Ngl, the recent influx of AI-generated projects is slightly unnerving. While I don’t know the extent of your technical expertise, programmersd21, I’ve noticed many vibe-coded projects pop up, where the maintainer doesn’t actually understand their own codebase. All the philosophical arguments against AI aside, this paradigm might introduce severe security and maintainability flaws (I do not know to what extent this is applicable to this particular project).

I am not an expert in Rust. But, skimming 2 random files in under 5 minutes revealed code that I wouldn’t let pass a review:

1. https://github.com/programmersd21/wallr/blob/72e10a02ae9fdd65ba2f5a440f45906d0fffc6a4/wallr-core/src/wallpaper/mod.rs#L156

This function called apply_wallpaper doesn’t apply a wallpaper. Instead it checks if the file exists, and logs stating it will apply otherwise.

2. https://github.com/programmersd21/wallr/blob/72e10a02ae9fdd65ba2f5a440f45906d0fffc6a4/wallr-core/src/video/gpu.rs#L37

This file contains the same adapter enumeration logic, but it is implemented differently across the detect_adapters and select_adapter functions.

Also,

~/wallr $ rg detect_adapter
wallr-core/src/video/mod.rs
12:pub use gpu::{GpuSelection, detect_adapters, select_adapter};

wallr-core/src/video/gpu.rs
35:pub async fn detect_adapters(instance: &wgpu::Instance) -> Vec<AdapterInfo> {

I do not know Rust, but this looks like dead code to me (these are the only two mentions of that functions; commit 72e10a02 btw). Please correct me if I’m wrong.

If my assessment above is incorrect due to me misunderstanding the code, I retract my statement towards this project. My concerns still exist though. Perhaps it’s truly time to stop writing code that is maintainable by humans. ¯\(ツ)/¯

Thanks. Now I have student loans, my degree has been made worthless, I’ve been made redundant at my job, I’ve run out of savings (did I mention student loans?), and I’m getting deported soon!

Adam Something did a video about this 3 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fcWOivJ6bs

Really? So what?

A lot of people are either poor or simply don’t have a need for art, which is why they don’t buy it. The buyers are the appreciative, non-poor individuals. Before GenAI, artists had a market, they produced work for these buyers, whether for legitimate use or pure appreciation.

Now, GenAI is eroding that market. Legitimate users just use GenAI for “good enough” results, and appreciative buyers lower their standards by flooding themselves with GenAI content.

Meanwhile, the poor folk push back against the normalization of such art which wrecks the art industry. They’re doing what they can.

Lol! What do you mean? How else can one speak rationally to people?

As I see it, I have not been rude or disrespectful in my comment. I merely want to understand their reasoning (or lack thereof) for eating meat. If their reasons are strong enough to overcome the opposition (i.e., vegans), I will start consuming meat as well.

Also, appealing to emotion does not work on everyone (as OP showed in their case). In such cases, if the person you are talking to intends to engage in a healthy discussion, the best approach is to work out the argument logically. Look for any contradictions in their reasoning (or yours). While the person may still not follow your proposal, at the very least, they will realize that their stance contains logical contradictions (hence my point about cognitive dissonance).

I’m not saying that OP should be unfriendly or lose their friend. Friends can have healthy debates, and OP is the best judge in their case.

I have not watched Dominion, but I am curious as to how they arrived at the conclusion that fish do not feel pain.

1. Ask them to clarify and give relevant sources for the claim.
2. Ask them what extent they are willing to extend their argument. Clearly, they make a distinction between humans and animals. That’s fine, but then, is it moral to kill and consume a sufficiently mentally impaired human?
3. If we have reasons to believe that the being can feel pain, albeit with a lack of certainty, wouldn’t it be morally superior stance to not kill and consume it?

Chances are, they are in cognitive dissonance, and they do not want to think/act about all this. So, despite knowing the philosophical arguments around it, they can rationalise by just saying “but it tastes good”, and “lol, they are not human”. I, personally, have found no way to talk to such people. So, if your friend is anything like that, good luck, fellow vegan!

fastfetch?

How the fυck is “so frustrating” an insult, but “how the fυck” is not?!

Scυnthorpe

May be they forgot to add “Make no mistakes” in their prompt.

Looks like an Epstein file to me.

Just for awareness, this project is heavily vibe/agentically coded:

https://github.com/nordstjernen-web/northstar-browser

Claude is the primary contributor, making most of the commits. I usually see it as the co-author, but for this project, it is the sole author of most commits.

Make of it what you will.

(you forgot 3 zeroes in Picometer)

Lol!

Because why Should we Care About Our Planet or Animals since They don’t Care about us ?

I do not think that the planet is sentient, and if you think the same, I do not know how you expect it to care about us.

As for animals not caring about us, how far are you willing to extend this argument?

• If a person does not care about you, would you find it morally acceptable to kill them?
• What if they disagree with you, but do not harm you?
• What if they actively try to harm you?

I would assume you reserve the right to kill for very narrow scenarios. I don’t see why you wouldn’t extend that same logic to animals.

Clearly, people value people over animals, and that’s fine. However, there is a huge leap between the premises and the conclusion.

Just because people are valued more than animals and animals do not care about us, it does not automatically lead to the conclusion, “Therefore, it is acceptable to kill animals.” At best, it suggests, “In a scenario where you must either save a person or an animal, you should save the person.”

