• 0 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 18th, 2024

help-circle




  • I understand that you made such an experience, but I can’t share it though. I’ve been a Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox exists, which is almost two decades. (I think I joined somewhere between 2005-2007). I’ve tried other browsers, sometimes I had to. However, I didn’t notice any benefits compared to Firefox. Especially not in performance. Even though benchmarks have always shown clear differences, they weren’t significant enough for me to consider switching, as the difference really didn’t impact my browsing experience.

    Regarding the memes: That was just a random annectode which I found suitable here. I don’t claim it has been that way since the beginning. (Can’t relate to that anyway.) But given that it has been around for a while, I don’t see how performance can be an argument in favour of Chrome in this.




  • How was it more performant? As I remember it, Chrome was loading websites not noticeably faster than Firefox, as website loading speed depended and still depends mainly on your internet connection and hardware anyway.

    As I remember it, Chrome exploded because it was pushed onto users at every possible opportunity while Firefox depended (and still depends) on users actively looking for it.

    Used Google or Google products? Get ads for Chrome. Wanted to download Google Earth? You had to activly uncheck a box such that Chrome wasn’t going to be installed as well. Meanwhile no ads and not the same amount of exposure for Firefox.

    That way they achieved a critical mass and snowballing did the rest. There were so many users using it that it was considered a good choice just because it was used by many people.

    Regarding the performance aspect, if there even was a noticeable difference, it was worse than Firefox. Where else did the “Chrome eating RAM” memes come from?







  • What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?

    I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

    You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

    You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
    Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).


  • Sometimes a common error, as people just have a rather ordinary interpretation on the meaning of the word “theory” and sometimes it’s an intentional attempt of discrediting.

    Words can mean different things in different contexts. A scientific theory is not the same as the general or ordinary every-day meaning of “theory”.

    Classic example and mistake by followers of creationist religions: “evolution is just a theory”.

    Well, what if I told you, that, for example, our modern electronic means of communication are part of the wide field of “information theory”?





  • There’s a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that

    Are they? Sincere question, haven’t read a report or something like that on that topic.

    Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don’t learn other ways, if it’s even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it’s not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
    There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.

    Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven’t read up on that.)


  • Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.

    Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.

    A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…

    I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.