Witch-hunts are practiced today throughout the world. While prevalent world-wide, hot-spots of current witch-hunting are India, Papua New Guinea, Amazonia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. While an unknown problem in vast parts of the Western populations of the world, body-counts of modern witch-hunts by far exceed those of early-modern witch-hunting.
Philosophy has a long history of seeking Truth (capital T). Most notably skyrocketed by Descartes who was a mathmetician and believed that we can arrive at the Truth of everything like we can with mathematics. If you're really interested in what Pyrrhonism means then I suggest you don't brush it off as "radical skepticism" because that's not what it is nor is it about "trusting evidence" per se. Pyrrhonism is _suspending_ Truth claims due to _lack of sufficient evidence_. It is a direct response to inductive reasoning, which is what most people use every day. Inductive reasoning is the probability of a conclusion being correct is adequate evidence to support the argument. This is the basis for most Philosophical discussions and claims and generally how Truth claims work. However, reasoning isn't "common sense" nor is it something you pick up by skimming a single out-of-context wikipedia page and inductive reasoning is only one of several forms of reasoning. Hume was one of the most prominent philosophers who further expressed the problems of induction most notably the idea that the future will resemble the past. In other words, if I flip a coin 20 times and it lands on heads every time, empirical evidence and inductive inference would tell me that there is a 100% chance that it will land on heads the 21st flip because "every time we flip this coin it lands on heads", but in reality the 21st flip also has a 50% chance of landing on heads, despite the fact that it has been 100% heads in the past. Not to mention, I haven't told you whether or not the coin is rigged, has two heads, etc. The point of Pyrrhonism is that _there is always some unknown unknowns with Truth claims_ so when it is safer to assume a neutral position, do so. This is what it is like to be open-minded. It's not something you can just do without spending time studying logic and reason (fundamentals of philosophy.)
That's one I forgot to mention but I do use it a lot. I don't know if you know this but you can also do a substitution on the previous command. I often do something like `ssh root@proxmox01` and then `!!:s/1/2` which runs it again, but substitutes 1 for 2 and executes `ssh root@proxmox02`.
edit: I realize that example fails the speed test vs `ctrl+p, backspace, 2, enter`, but hopefully you can see the value.
> It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used
I have no idea where you got this idea, but I have never read it anywhere.
I think you're trying to use a literal translation of parts of a neoclassical compound. Etymology is scarcely _literal_, because words from classical languages like Greek and Latin (and even modern languages such as German) do not always _directly_ translate to English (look up the literal translation of the German word 'brustwarzen' for example). The literal translation from Spanish "de nada" to English is "of nothing" but that is not how language works. Instead, the meaning is translated to "you are welcome." Regardless, 'genocide' is not a Greek word. It is a neoclassical compound that uses with the Greek prefix genos- (race or tribe), and the Latin suffix -caedo (to kill). The word was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe where he says it is "a new term and new conception for destruction of nations" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). Neoclassical compounds do not necessarily carry the full context of the sum of their parts and are generally created to have a single meaning. Similarly, Joost Meerlo coined the neologism "menticide" (mind-kill) to which he admitted that he followed the etymology used by the UN to form the legal definition of genocide (see https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...).
I pretty much perfected my smokes over a decade of practice so I could sleep and leave it alone all night, but some part of my subconscious kept me awake all night, thinking something is wrong. I would wake up and check the remote every 2h or so and, despite the fact that everything was fine, I never got over it. Once I hooked up the Guru I slept like a baby. It's likely because of my experience with my cheap smokers back when I started in 2010 that required constant attention. Either way, the most benefit I gained from this setup is recording smokes for future reference. It'll help me plan a lot better.
This is an interesting place to bring up the ethics of Thanksgiving given the demographic. However, given my primary avocation is philosophy, I'm interested in how you arrived at the ethical ideology that turkeys are indeed sentient and that they deserve a life devoid of human consumption. I am not a moral relativist and I prefer justified beliefs so I'll give you some context that you missed in your original comment.
My wife and I purchase local, farm-raised, organic (free of hormones), free-range poultry and we eat turkey _once per year_. It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial turkey consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Thanksgiving.
