_cnt0

Yes, they do.

What about trick implies treat?

https://github.com/hakluke/how-to-exit-vim

The extension pack isn’t though: it’s closed source and only free for evaluation, personal use, and educational purposes.

No USB passthrough in VirtualBox without the extension pack. And unless you have a paid version it is a license violation to use the extension pack in a commercial setting. Take that with a grain of salt: it’s from the top of my head and it has been a while (years) since I touched VirtualBox. Since you are concerned about privacy, I’d suggest not touching closed proprietary software, like VirtualBox, at all whenever possible. Luckily, for virtualization in linux, that is perfectly possible. What you will want to look at is kvm/qemu. And maybe a handy UI to that like (qt-) virt-manager or gnome Boxes.

BTDTGTTSAWIO

Let me introduce you to Cobol …

Fck ff wth yr rbtrr lngth vrbl nms.

That could just have been an image in the comment.

I’ll count this as your first rule violation.

Товарищ, говори по-русски!

I’ll ignore the obvious boilerplate (first paragraph). TL;DR: Yes, I’d suggest removing the use of in-/humane completely (same for the German counterpart un-/menschlich). But not because I think the definition is bad. That argument could also be made: It really is an empty word that people attach any meaning to that fits their current purpose. But that’s really not my argument. It seems you’re familiar with syntax vs semantics, so I’ll omit that wall of text. But, one example:

The elephant eats the peanut.

The peanut eats the elephant.

Both phrases are syntactically correct but the second is semantically incorrect. A peanut cannot eat an elephant. It’s the same with at least both words, humane and inhumane, in tandem. They are semantically incorrect. Humane denotes a set of human characteristics (yet, it is a real subset). The in in inhumane implies there is no intersection with the set of human characteristics. Yet, everything labeled as inhumane is part of the set of human chracteristics. The in in inhumane also implies it is the opposite of humane, which makes no sense if they are both subsets of the same set. No matter how you turn it, both terms are logical contradictions. And that’s also why (imho), whenever they are used (at least most of the time), the statements containing them are nonsense.

I agree with the implying-part. But it is what is human, not what a human does. And the way humane and inhumane are commonly used are a fiction. Humane, is just arbitrary “good” “human” characteristics. For example compassion; We know, that at least some animals are compassionate too, so it is not something special only humans have. The in in inhumane implies, that the associated characteristics are non-human. Yet, every thing ever referred to as inhumane is absolutely human. Both words, when looking at them closely, just don’t make any sense, and I would go as far as saying are semantically incorrect. And humane as a synonym for human still would be as useful as the word human, just without any fictional connotation. The human brain, human society, the human experience, … If you want to continue this dialogue, please leave the topic of the post out of it. My critique of the word in-/humane was/is general. The post was just my discussion starter because it contained the word humane. Nothing more, nothing less.

I mean, they wouldn’t even be wrong if they said it was human. And by extention, one could argue that it was humane, when applying the origional meaning of the word. In my opinion people would be just as incorrect by saying what they were doing was inhumane. My beef here really is with the words humane and inhumane. The way people use these words, is perpetuating a lie about human character. Both words shouldn’t be used at all. Genocide is (in)human(e), slavery is (in)human(e), *ism is (in)human(e), …, pretty much every form of cruelty present on planet Earth is (in)human(e)*.

*) to be read as human, humane, inhumane (excluding inhuman)

I don’t like the word (in-)humane. Etymologically human and humane have the same origin (big surprise). But, humane got purportedly human characteristics attached to it and now means something different. Though, for example, they translate to the same word in German (menschlich). I’d like to suggest a little thought experiment:

Whenever somebody says “X is humane.”, ask yourself: Would it exist, if humans did not exist? If the answer is yes, humane is not the right word.

Whenever somebody says “X is inhumane.”, ask yourself: Would it exist if humans didn’t exist? If the answer is no, inhumane is a very poor and misleading choice of word. And the opposite is the case: Evedently, X is very human; Hence humane is a poor fit too, because there is obviously a conflict in meaning.

Example: Building machines to shred millions of chicks is inhumane. Well, without humans such machines wouldn’t exist, hence inhumane is a poor choice of word. Humane can’t be a good choice either, because of the conflicting meaning.

Bonus: Here, have some synonyms for in-/humane, that almost always are a better fit, whatever the context:

• humane

  • compassionate
  • benevolent
  • kind

• inhumane

  • ruthless
  • merciless
  • cruel

SPRICH

That isn’t guaranteed, though. The other day I wanted to create a new community and was browsing instances on join-lemmy.org/instances for an instance that was compatible rulewise. The one I picked evidently wasn’t a good pick (burggit.moe). Trying to advertise my new community, I found out it was defederated from beehaw (and likely others) and got insulted as a pedophilia sympathizer …

Randomly assigning new users to instances would make a substantial fraction of people very unhappy.

How many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Yah, maybe it doesn’t pan out in English. Worth a try, though.

There’s an identical German community on Facebook. It’s been there for years and has worked out pretty well imho. Of course there’s the occasional passerby who doesn’t get it’s all a joke. But usually they just involuntarily contribute to the humor.

My reading was, that that kind of content is allowed, but not the sole purpose of the instance. I wasn’t aware that that is pedo stuff. Nor am I currently convinced that it is (I’m not just taking your word for it). I’ll have to look into that.

But as long as it isn’t illegal, I don’t think I really care what other stuff is on that instance.