also happens to design the chemicals used for the extermination camps, should we avoid using the Haber-Bosch process to revolutionaize agriculture? No, I stand by my claim of non-sequitur, since character assassination is an insufficient reason to throw out a valid argument, contribution, or invention. Should it be scrutinised? of course, but not because one of the developers is a dick. That is immaterial to the project. So either we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, and get rid of all of this free shit we use every day, or we can talk about things that actually matter, like functionality. Trans phobia should be fought, just like Fritz Haber deserves to get his name dragged through the mud. But the Haber-Bosch process has saved millions of lives.
So, is it relevant to the project? It’s not like this is something I’m paying for, is it? Does it matter that Haber was a raving anti-semite, Dessalines is an authoritarian whackjob, or that the ladybird dev is a racist transphobe? Well, I’d like to know if it does matter. If things are being put into the browser that would go against its stated purpose, then that’s deeply concerning.
If, for instance, the ladybird dev started saying “man, I sure do love Google’s tracking protocols”, or “wow, look at what a good job trump is doing cleaning up the USA of criminals!”, then that would be sufficient for me to say “there’s definitely something going on”, but it’s an open source project. It’s going to be difficult to hide authoritarian spyware into it without security- and privacy-conscious people noticing. And when that happens, it will be for that reason, not because someone is a dick, that this will be relevant to the project.
Well, then, let me give you a Tu Quoque: your original comment contains ad hominem and non sequitur.
Or, if you prefer: “No, U”
Can someone learn this power?
Lemmy head dev is an authoritarian shill, but only one of the two people we’re talking about lets it influence production and the project, and it’s not the transphobe (unless you’ve heard otherwise?).
So, if we’re doing ideological purity tests, do you have a platform you’d recommend we continue this conversation on instead?
Bold to assume I cannot be angry about multiple things. Bolder to assume I hate cats. What I am “crusading” against is your inability to understand basic biological concepts or acknowledge simple evidence. Since you cannot even be bothered to comprehend actual refutations when they are labeled on a platter, I return to my first comment:
Mind like an ocean, indeed.