Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@bumblebeedc Heh, Vogelrok feels like they kind of *tried* to do a gradual brake and then realized halfway through that they ran out of track

@bumblebeedc It's just baffling, every single Vekoma coaster no matter how unique or special or old seems to have this exact same behaviour, and only theirs 😅 Sometimes you at least get an (ineffective) courtesy speed reduction before it then slams you back into your seat anyway at the end

@clarablackink Thanks, this helps a lot!

@clarablackink The "lot of extra work" bit - what sort of work are you thinking of here?

@GrapheneOS @J3317 @evilcookies98 @darkyen ... so then include espeak and distribute a separate build that omits GPLv3 components like espeak for the AOSP drop-in usecase?

@Heidentweet @becha Like, there was a time when asking someone to think about their position in society was a matter of "normen en waarden", and completely socially accepted. That time approximately ended when fascists started telling people that it's unreasonable to do this.

@Heidentweet @becha Yeah. They're not wrong that it's important to understand why fascism appeals, but they also don't exactly acknowledge that this frustration of people with being asked to introspect (which is presented here as some innate annoyance) very much originates from that same fascist rhetoric of "you should not let anyone tell you you're wrong about anything".

@becha "Als het ging om de karakterisering van radicaal-rechtse bewegingen, partijen en hun leiders was het f-woord lange tijd uit den boze, althans in serieuze politieke beschouwingen."

Which rather calls into doubt the actual usefulness and accuracy of that "serious political analysis", given that it completely failed to recognize the rise of fascism...

@soweliniko Summarized:

Would consuming it cause someone else, somewhere, to buy new ones? Then it's *not* ethically justifiable, as you're just shifting demand.

But would it definitely be discarded if you didn't consume it? Then it *would* be ethically justifiable, because the alternative is that an animal suffered for nothing, not even anyone getting nutrition from it.

@soweliniko (With the caveat that I try to eat more and more vegan but it's not entirely viable for me yet...)

I would apply 'dumpsterdiving logic' to this; if you *know* that something will go to waste if not eaten, eg. because you pulled it from a dumpster, then I would consider the ethically 'right' thing to be to eat it, because then you at least get some nutrition from it, given that 'not producing it' is not an option anymore anyway and it won't affect production rate indirectly either (eg. because it is now not available for someone else).

Then situations like this can be judged by how close they are to that one; would someone else have bought it (and therefore not a fresh one) if housemate didn't get it, or is it something they regularly really *do* end up binning? If the latter, I would consider it justifiable.

In this case, it's already in the house, so then the question becomes: will housemate eat it? If yes, then consuming it might cause them to buy *new* ones at the store, so there's indirect new demand; but if not, then the alternative is that it'll definitely be discarded and therefore it's justifiable.