Interesting perspective, never really looked at it like that, I’ve always just interacted with the corporatized bullshit implementations of Agile.
It seems Agile really did have a kernel of worker self management in it but the original people behind it didn’t have the right ideological framework to realize that this is what they’re trying to achieve.
Agile is the anarchism of software development: sounds nice on a high level but basically no theoretical foundation behind it and thus in practice everybody makes it whatever the fuck they want it to be.
Strange, usually things just work there considering the limited hardware variety. Is it an older Mac? I’m typing this on an M2 macbook and it works perfectly.
Anyway try to dig into the config and check if you’re using hardware rendering: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox_Hardware_acceleration
If it turns out you’re using software rendering try forcing hardware rendering on: https://jamcity.helpshift.com/hc/en/6-genies-and-gems/faq/5737-how-do-i-enable-hardware-acceleration-on-my-browser/
Sounds to me like some hardware issue, I’ve literally never experienced any of this in the last 5 years on Firefox. My guess is considering it works fine with other browsers the graphics drivers are a bit wonky, or maybe Firefox is falling back to software rendering for some reason. Are you using Linux or Windows?
Wym? Youtube works just fine for me with uBlock Origin. Very rarely there’s some wonkiness but nothing unbearable.
Thanks, I might consider it when my current Pixel kicks it, I’m not really into the fairtrade greenwashing bs but if it’s legit durable and repairable I’ll pay the price premium.
Do these things really deliver on their promise? Did anybody have one for multiple years? Is it really easily repairable? Is it more durable than your average smartphone?
You literally called one of the trailblazers of the entire field a “new age mystic”. I don’t really plan on taking you seriously anymore, thanks for all the kind words tho, take care.
Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment.
No, you wrote it all for nothing.
Damn you’re a complete grating asshole, I’m not reading all of that shit but I do know at least this is wrong:
You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.
Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).
I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.
Damn you’re a feisty one.
In fact you do have to provide definitions, an “observation” in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn’t call upon quantum mechanics. You don’t have such a thing, nobody does.
You’re locked in a belief system and you don’t even realize it.
No, you dumb fuck,
Thanks comrade, very nice of you.
You have to define it
No, everybody has to define it actually since it clearly exists and nobody really knows what it is. If you believe with certainty it doesn’t have anything to do with quantum collapse then you also must have a good idea what it actually is, and you just plain don’t.
Personally I’m agnostic about the whole thing and I don’t think any particular idea needs to be dismissed a priori because of entrenched beliefs.
So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can’t explain right now.
My entire fucking point is that nobody can explain it properly and you grasping so tightly onto only one of the possible explanations is you having a strong belief system, same as religious people, not you doing a heckin good science think.
Nothing I’ve seen seems to imply it’s outside of our models.
It literally is tho. There is no mention of consciousness anywhere in either quantum mechanics or general relativity.
So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.
You haven’t given a real answer either though and neither has anybody else in the history of science, which is what I’m trying to say, nobody has a coherent answer but you’re pretending as if you do. You’re literally just asserting your claims without backing anything up.
We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness.
We literally can’t do that at all though, not even close.
Because that’s literally a basic requirment of science.
How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself, one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?
Also, you call it reductive. I don’t think it’s reductive.
It’s literally how that category of metaphysical thought is called, it’s an actual philosophical term.
How does it not fit in our quantitative descriptions?
I mean it just kinda fucking doesn’t. Our physical model of reality is a bunch of mathematical models and there’s no mathematical formula for consciousness yet.
I’d love for some mystical thing to exist, but literally every mystical thing people have believed for tens of thousands of years has been wrong.
But you’re literally experiencing the “mystical thing” right now. The mystical part is the part where you don’t really have a mathematical equation for it and yet it exists. Think of it like “dark matter” where you know it probably exists but you can’t really model it properly.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this really. Why do I need to analyze if every single thing in the universe is conscious or not? Physicalism also doesn’t really have a general answer to the question “is this physical system conscious”. Shouldn’t you do the same work before declaring you know consciousness is fully physical?
Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.
You can claim that all you want but you can’t really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is “well science will figure it out one day for sure” then you have a belief system and you aren’t actually thinking scientifically.
Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?
The situation isn’t that dire yet IMO, it’s not amazing but things aren’t falling apart yet. I think the libs know on some level they won’t survive unless they keep the treats flowing, which inevitably means easing up on the policy against China and probably even Russia to a degree.