Israel and the US are also not part of the ICC. Yet they still call out "violations" of international law all the time. The ICC is just a colonialist tool used to beat down any trend towards sovereignty.
They are US vassal states. SK's military in particular is formally under US command since the Korean War and have participated in every US conflict since.
There's important nuance here. It's under US command within Korea in the event of a north Korean invasion to ensure a unified command structure. Last I heard when I lived there (10+ years ago), they were actively transitioning to Korean command in the event of war with North Korea, although I'm not sure if that was ever completed.
It's not even an "other epidemic" - a very large proportion of opiate/opiod "overdoses" are due to taking them with benzos. At least 3/4 of overdoses I've personally witnessed involved both opiods and benzos.
OpenBSD usually has far fewer hoops than Linux on laptops - IME, either it works or it doesn't. Pretty much any x86 machine that isn't bleeding edge is going to work.
> I doubt much will be merged upstream. Many updates we have can technically
run on other OSes (%gs stubs won't be built on Linux because %gs is correctly set, SIGUSR1 will work but less optimally, etc). However I picked an approach where everything that is done for OpenBSD is just marked as OpenBSD only. I did that purely to simplify my life while I was working on it and clearly mark the changes.
> When I was talking to Wine maintainers a month ago, they were hesitant to accept even patching Wine so it compiles for OpenBSD, mostly because it's another OS they will have to support and keep operational, while the %gs stub fix is something they definitely cannot take upstream. They are very hesitant to take anything that is changing the "emulated" application code.
Yes, unfortunately OpenBSD maintainers will have to keep this running for now. NetBSD is apparently in a similar situation. Perhaps their efforts can be pooled at some point if the patches don’t diverge too much.
Most of the brain is not doing intelligence, it is doing nerves and muscle control. Larger bodies require larger brains because otherwise they wouldn't be able to control all the muscles needed to move.
Having personally witnessed a group of 5 crows being tricked and driven out of their newly made nest by a pair of bluejays, I have skepticism that they are any smarter than most other birds. Other than owls, which are definitely dumb as a bag of rocks.
Owls don't really have to be smart. They just need to be quick, ferocious, and murderous. Evolution only selects for intelligence when necessary as it's metabolically expensive.
Bluejays are in the same family as crows (Corvidae) and are just as smart as crows and exhibit just as strong problem-solving skills. Not sure why crows got all the Corvidae intellectual cred in pop culture.
For example, blue Jays can mimic hawks and use their hawk mimics to clear bird feeders of other species or scare away squirrels after they've watched where they hid their nuts.
Most people are completely and utterly uninteresting. I feel that interest in people is largely a physical reaction rather than a thought exercise. Even people who have done cool stuff are often uninteresting. Their story may be interesting, but their person is not.
I don't really know. Why do we get along with some people but not others? There's probably a definable reason but it's not usually a conciously-reasoned thing that can be easily specified or classified.
> Most people are completely and utterly uninteresting
How do we even define interesting ? Like interesting opinions/hobbies? Good storyteller ? Who cares about that. I do need to like you and you need to be an agreeable person imo, but no having a real unique life or opinions is really not that necessary imo. Having a sense of humor is a big plus to me though.
Because people expect another person to be a amusement park- a show. They are not. They are a information processing system- often not even fully self-aware of the information their subconcious weaves into complex ideas. Surveilance and reflection does not improve that performance or allows to reproduce it. It instead produces distraction.
This is why you can not "interview" innovative or creative people- and only get a flat "imposter" image of the creative person. The observation hinders the process and all you get is basically the "house keeping" routines- weaving together some plausible stories, on how a "idea" came to be.
The true process is a walk in the mountains. Some scribbled notes. Glued together during some conversation on a similar topic with friends. I always found it fascinating, how the "iterrators" can dismiss something/someone that clearly works- just because they can not dissect and reproduce it.
reply