The standard treatment of animals is _arguably_ immoral in a lot of cases (certainly not all), but it depends on your view of animal consciousness, the role they play in the advancement of human life, and whether or not we have a moral and ethical duty to protect them. I'm not opposed to having ethical debates, but this seems hardly the place for it if you're interested in _authentic_ and _educated_ dialogue. Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity, which suggests a disinterest in philosophical pursuit of knowledge.
Genocide implies the targeted extinction of a human demographic. Thanksgiving turkeys are raised _to be food_ from the beginning. I don't believe large amounts of people are hunting around for wild turkeys a few days before Thanksgiving. Also, given their role in the US economy, I think that extermination would be bad for capitalism. Bioethics considers the immorality of raising animals for food, but I have not heard of it referred to as genocide by any reputable author. One could argue that since carnivores are not unique to humans it is "natural" and therefore not unethical. Remember, just because you consider something "icky" [doesn't make it immoral](https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...). The opposite argument here is that humans are aware of their actions and therefore held to a higher standard. There is nothing objective about this claim since we have no access to the [qualia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) and consciousness of animals.
Let's suppose that in a country far, far away, there is a holiday called Givingthanks where instead of turkeys, dogs are eaten. Your alter ego in that country could then write the exact same comment than you did, replacing 'turkey' with 'dog'. We would read things like: 'It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial dog consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Givingthanks' or 'Givingthanks dogs are raised _to be food_ from the beginning'. You don't see anything problematic with that?
The argument was directly related to the original claim of "genocide" and had nothing to do with the consumption of animals in general. I was saying that by consuming one turkey per year I am hardly contributing to the extinction of an animal.
Dogs are consumed in other countries such as Nigeria and the practice is only taboo in primarily western cultures. This has historical and cultural implications. Like I said, just because you consider something "icky" doesn't make it immoral (see https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...).
If you are truly interested in philosophical conversations I would avoid phrases like "you don't see what's wrong with this?", because appealing to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) is not an actual argument. It's a shell for lack of reasoning and evidence (also known as a logical fallacy). If you see some breakdown of logic then please, point it out using reasoning. You may think it is immoral to consume dogs. Other countries do not. There is no "obviously immoral" conclusion to what you said. Or perhaps I missed it.
Fair enough, my question was hinting at the fact that most people don't seem to be morally consistent between turkeys and (for example) dogs.
As for the breakdown in logic, you said this in your first comment:
'Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity [...]'.
Unless I'm reading that wrongly, you're saying that "needless slaughter" is 'incorrect', and I'm curious to know why that is, as to me this is a completely correct statement.
You misunderstand me. I am using genocide to mean racial killing, its latin roots. I do not think that mass killings of Turkeys for Thanksgiving leads to extinction, that is obviously a foolish notion.
My argument is that it is against the spirit of thankfulness to buy factory-farmed Turkey for Thanksgiving. You clearly do not do that, you buy humanely raised turkey and do not represent the demographic HN or this country (unfortunately.)
Dogs are a common pet and turkeys are not. Sure, objectively they are animals with edible meat. One is raised with the intention of being eaten and one is not. In the hypothetical far away country (from a few parent comments up), if it was common to eat dogs instead of turkey and dogs were not raised, and treated as "man's best friend" then it would make a lot more sense for them to be consumed.
I'm writing another post about my home lab. Currently it sounds complex and over-engineered, but I think that's because of how I'm describing it. I'm working through some of the details so that it - on paper - it sounds as simple as it is. I'll post back to HN when it's finished. Stay tuned.
Looking forward to it! Have you looked at node-red at all? It would slide right into your setup and might give you some new capability beyond what home assistant provides. I use it to run a distillation process that would look pretty similar to your smoker setup. You could add humidity controls, fresh air induction/mixing, load cells to monitor weight and strap those together in PID loops to drive to your targets.
Fresh air induction plus temperature monitoring on a PID loop is exactly what the heatermeter open source project does, which he mentions pivoting to at the end of the article.
