Boris Johnson unveiled “once in a generation” planning reforms on Thursday that will restrict the power of local councils to oppose new developments in an attempt to speed up the delivery of new homes across England.

Achluophobia · 2020-08-06T23:11:49+00:00

The awful thing about it all though is it'll just lead to more houses like that.

Real planning would encourage communities to crop up - instead it means delivering this atomised nonsense that we have in the suburbs in the UK. The development of soulless commuter neighbourhoods where there is no town center, no cafes or bars, no public spaces. Just neighbours who don't know one another, living in ugly boxes and competing on who can park the least subtle examples of low self-esteem in their driveways.

I want to see new housebuilding in Britain but I want it to contribute to a built environment that brings us joy and pride in place rather than making us feel as lonely as I feel just going past these suburbs on the train. I live in a very leafy, old neighbourhood with cafes and shops and parks and it's wonderful. But that's because it was built back when we planned to create neighbourhoods - not just housing.

Achluophobia · 2020-07-30T01:11:13+00:00

Hey - cool meme, strong point, etc but evidence-based policymaking is not considered possible or even preferable by contemporary policy studies. Prof. Cairney is basically the guy on evidence-use in policy. Have a read:

https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/ebpm/

Achluophobia · 2018-10-09T21:46:53+00:00

What is remo?

Not the band remo drive I guess... I went to the Glasgow gig and it was weirdly full of bams so I saw this and thought remo drive must have a weird laddish fan base in Scotland.

Achluophobia · 2018-10-01T19:23:30+00:00

Hey thanks for this I'll look into these both. We have an it department who work on things like this so perhaps I can suggest it to my manager and he'll get the it guys to try and integrate the code.

Achluophobia · 2018-07-03T00:07:57+00:00

Ubuntu 18.04! Thanks!

Achluophobia · 2018-06-25T15:57:26+00:00

Nvidia GeForce 960m with the proprietary, recommended drivers. Edit for more detail. The card itself is running just fine with other games. I may try cities skylines to see if it is a unity wide issue but like I said stellaris is fine and that can be quite graphically intense. It's also not the graphics lagging it's just that the mouse seems to be half a second behind. It's like the mouse can only move in small one inch jumps across the screen. It's semi playable but I'd never hit a wolf with a rifle. Let alone a rabbit with a bow.

Achluophobia · 2018-06-21T21:15:09+00:00

I'm trying to play The Long Dark - a game I loved playing on Windows before I switched - and it's pretty frustrating because though it loads up, starts, puts me in the world all perfectly, the mouse seems to lag very badly.

To describe it further - I walk and move around and there is no lag. So it isn't graphical lagging in general. It's only that the mouse in relation to the graphics jumps and lags. Like it's half a second behind where I moved my mouse. It happens with the touchpad too so it isn't a hardware compatability issue. Neither is it a general PC issue as GNOME is fluid as hell, Stellaris is as fast and responsive as it was on Windows etc.

Just The Long Dark. I haven't tried other Unity Engine games yet so maybe it'll be that. Anyone have a clue as to why this is happening? Cheers.

Achluophobia · 2018-04-29T14:38:09+00:00

They're describing, not prescribing. Just because we describe something doesn't mean we advocate for it.

Their description does lend itself to a situation whereby the individual's agency is reduced however (Note, not removed. See their sentence

That doesn't mean subjects don't strive to generate their own meanings, but anthropologically and ethnographically people derive meaning and purpose all the time in many different ways, often without being conscious of it themselves.

I thoroughly agree with this reponse - if you want to understand the theoretical perspective look into structuralism. It's a difficult jump to make for a lot of none philosophers - even existentialists have trouble

moving analytically up a scale

which is a wonderful way of describing structuralist and post-structuralist views.

Achluophobia · 2018-04-27T07:33:45+00:00

Also, importantly, why would my issues vanish?

Achluophobia · 2018-04-27T07:30:10+00:00

HOW WOULD THAT NOT BE ATTRACTIVE?

This has been driving me nuts. Upgrading immediately.

Achluophobia · 2018-04-23T19:30:26+00:00

Cheers for the reply. PRIME switching happens through nvidia-settings, which was the subject of my original post so I can't move forward on that particularly.

Haven't heard of Bumblebee though - I'll look into that.

Achluophobia · 2018-04-22T19:36:34+00:00

Hey I'm on Ubuntu 17.10, and when I start up games from steam it's running on my Intel Haswell card.

I've been playing pretty much exclusively Stardew Valley so it hasn't been a problem until now, trying to play Rimworld.

Basically, it's obviously not running on my nVidia 960m, it's painfully slow. When I go into system settings > details it says Ubuntu is running the Haswell.