As for the “Nature is Cruel” argument, acknowledgement of the cruelty should not entail normalization and perpetuation of the cruelty. Animals kill and rape each other in the wild. But, as beings with a moral conscience, we know better.

How to piss off a Linux guy in 3 steps:

Step 1: Use Windows

Step 2: Encounter a computer problem and ask the Linux guy for a solution.

Step 3: When they say they don’t know Windows, mock them for being so stupid despite staying in the terminal playing pretend hackerman all day.

Though there also seems to be a certain flavor of antinatalism which is something like “our universal shared conditions are going to get so bad that everyone will suffer” due to global warming, lare-stage capitalism, whatever. That one I can understand.

The flavor of antinatalism I presented above is not different from this. The two are not mutually exclusive. In my previous comment, I was more concerned with showing how the default state of life is negative. All these factors just add to the severity of how bad life is (and can be).

But if I start asking people on the street if, based on their subjective lived experience, they agree with that statement, I can guarantee that not everyone would.

People tend to remember pleasant experiences more accurately than unpleasant ones. This phenomenon is known as the Pollyanna principle. When you ask strangers about their lives, they are likely to focus on positive moments and downplay suffering. Yet, if you probe them, you might see that the reality of human existence includes chronic stress, job dissatisfaction, loneliness, loss, bereavement, discrimination, injustice, regret, disease, and ultimately death. These hardships are not uniformly distributed across a lifetime; they are usually amplified towards the end. For example, illness becomes more acute in old age, and many old people experience helplessness, loneliness, and memory loss, despite having had children.

And that’s the rub for me: I see antinatalists taking this position as if “life is suffering” is subjectively true for all humans, and I don’t think that’s true, or at least not to an extent that leads to the conclusion that no one should reproduce in order to save the next generation from the suffering.

It is about preventing needless suffering. So, if suffering constitutes an overwhelming part of life, one should not procreate in order to avoid it. Sure, we may have our coping mechanisms to get around the suffering, but why learn and deploy them when it can be avoided altogether? It is not for the benefit of the child that they are being brought into existence.

So it seems to me that one driver of antinatalism is people with depression incorrectly assuming that the next generation will experience life the same way they do. All it takes to prove that assumption wrong is a single person who disagrees that their subjective lived experience is one of constant suffering.

I can similarly argue that people without depression assume that the next generation will do well too. You have already mentioned global warming and late‑stage capitalism. Given threats like these, I find it unreasonable to presume that future lives will be unproblematic. Reflecting honestly on ourselves and our circumstances reveals that we should not expose future generations to life and the world. You do not necessarily need to be depressed to recognise that things are bad.

Also, I am not particularly arguing for “constant suffering”. My claim is that it is unethical to subject a sentient being to suffering when that suffering could be avoided.

Would you take an hour of the most excruciating pain for an hour of the most intense pleasure?

Our evolutionary ancestors needed to experience pain more intensely because it prevented them from dying. What does pleasure provide, when it merely acts as a tool for reinforcement?

You can try to refute my description of the pleasure-pain biology ^ , but once you accept it, I do not see how you could say “Says who?”.

^ If you are refuting that, see this text explaining it biologically: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5498867_A_common_neurobiology_for_pain_and_pleasure

I do not think this is as good of an argument. I do not really understand how one would bring about a kind of world you mention. I have left a comment about this above: https://lemmy.world/comment/25638370 . Let me know if you disagree with it.

I don’t see this as nihilism. Additionally, I don’t see why adoption needs to be contingent on life becoming permanently better for all humans. If you want kids, and are able to provide an adopted child with a better life, I see that as a win-win. Under antinatalism, if you do not have any children already, the choice of adoption just reduces to the childfree case (e.g. do you find them annoying?). Therefore, your thought seems pretty much to line up with antinatalism.

That is not an unfair assumption to make. It is possible that people with depression have a disposition towards pessimism, nihilism, and antinatalism; however, I would like to know how that invalidates the position. Note that this philosophy has been exposed to people without depression as well, and so far, it has been incredibly hard to refute without assuming life, humanity, or sentience as positive things.

Philosophical pessimism, particularly Schopenhauerian thought, asserts that suffering is the default state of life, and happiness is merely a temporary alleviation of it. This makes sense when viewed through an evolutionary lens. Suffering is what drives us to avoid death, while pleasure serves as reinforcement that the death-defying action is favorable to our continued existence.

Consider a primitive person being hunted by a predator. That person experiences suffering, which prompts them to escape. They outrun the predator and avoid death. Then they experience happiness, which acts as reinforcement to continue the escape behavior. This is why we experience pain more intensely than pleasure. If it were not so, the primitive person would have died and we would have never been here. This principle applies to hunger, loneliness, insomnia, and similar biological drives.

Some propose the argument that life would be worth it once suffering is solved. Under the reasoning I presented above, I do not see how this could be “solved”. How will you solve death economically? How will you remove or solve bereavement? How will you permanently solve disease?

Let us say you selectively keep pumping dopamine and serotonin, and selectively inhibit their reuptake whilst constantly monitoring pleasure and pain. Will this not be detrimental to your survival? What if you run into scenarios where it is necessary for you to “escape”?

As I see it, suffering is necessary for survival; it needs to be the default state, and it is experienced more intensely than pleasure. We, as already existing beings, need suffering, but it need not be imposed on the non-existent.

(Sorry if I went into a tangent, lol!)