Absolutely, and in most cases (while one shouldn’t rely on this since escaping a docker container is sometimes doable) even if there is a security breach the invader would be limited to the service image, which would get recreated upon restart.

I think you got docker mixed with something else, since docker does the exact opposite, i.e. allows you run services without all of the arcane shit involved. Just put the compose file in a folder and run docker compose up -d and you’re done, whereas the alternative would be to install a database, configure it, install the immich service, connect it to the database, write a service file for both database and service to allow it to be auto-started, and face multiple issues due to missing dependencies or permissions.

There are several problems with your post, I’ll pick a couple and try to quickly go over them:

the definition for social anxiety in one country could be considered the definition for agoraphobia in another

That’s not true, someone with social anxiety will have problems being on a video call with other people, someone with agoraphobia not necessarily.

Simon Whistler give a very debunked rundown on psychology ten years into his career

His career is not that of a psychologist, so not sure what the longevity of his career matters here.

the highly rigged Stanford Prison Experiment, which has never been able to be replicated with the same results.

That’s how science works, someone makes an experiment and gets a result, others either validate or get a different result, and when science has a consensus it advances. Like you have mentioned here, the consensus is that the Standford Prison Experiment results are non-reproductible therefore it’s not accepted by the scientific community.

Modern psychology is littered with these false rules and expectations.

You seem to be expecting a 100% cause-effect response, which is not how biological sciences work, the same is true of medicine for example.

the Milgram Experiment

AFAIK the Milgeam experiment has been reproduced several times.

Stockholm Syndrome

Which is not recognized as a condition. I’m not sure what your point was here, it’s like someone criticizing chemistry because of the atom model an the ether theory.

you can point to and say "if conventional psychology was right, this event in my life would’ve never happened how it did?**

That’s not how it works, what you’re suggesting is called anecdotal evidence, and you would find the same problems in any other science, especially biological. For example, I personally know dozens of people who’ve smoked all of their life and don’t have lung cancer, that is NOT evidence against cigarettes causing lung cancer, just because some amount of people don’t get it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cause-effect relationship.

There is a rule

It’s not a rule, it’s a theory

in the field of psychology

It’s not from psychology but from game theory, which is mostly mathematics.

called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It says that if you question two people a certain way, they will be incentivized to spill beans and betray each other.

That’s not what it says at all, it makes no prediction on what people would choose, it’s a dilemma because choosing one option is Bettie for you but the other is better for everyone.

Me and a friend were once arrested because he got into a fight because someone cheated on his sister and I sped him away. The officers tried inflicting the Prisoner’s Dilemma on us, but we’re both open books, to the point where we knew the whole point was we were willing to face whatever comes. The cops had nothing. They let us free.*

So it was not a Prisoner’s dilemma, if it had been if you both had talked you would both have served a sever sentence, if neither had talked you both would have served a lower sentence. There’s no option where both walk free in the prisoner dilemma, either only one walks or you both serve sentence, that’s where the dilemma comes from, if both keeping quiet gets everyone free there’s no dilemma.

I never shifted my goals, from the beginning I’m calling you out on saying fast food is not food, you’re the one who used dirt as a counter example of things that are clearly not food yet would, according to you, fit the definition of food. I’m giving you an example that clearly exemplifies why fast food sustains you, and is therefore food, but dirt doesn’t. If you weren’t babbling on and on trying to throw as many arguments as possible to try to evade from the simple fact that you haven’t even given a food definition that doesn’t include fast food you might see the point that by any meaningful definition of the word (including the one you gave) fast food is food.

You asked for a definition of sustain, I gave you a concrete example of what I would use to qualify things as providing sustenance, or indeed qualifying as food. Which is why I qualify fast food as food, you on the other hand do not, so perhaps you should define sustain instead of asking for my definition.

