https://archive.is/H8eJx
Readit Newsfrereubu commented on Sen Genshitsu, grandmaster of the tea ceremony, 1923-2025 ft.com/content/b961305b-1... · Posted by u/frereubu
What is that, an image for ants???
I absolutely cannot stand it when a site, especially a government site, doesn't post the original, high resolution, images. However, it seems like it's an archeological expedition to find the high resolution, high quality image.
For those too lazy to go digging:
https://cdn.xcancel.com/pic/orig/7498ED4A7CB57/media%2FGu8ks...
Original tweet: https://xcancel.com/Astro_Ayers/status/1940810789830451563
frereubu commented on For Iris Murdoch, morality is about love, not duties and rules aeon.co/essays/for-iris-m... · Posted by u/prismatic
The idea that morality is grounded in love rather than rules sounds appealing but it collapses once applied outside personal relationships. Love is subjective and unevenly distributed. People love their family more than strangers, their country more than foreigners. If morality is only love, then preference and bias become virtue. That is no foundation for fairness in law, politics, or daily life.
Rules and duties exist to correct for partiality. The point of justice is that it applies equally, even when love does not. A judge cannot acquit someone because she loves him, a doctor cannot favour a patient because he is charming. Love without principle too easily becomes nepotism or tribalism. The most brutal conflicts in history were driven by deep love for one’s own group, not lack of it.
Love matters for motivation. It can inspire people to act with kindness. But moral frameworks require more than sentiment. They need universality and consistency, which only rules and duties can provide. Murdoch’s vision mistakes a source of energy for the standard itself. Without shared norms, love does not scale beyond the private sphere.
The essay goes into this, clearly means love in a different way to how you've taken it, and doesn't exclude the use of rules to codify it:
"Loving attention: a kind of just, patient, generous attention to others. This, she thinks, is what will improve the moral quality of our vision and put us in touch with reality as it truly is. Loving attention, she insists, is central to morality, and that is because it draws us out of ourselves towards the object of love, overcoming our habitual tendency to turn inward."
frereubu commented on Why leather is best motorcycle protection [video] youtube.com/watch?v=xwuRU... · Posted by u/lifeisstillgood
> They were all careful riders too, the incidents being caused by distracted / aggressive drivers.
I'm not sure how true that is, even when the cause is distracted/aggressive drivers, unless the drivers actually hunted them and collided with them on purpose. Defensive driving is a thing for motorcycle drivers too, and if you take care you'll avoid even distracted/aggressive drivers too.
With that said, it of course isn't risk free, I think in my country (Spain, lots of motorcycles in/around the cities/towns), just about 60% of those who drive motorcycles have never been in any accident ever[0], and that's including very dumb ("average") people so if you're more careful than the average driver, I'm sure you could get those odds to stack in your favor.
- [0] https://www.dgt.es/export/sites/web-DGT/.galleries/downloads... Table 59. "ACCIDENTALIDAD"
Risk is a product of likelihood and potential seriousness of consequences. The reason I consider motorbikes too risky is that the potential seriousness of consequences is extremely high if you're going at any reasonable speed.
And to flip the presentation of your stat around, that means 40% of motorbike riders have been in an accident. That sounds really high to me given the potential consequences!
frereubu commented on Why leather is best motorcycle protection [video] youtube.com/watch?v=xwuRU... · Posted by u/lifeisstillgood
In my experience, working with plastic surgery offices will certainly impact your desire to get a motorcycle. Wear helmets and gear up, everyone.
Also this is a truly well done video. Entertaining, week executed, witty dialogue.
I would love to get a motorbike - I enjoy cycling and love speed - but I've had three people in my wider circle of friends suffer life-changing injuries while riding motorbikes, including one just before his wedding that they had to cancel because he was in hospital. They were all careful riders too, the incidents being caused by distracted / aggressive drivers. The odds just don't stack up for me.
A couple of families recently told me that they showed or took their 9-to-10-year-old children to the Wilson staging of the Philip Glass opera Einstein on the Beach, and the kids were transfixed for the whole performance. I found it interesting how Wilson's staging seemed to make Glass's music so accessible.
> I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels
The answer is to this question is always: it is too niche a product feature for a giant corporation to prioritize. This product would require constant work to keep in sync as UIs and features change. It would be one more feature to regression test against an ever growing list changes, and an ever growing list of client apps that need to work across an endless list of phones, computers, tvs, etc.
This is why it is important that society normalize third party clients to public web services. We should be allowed to create and use whatever UI we want for the public endpoints that are exposed.
PS: this particular feature exists though.
https://support.google.com/youtubekids/answer/6172308?hl=en&...
That feature isn't what I think the parent comment is asking for. What you've linked to is specifically YouTube Kids, and it's groups of channels whitelisted by the YouTube team. What I think the parent comment is asking for, and I want too, is full availability of all YouTube channels, but the ability to block everything except whitelisted channels. I agree, it's too niche a product. But I often think that people whose response to complaints about kids' access to inappropriate content is "you need to parent your kids" is fine, but I need the tools to do that! A tool like this would be a godsend.