I guess I just feel like the playing field should be a lot more even at the start.

But the playing field is never going to be equal. There are always going to be some people more disadvantaged than others, so having the same cap for everyone could leave people in unequitable situations.

I think a hard cap of like 2.5 million could be fair, because it at least balances some of the inequality by not having people be outrageously rich to the point where it’s unachievable for anyone not born into it. Like, inheriting 250 million or more is far more than anyone could ever obtain in their life normally.

The disabled cousin might not need the windfall if we didn’t let people hoard so much. I’m just not sure how it’s morally acceptable for those who have rich generous relatives to have a life so different from someone who doesn’t, though.

So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it’s not fair if only some do? If we can’t help everybody then nobody should be helped? I’m not sure that’s a great goal to achieve.

Honestly, I agree with that. I think a 2.5 million cap is reasonable for pretty much everybody. Nobody ever needs more than that, and nobody could ever reasonably obtain more than that in their life normally.

So if you cap it to 30k, that still means that parents dying means that their children’s lives are still left uncertain. There would still be the problem of people being unable to afford housing.

I’m not sure that no inheritance at all, or 30k for everyone at age 18 actually solves anything.

Ah, I understand, I agree then.

To be fair, people do discriminate based on height too, do they not?

People make fun of short guys, tall girls, etc.

That seems reasonable to me, I think that would be a good idea.

I would have agreed with you when I was younger, but now that I’m older I think I changed my mind, I’m not so sure it’s fair to make people suffer with late-stage terminal diseases where their whole life is reduced to suffering.

(that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a “fate worse than death” so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least some functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable)

Is constant, unending suffering where you are in a state of constant unimaginable and untreatable pain a state worth living, though? Should people have to live that way, just because death is “worse”?

Everything is in someone’s head. Without consciousness, we are nothing, so saying something is “in someone’s head” is the wrong way of putting it.

Have you ever heard about functional neurologic disorder? Just because symptoms are psychosomatic does not mean they are not actual symptoms.

Dangerous people can be stopped from hurting others without locking them in cages or treating them poorly.

I’m actually very curious about this one!

How should mass-murderers be handled then, in order to keep the public safe? I think we can all agree that mass-murder is bad, so how can the public be kept safe if a mass-murderer is allowed to roam free? How do you prevent someone from doing the same horrific acts multiple times if not locking them away from the general public?

At the same time, I think it’s strange to introduce yourself as trans or gay in a public setting or on a social platform as if it’s your calling card or occupation to be proud of.

I understand the world is cruel and harsh, and so I understand why there needs to be an LGBTQ community, but there -shouldn’t- be one.

Are you saying there shouldn’t be one because it’s a strange thing, or are you saying there shouldn’t be one because we shouldn’t need one?

That is a controversial one, but my response also will be.

In that case, would it be better if someone were to gamble all their money and lose it all while they are still alive, rather than to pass it down to their children? Would someone die more peacefully knowing they gambled all their money away, rather than leaving it to their children, leaving their children’s lives uncertain? Is passing down a home to stay for their children really such a bad thing, rather than forcing them to fend for themselves in a horribly inequitable world where people are often unable to afford housing?

Personally, I don’t think making everyone have nothing or the equivalent of nothing is the solution to wealth inequality, I don’t think that solves poverty.

Also, how much inheritance should be allowed? None? $250? $2,500? $25,000? $250,000? $2,500,000?

What about a rich relative leaving money to their disabled cousin who was on lifelong disability, is a significant lump sum inheritance of half a million dollars for said disabled cousin still bad? Does it become bad if said cousin instead weren’t disabled in this example?

I’m not so sure it’s as simple as all inheritance of money is bad.

I meant it’s disappointing that they haven’t addressed any of the security issues.

That’s really sad. Damn, how disappointing.

Many of these have already been fixed FWIW, it’s not a collection of open issues. Nevermind, they have only been closed, not fixed. Yikes.

Nobody is referring to 10 years as “months”.

When you’re talking about multiples of years, it’s going to be called years, not months. They were obviously talking about a short timeline, less than 2 years, likely less than 1 year.

They have no idea what they’re talking about.

Like I said, months is a joke.

Yep, months is a joke, doubly so when talking about tens of millions of lines of code and also COBOL specifically.

This is going to be a hilarious disaster but not so hilarious when people who need the benefits need them and won’t be able to get them.

It is indeed very difficult to type convert 001.jpg example.pdf and ffmpeg -i rock.mp4 rock.avi

Because it’s easy to accidentally run services or set up services temporarily and forget that you left them running. With UPnP being able to automatically/dynamically open ports, a firewall is just another layer of protection. You can also configure firewalls to ignore packets silently or log dropped packets, and if applications ever get new versions and end up listening on new ports, you would have to manually allow the ports. Maybe you want to have one part of an application accessible through the firewall but not another part of the application.

Plus, like you said, country blocking is another feature which personally I think is nice to have, and there are also other features too like being able to throttle connections, especially with things like fail2ban.

It’s just another layer of protection, and it ensures that everything you run is deliberate.

Yes, correct, I made a typo. I fixed it now.

Same thing that happened with NCIX’s personal information data, it probably goes to the highest bidder.

It’s important to have seperate directories for unfinished torrent downloads and complete ones, and only have sonarr pick up from the completed one

Back when I used Torrents instead of Usenet for sonarr, I had only the one folder, since Plex would generally pick up the library changes automatically anyway. I’d assume that Jellyfin is similar, although I don’t use it enough to know for sure. These days I use only Usenet for sonarr/radarr since I’m paying for Usenet and it’s excellent for automation/new content, and SABnzbd provides both incomplete and complete folders by default anyway.

You should, yes. I run a firewall (I usually use ufw) on all of my Internet-connected devices, since all of my devices run Linux. There’s not really any good reason not to in 2025.