You can control them for days, so it’s a lot more difficult to undo stuff that was given almost a month ago, you can use cryptocurrency so that it doesn’t matter what any court decides it’s irreversible. But in general I agree with you that scaring them into giving all of their money voluntarily is more useful, however I don’t see any reason why you can’t make them give all of their money and also a warning to others, that is a lot more scary because even if you fought in court to get that money back you would immediately donate it all and die, so eventually people would not try to pursue those cases. And the fact that they had to originally leaves a clear public paper trail to track the inheritance, which would otherwise be impossible, so rich people would just hide their wealth.

If you’re stuck in an island for years where the only thing you have to eat is fast food you will survive therefore food. The same cannot be said for dirt.

I never said it’s healthy or that someone should eat it regularly, so that’s a strawman. But it is still food, with much higher nutritional value than dirt, and it can definitely sustain you, which you yourself admitted, so by that same definition you gave fast food is food.

any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth

By that definition Burger King is food, you can survive on it and gain enough nutritional value to allow you to grow.

Fast food in general is neither nutritious nor does it particularly maintain life and growth. Arguably it does the opposite.

It’s not as nutritious as home made cooking, but claiming it has no nutrition is factually inaccurate.

I’m not saying it is good for you, or that you can survive eating only whoppers (but you also can’t survive eating the same salad over and over so it’s a moot point). But by any definition of the word Burger King and other fast foods are food, extremely calorically dense and filled to the brim with saturated fat food.

What is your definition of food? Because it certainly fits mine and the dictionary’s.

Lots of people here forget that you can control the actions of the person before they die. If you go by the richest persons, like someone suggested, you get them to liquidate and donate their entire state, or maybe a bunch at the same time to lobby for taxes to the mega rich, before dying. If you go by world leaders, like someone else suggested, you get them to undo their shits, e.g. Putin abandons Ukraine and destroys most of Russia’s armaments before joining NATO, Kim Jong Un calls for democratic elections and forms a democratic government after opening the borders, etc.

Yup, what people don’t get about online privacy is that it’s not about hiding things, but knowing what is exposed. If you voluntarily expose something on one account that might get tracked back to you.

I used jq for something similar before, recently I’ve discovered Nu Shell and have been using that for converting and analyzing data since a full shell is a lot more powerful than a command (e.g. open a yaml, for each element on key X grab the first element of list Y and export to a CSV)

Yes, I don’t expect him to answer, even though just naming a city where you lived or have lived before is not doxxing yourself, it is personal information that I understand someone not wanting to share.

That being said, his claim was that his city had most of a list of things, you can’t make that claim and not expect to divulge the city, he could have hidden the fact that it was where he lived or had lived before by saying “X city has most of that” which would have allowed him to give verifiable information about his claim without doxxing themselves. But as it is it sounds like the person who swears he has a girlfriend who lives in another country and has natural blue hair, but no one has ever seen her.

Yet that is exactly your argument, that only the US has free speech because Europe puts people in jail for online comments, without regard to what those comments are, it’s the equivalent to saying the US jails people for speaking in the movie theaters in the fire example.

Oh really? I would like to know which city is that so I can confirm, but I seriously doubt you have most of that list since that’s regulated on state or federal level.

Also we have freedom of speech in Europe, but you obviously can’t incite violence, the same is true in the US, going online and trying to get people to bomb a building filled with gays or immigrants is hate speech and will get you arrested in most civilized countries.

Not aware of any, but I’ll do my best on my own.

Let’s abstract money to its bare minimum, in the most basic form money is an abstract fungible (i.e. 1 of it is the same as another one, they’re interchangeable) token that can be sent or received, and the most basic way to keep track of this is with a ledger. A ledger is in its most basic form a lot of entries saying stuff like “Alice earned 5 coins” and “Alice paid Bob 3 coins”, by looking at these 2 (and assuming they’re the only ones in our ledger) we know that Alice now has 2 coins and Bob 3. Therefore if now Alice tries to send 3 coins to someone else we know this is invalid because she doesn’t have that amount of coins.