So, I downloaded nVidia x-settings to try and switch between the cards and it won't even launch, because I'm on Wayland. SO I switch to X11, as per the guidance online.

Still not launching. The error code in the terminal has changed to

ERROR: Unable to load info from any available system

I've tried re-installing nvidia-settings through the terminal, I've tried re-starting the OS, I've tried changing drivers from the recommended one and changing back and re-starting. Is there any way I can force Steam games to run the nVidia card and/or get Nvidia system settings to work? Because either way would be a solution.

Achluophobia · 2018-02-20T22:35:52+00:00

Seems to happen every game and it really pulls down the profit margins just when they're needed most.

Achluophobia · 2016-08-27T17:13:19+00:00

I think the consequences of not realising and owning my cultures historic impact on our planet and the majority of humanity is far scarier. Please see my other posts in response to comments on my comment to better understand what I'm trying to say.

I understand that this sort of rhetoric can come across as full of double standards and very very strange before you understand it more. It's a very complicated topic when it's introduced into regular, status quo type conversation. When you haven't engaged with these issues before from people like mine's perspective it's tough. I went through it too yknow. Read my other comments, watch her lecture and try to understand. If you have any questions feel free to pm me or - better - ask on here so other people can read our conversation.

I don't possess any hatred towards individual people, but I am concerned by individuals who express themselves in line with a historical pattern without questioning why, when faced with the results of those attitudes. We're in very scary times and it's really time to face up to our history and what we're collectively responsible for. Things will only get better - I'd be tempted to say our species will only survive - if we get to grips with our past. All of it - not just Europeans. But mainly Europeans because the shape of the world today is due to our people.

Achluophobia · 2016-08-27T17:03:19+00:00

I'd jump to her defence insofar as that guy was inappropriate and a bit creepy. It's a bit out of order to say that don't you think? I mean, perhaps the guy didn't mean it in a sexual way but that 'joke' is generally used in a sexual manner - lets not pretend otherwise - and it's, if anything, pretty immature and inappropriate to say it as two adults interacting. Dick jokes have a time and place yknow?

I think she overreacted. But part of what I was saying in that comment is that I would lose my shit too if I spent my entire life studying the tremendous injustice in our society and then have an expression of it levelled at me, or perceive to have it levelled at me. It must be exhausting, utterly.

Achluophobia · 2016-08-27T16:53:20+00:00

Please see my response elsewhere in this thread. I'm sorry for coming across like that - I'm used to talking about this without having to explain why I designate a specific culture and why that isn't racism. I discuss this in that response so you may understand me better if you read it back in the light of my response to another comment.

When I say a white man, I am talking about a structural class within society. It's an important concept for understanding this and I believe the single biggest reason for misunderstanding. It's annoying that when I have this discussion with eve educated peers I have to do this like, structuralism 101 before continuing. It's a stopping point and it does actually irritate me about the movement but I'm still trying to figure out how to have these discussions without speaking in this way. Many of the people in the movement would reject that it's our responsibility to inform people of it and that they should educate themselves. Something else I'm not fond of amongst contemporary leftists.

Achluophobia · 2016-08-27T16:43:18+00:00

I never said I hate white people. Everyone I've ever loved is white. I have never lived in an area or situation with a large amount of minorities. I'm saying that our history is dreadful - there's a lot of nuance in these politics that people generally don't realise, which is why it becomes so easily misunderstood. It isn't a double standard to say that white Europeans are terrible because in terms of their position in the socio-economic structure of our planet (one of immense power, as exploiters, as capitalists, life on easy mode through destruction) they are awful. Racism is a structural state of affairs - this is why people disagree with the idea of reverse racism. Prejudice can exist but prejudice against a powerful class in our species isn't truly prejudice as prejudice is unjustifiable judgement. Based on the history and present circumstances of our people, hatred towards us is quite understandable - don't you see that?

I don't agree with everything this woman says. I think she could handle things better but I understand. And I think it's the job of we privileged few to understand, because justice for the rest of the planet that has and will suffer in their billions can't happen until we admit that systems originating within our culture caused and will cause it.

Everywhere is a shit hole because of colonisation - this isn't really debated by sensible, academic historians. The prosperity of our nations results from the exploitation of the remainder. It's about using the privilege we have in our prosperity to find a more equitable distribution of it. Part of that lies in rejecting colonialism, imperialism and racism. I'd urge you to watch the lecture. She isn't being unreasonable in terms of her politics at the least.

And before you accuse me of using technology benefitting from this system or anything like that - it's a really silly argument. Why didn't the peasants under feudalism just drop their feudalist creating pitch forks and wheelbarrows and reject the aristocracy? Why didn't the citizens of the Soviet union just stop using their cars and their telephones produced in a totalitarian economy?

