Why? For me at this point YOLO means a family of detectors that in a single pass propose a bounding box per pixel and filters them with some clustering algorithm. When I see YOLOfoo I know what kind of architecture to expect. A more descriptive name like YOLO-tricks instead of YOLOvX would be nice though.
> They are unnecessary. Humanity lived thousands of years without them.
Totally agree.
Cca 75% of pesticides/herbicides are used for meat & dairy production (we need 75% of agriculture land for it).
> They harm billions of animals.
And they harm people, too. Pesticide bioaccumulation in milk has been linked to Parkinson's disease, for example.
> But not using them would condemn us to a subsistence economy.
I'm not sure that's true.
There is a lot of regenerative agriculture styles not needing pesticides/herbicides. Current agriculture practices are oriented on mass scale and low prices - when you modify that need, you can have much greater yields, but have to change your way of thinking about it.
One example (sorry, have to return to work process). We've all seen the large fields of wheat, so large, you can see the earth curvature. And not a single tree in sight.
If you remove all the nature, tile it, seed large swaths of land with a monoculture, you remove a place for wildlife to live in.
Without predators (foxes, owls) your crop gets all eaten by mice, which overpopulate easily. So you have to use pesticides (which we then eat in our food & drink in our water).
If you have a monoculture, then bugs easily propagate and there is nothing to stop them and you'll have a large loses. But if you stop planting monoculture (maybe alternating rows of crops with rows of trees, and some bushes & flowers between them), bugs will have harder time to infect whole harvest and there is enough natural predators from the bug world to take care of them.
I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops consumed by meat production are conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway. Material that ruminants can magically transform into food.
But for the sake of the argument let's say you are right. I'm not as interested in the pesticides example as in knowing how much are you willing to sacrifice in order to follow that logic. Let me rephrase my question then.
- Having more than 2 kids per couple is unnecessary (even less than that for some time).
- Each extra human consumes resources necessarily damaging the animals and the earth.
Would you pass a law banning having children whenever the birth rate surpasses 2?
> I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic.
I've read a lot about alternative agriculture systems and methods. Maybe that's where my optimism comes from.
> the figure of 75% it is not that simple
I know that 75% is not so simple. But meat industry needs cca 75% of the agriculture land and meat is produced mostly by feeding the animals seeds and vegetable oils, so ... yes, it's a guess, but if we'll account for other stuff, like antibiotics ...
> conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway
The ruminants supply a fraction of our nutritional needs, so I would argue, that we don't need them and that we can switch to more sustainable (less land expensive) sources of food. I would return that "non-edible" areas into forests for wildlife/biodiversity, which they were previously and which could even reverse our climate/extinction events currently happening.
Other non-consumable material could be composted and/or left in the fields as a mulch. Exposed soil kills microbes/fungi in the soil.
> Would you pass a law banning having children
No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way.
That population is still growing is a result of our exploitation of poor countries, poverty, a lack of education, and our religious and governmental practices. As we see in western countries, the developed and educated countries have a tendency to stabilize their population.
So the current growth will stop on its own, in time. But we have to make sure that we set the correct example for the new billions, or we'll together eat the Earth dry, till nothing than deserts will remain.
No, that's bad formulation on my part (bad language skills and time pressure, i'm not used to debating on the net all day).
But I think that human civilizations does not have the right to live to the detriment of wild animals or that we have the right to destroy nature completely, just because we love our current food so much.
Not as well known as Bender, but just as capable. In fact, probably more capable according to those who know him, but it's so close that hardly anyone cares.
Tends to get flattened when people try mixing his work with existing Bender work. The two just don't go well together.
Hi, minarchist here. You are almost right in the distinction between right and left anarchism being about private property. But it's a little more profound. The main difference radicates in the conception of legitimate power. For a right anarchist, power is illegitimate only when it's carried out through violence. Meanwhile, for a left anarchist almost any power hierarchy is illegitimate in itself. To the extent that private property could give rise to power hierarchies, a left anarchist will reject it. But it's only a particular case derived from the core belief.
> "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical
Well, anarcho-capitalists believe that there are ways to provide property rights outside the state. As a minarchist, I'm skeptical about it, but if you believe it there's no paradox.
On the other hand, I do find deeply paradoxical the left anarchist stance on rejecting capitalism but also (AFAIK) reject any means to stop its emergence in society.
> There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state [...] but keeping the bad parts
As a minarchist, I strive for reducing the weight of the state as much as humanly possible. Justice, defense, and a minimal social security net are the only services I can't think how to provide without the state. If you think these are the bad parts I'd love to hear a viable alternative, maybe you can make me fully anarcho-capitalist ;).
I agree with you on the more nuanced distinction, I just didn't want to open the discussion of what legitimate power structures constitue.
Re your criticism of left-anarchism, one of the big unsolved challenges in my eye is exactly your point: how do you keep per from pooling? In a sense, you also need a "state" but one which has as it's explicit goal the self dissolution - which is of course the same paradox that ancaps face. The difference to me is that it seems to me more feasible to build societal systems and cultures that disperse power if we build our ideology around consent and cooperation than to build a society where the central building block is the by-necessity cooperation of small dictators who somehow are supposed to also respect their weaker neighbors private property rights. The former seems like positive feedback loops are possible (and we see spontaneous cooperation like this emerge throughout history, without any powerful person pushing it) while the latter...was the robber barons and cleptocrats of the 19th,20th and 21st century
Re your question, I don't like to quibble to much about this if it doesn't have a possible payoff, but do you believe in e.g. environmental regulations, provision of public goods via a regulated healthcare system, basic education etc? If yes then I think your position might be rare amongst self identified minarchists. If not, then do you see how e.g. natural monopolies like healthcare or highly influential realms like healthcare are open to power concentration and state hijacking?
> vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage
I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices.
> usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure
That's the problem. There are empty houses but too old or in places where people don't want to live. So to low the prices more houses need to be built there where people want to stay.
Another solution would be improve the communication channels between cities and rural areas.
> I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices.
In London, up to a third of all properties (depending on the area) are left empty. At that point I don't care if it's money laundering or speculative usage, but London's nickname "Londongrad" more than hints that an awful lot of Russian oligarchs used London real estate to launder stolen money [2].
Personally, I'd be fine to ban all foreign investment into real estate in hot housing markets no matter the country, with the sole exception of primary or secondary residence.
I like to think of it as the right to freedom of speech and the "spirit" of free speech.
The definition of the first is simple. You have the right of not been coerced to (not) say what you do (not) want to say. Note that this includes the possibility of being coerced not only by the government but by any other institution/individual. It also grants the right of private entities to arbitrarily decide their platform rules.
The spirit of free speech is more vaporous, but it's the idea that powers the right. It's the notion that every perspective deserves to be listened and that the society will be better as a consequence. It's one of the main values of western culture.
One can defend the right but not the spirit, the spirit but not the right, both or none of them.
I have seconds in my status bar. It isn't distracting at all. My brain filters it out just the same when I'm focused on other stuff open on my computer
Eh, it's not that bad. i3 does it every five seconds by default, along with other status information, but to me that bar is small enough to not draw my attention if I don't need it. Actually I even often miss when it changes the color of some text to notify me of a critical situation, eg available memory dropping below 500mb.
You have Coinbase, Kucoin, Gateio, Crypto.com, Kraken, Bitfinex, Uniswap, Sushiswap, Pancakeswap, ...
Competition is also a form of decentralization.