Ok, so that’s the basic of what money is, but as a general rule the ledgers for most coins are centralized, e.g. your bank has that ledger for your account. For years people tried to have a way to create a decentralized ledger, so anyone could have a copy of the ledger and validate it on their own, that way this currency on that ledger could not be controlled by anyone. There are two big problems with that, first you need a way to ensure that only the owner of an account can give away those coins, and secondly we need a way to ensure no one cheats the system, for instance in the example above if Alice could remove her previous transaction from the ledger and input a new one she could convince Bob she paid him, but actually send the money to someone else.

Problem 1, ownership. This is a slightly difficult answer, so I’ll not explain this fully, if you’re interested read about public and private keys. Essentially in cryptography there’s a way to sign a message in a way that you can verify who signed it without being able to reproduce the signature, in practice this means each account/wallet has 2 numbers, one is the private one used to sign messages (anyone who knows this number can spend the coins) and the other is a public number used to verify who coins are sent to and that the spending of coins was properly signed. This has been a solved problem for decades and it’s a very secure and acceptable solution, we use it on things like ssh, SSL and the likes.

Problem 2, consensus. This is the hardest problem to solve, and this is the brilliance of Bitcoin. The way Bitcoin solved this issue is: A block is several entries in the ledger; The entries can be arranged in multiple ways, each way yielding a different hash for that block; Each block has a reference to the hash of the block that came before; Only certain hashes are acceptable (e.g. hashes that end with 0, or with 00), and this hash cannot be predicted, so it needs to be brute forced; Whoever creates a block can insert a transaction giving themselves some amount of coins. Phew, that’s a lot, but what does it all mean? It means that everyone sees every transaction in the network and try to build a block that will be accepted, the first person who does shows their block to the world, and everyone tries to find the next block after that. For Bitcoin the largest chain is the valid one, so if someone found a block it’s in your best interest to start to try to find the next one, it’s also in your best interest to show the world your block as soon as possible so others will build on top of it, the more blocks on top of yours the more unlikely it is that someone will be able to overwrite it (they would need to find more blocks that what has been built on top of yours, and even finding one block is hard because of the specific hash that needs to be generated). The difficulty (i.e. rules for which hashes are acceptable) are adjusted in order to make sure that on average one block is found every 10 minutes by the entire amount of people trying to find blocks.

All together now: Currently Alice has 10 coins, she uses her private key to sign a transaction giving Bob 6 coins. This transaction gets picked by several miners. One of them finds the next block and includes this transaction there. Now all miners are trying to find the next block from that one, and when they do this transaction will have been validated by 2 blocks so it’s way more likely to keep being validated. After 6 blocks it would take the entire mining network 1 hour to undo that block, and unless 51% of the random strangers mining Bitcoin decide to cooperate, the rest of the miners will keep adding blocks on top making this transaction impossible to be reverted. If after that Alice now tries to spend 5 coins no miner will include that transaction, because it would create an invalid block that other miners would just ignore.

There’s a bit more to Blockchains, for example each transaction also pays some amount to the miners as an incentive, so you can have a transaction be more priority than another by paying more to the miners.

What about other coins? There are lots of them out there, I’ll only mention one, Ethereum. Ethereum takes this concept to the next level, instead of a ledger storing transaction it stores programs, so one can have a program that if you pay it X coins it gives you Y other tokens, or any other number of complicated stuff. Also recently Ethereum changed from the proof of work (i.e. finding the hash) to proof of stake, in which people pay some amount of coins to be allowed to validate transactions, but if they generate an invalid transaction they lose those coins.

I strongly recommend you read the Bitcoin white paper, it’s not as difficult as you would think, and it will go into a lot more details on how things work.

It is also common knowledge that taking a bath with a running lamp will kill you, why do you think that has absolutely no impact in people’s buying lamps?

A car running in a small enclosed space is very different from a car running in the open in the same way that a lamp running underwater is very different from a lamp running in air.

That being said I do believe we should strive to have personal vehicles and public transportation be converted to EVs as soon as possible, because the issues with running ICEs vehicles in the open (which are different from running them indoors)