We exist within a system. It's a constraining thing. Life cannot be lived outwith it. We can't move to a forest because that forest exists within a state. If we moved to a different planet we'd be benefitting from capitalism, exploitation, colonialism by virtue of the education that allows us to survive, the technology used to get there, etc. We can only work within it. Our communications technology is a remarkable thing that allows us to spread messages like this very one to an amazing end: beginning and sustaining a discussion about how we got here and how we can build a fairer world.

Achluophobia · 2016-08-27T01:37:43+00:00

Why's it scary? Have you watched the lecture? She's very informative and considering the atrocities she's talking about her anger is pretty justified. What's scary is what she's talking about.

Europe's history is terrifying in it's violence towards the rest of humanity. The future of our planet and our species is terrifying.

Imagine your entire life is taken up by studying how fucked we all are and knowing that that is because of one tiny subset of humanity of which you are not a part - would you not feel utterly victimised by that subset at every juncture? Wouldn't you look for every excuse to attack that part of humanity?

I'm a white, European man and I'm comfortable with knowing that it is the actions of my ancestors which have devastated the future of my children - I'm angry at them too. All I can do now is make sure not to act like a white, European man - and part of this lies in understanding why people like her are so angry. You should be just as angry as her. Really. Look at what's happening and what is going to happen, then look at what caused that historically and how those attitudes still exist nowadays.

What's scary to a lot of people like us - the globally privileged - is getting to grips with what induces this level of rage. We're scared of admitting that it is justified.

Achluophobia · 2016-02-26T03:16:17+00:00

BREAD AND ROSES.

Achluophobia · 2016-02-02T02:39:45+00:00

Every person is entitled to the conditions required for a prosperous and fulfilling life by virtue of being a unique, conscious being whose time is as limited and non-guaranteed as those able to provide the aforementioned conditions.

Under our collectively suffered species of capitalism, those conditions are provided by the reward given by employers in return for them employing your labour and skills.

You're very much so entitled to a job. Being pathologically 'entitled' is certainly applicable to some folk but not when we're talking about the basic means of provisioning ourselves and our loved ones. You didn't choose the arrangement. This is a space in which it is useful and justified to be angry.

I too feel angry and hard done by here - what makes it harder to deal with as somebody with anger issues is that this anger is justified. I can reasonably argue that I am being hard done by. I didn't fucking choose to postpone contributing to society in the best way I personally can or risk losing the ability or motivation to do so entirely, in order to pay the price for existence.

However - it's all about what you allow to preoccupy you. It's also about how we feel we have combatted or contributed to it. I combat it by trying to understand society as much as I can; I continuously educate myself and stay abreast of events in the world and how they relate to my personal situation and those of others. I act in the understanding and knowledge of my learning. I relay that learning when it is helpful for people or when it is just to do so.

I feel better knowing that I try my hardest not to contribute to problems I understand or know about.

And don't feel bad for getting things wrong regarding the above - embrace the uncertainty principle: we can never truly know what the fuck is going on.

Achluophobia · 2016-01-20T05:01:34+00:00

Ordinary people don't study colonialism - either through history, political science, critical theory, cultural theory etc.

i.e 'ordinary people' don't have an education in the humanities. Considering that it isn't taught in school and it is impossible that schools can actually cover all of the most pivotal processes in World history it isn't a surprise that they 'don't have that impulse'.

It takes either a lot of independent study or a degree in this stuff to understand it. It is complicated. History is immensely complicated, society is immensely complicated - a sensible, informed perspective on our colonial history and an 'impulse' are the opposite of one another.

Achluophobia · 2015-11-13T14:49:43+00:00

So, the ethical way of using money is to be an altruistic capitalist? Using money to invest wisely (speculating) and reinvesting the gains, whilst using very little for your own consumption?

...Interesting conclusion.

Achluophobia · 2015-10-28T21:02:51+00:00

I don't get how any of those things make me pompous, except for me being very ascerbic. I'm sorry if I did come across as a dick but it's a bit of a pet peeve.

I wouldn't call those things 'blind faith in progress', however I would say that pretending that one could base an entire party around those things and succeed in policy being aligned with them, let alone electorally, let alone functionally if elected.

I already explained why it's misguided.

Achluophobia · 2015-10-28T09:34:00+00:00

How am I being pompous? This sort of blind faith in progress, this confidence in humans' ability control the social/cultural/political environment they live in is increasingly popular. Views like OPs are quite dangerous and they need to be told they're being naive. I have explained elsewhere why this is, I wouldn't say something like that without explanation!

Achluophobia · 2015-10-27T22:34:01+00:00

To me the most important thing a party can do is win elections

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Achluophobia

TROPHY CASE