Yeah I’m in this comment and I’m not sure I like it.
But it does take me back to the shift from Digg to Reddit. My Reddit account (16+years) was older than so many users on the site. Nuts to think about it. The vibe changed massively over the years.
Seconding everything in this comment. I jumped from digg to reddit during the HDKEY scandal, so 16+ years as well. I remember feeling unsettled as Reddit moved into the eternal September of the later years
Any moment now, the ‘don’t vote for Biden’ group will be in here telling us not to vote for Harris. And if it isn’t Harris, they’ll tell us not to vote for whoever it is.
Anything but stop the dictator and his plan to commit genocide against Latinos and queer people.
It would also be nice not to live on a burning planet controlled by decrepit rich psychopaths but I don't think either of us will be getting what we want.
I'll still vote for whatever the democrats decide to run, of course, since minimizing or maximizing fascists' access to government is the only question on the ballot this election.
Alright, fuck it. I’LL run. I’m 40, nobody knows me so they don’t hate me, I think Hitler was bad, and I’ll let you guys smoke weed and keep your pronouns.
And for the republicans in the room, I’m not going to send anyone to take your guns. That sounds like a bad idea, that we already saw play out in Waco TX. Nobody wants that.
And for all the cats registered as undecided parties…meow meow meow meow meow. Meow meow MEOW MEOW MEOW!!! HISSS HISSSSS HISSSSSS clickclickclickclickclickclick…purrrr purrrr purrrr purrrrr purrrrrr.
And to all the mentally crazy voters, HEYMYNAMESBOBANDIMHERETOMAKEEVERYBODYSAFEFROMTHELIZARDPEOPLEFROMEATINGOURBRAINSANDTHEGOVERNMENTPOTBELLIEDPIGSBACONVIVALEREVOLUTION!!!
I will absolutely vote whoever is opposite of trump on the ticket. But a black woman winning the rust belt? That would be wild. I’m all for it, mind you, but that would be some crazy shit.
She’s an improvement over Biden. And just look at all the time, money, and effort Republicans wasted against someone who’s no longer even running. They’re flailing and trying to find something that will stick.
How is she a good candidate? She stood against everything progressives stand for as a prosecutor and hasn’t apologized or clarified that she supports marijuana legalization, abolition of for-profit prisons, or disproportionately prosecuting minorities.
What the fuck are you talking about? When she was running for president in 2019, she released detailed plans about how she would legalize marijuana, abolish private prisons, and reform the carceral system.
I get that you probably weren’t aware of her evolved stance on these things, but a single google search could have shown you that you were incorrect on every single point you made.
What the fuck are you talking about? When she was running for president in 2019, she released detailed plans about how she would legalize marijuana, abolish private prisons, and reform the carceral system.
Has she done those things? (I sincerely don’t know.)
I’ve heard that she’s revised her stances, but even in 2019 there was some question regarding the sincerity of her evolving viewpoints.
We’re likely to get 8 years of her if she wins, so I think it’s entirely reasonable to want her to affirm her stances in some of these areas. We won’t be able to move any further left than she allows. Sure, she’s not Trump, and I’m going to vote for her. It would be nice to have hope she’ll do more than just move right more slowly than Trump though.
She says very little, and nothing convincing, about some of the most serious charges against her, like that she fought hard to keep innocents in prison and failed to fight hard against corrupt cops.
If elected president, Harris seems as likely as any of her Democratic rivals, and far more likely than Donald Trump, to pursue a criminal-justice-reform agenda that overlaps with policies I favor as a civil libertarian. And I do not hold it against Harris that as a municipal and state official she enforced many laws that I regard as unjust. All the candidates now running for president will, if elected, preside over the enforcement of some laws that they and I regard as unjust.
But like her rivals, the reforms that Harris would sign into law as president would depend mostly on what Democrats in Congress could get to her desk. Far more important is how she would preside over a federal legal system and bureaucracy that is prone to frequent abuses. And her record casts significant doubts about whether she can be trusted to oversee federal law enforcement, the military, intelligence agencies, the detention of foreign prisoners, and more.
I mean, she’ll have ample opportunity to expound on that. But prison reform and legalizing marijuana were platforms she ran on in 2019. I haven’t seen anything from her that would indicate she’s reversed her position since then.
Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”
Notably, the figures dropped dramatically during Harris’ tenure, from 817 marijuana-related admissions in her first year in office to 137 in her last.
She laughed because it was funny and I’m tired of people telling me it’s not. 💥 🔫
She’s been a prosecutor, senator, and now VP. She has the experience. She can speak in complete sentences. She is a neo-liberal but that was a given. All Democratic candidates since Clinton have been neo-liberals. The idea that Kamala is anti-progressive is false.
Yeah it is ridiculous. Essentially “why didn’t you legalize marijuana when you were AG?” Because that job isn’t about changing the laws it’s about prosecuting the law.
Bad enough SCOTUS is changing laws on a whim (instead of interpreting which is their actual job) we shouldn’t be expecting everyone on every level just disregard laws they disagree with. I agree that marijuana criminalization is stupid and should be repealed, but push for legislators to change the law rather than push for more people to ignore the law.
I may be a weirdo, but I was on the “I’d consider not voting for Biden.” but I’m currently more interested in Harris. Nowhere near as bad of a track record as Biden had. From being racist, to supporting rapists getting into the Supreme Court, to backing massive removal of constitutional rights.
Harris’ record isn’t perfect, and while I’m in California, I don’t recall any bills she pushed/voted for as Senator that was anything as bad as the USA PATRIOT Act. I don’t like her record as our AG at all, but Senator is a different story.
If she picks a good VP pick, I’d be down. I’m wanting maybe Newsom, but that’s just he biggest Democrat I know, as he’s my Governor.
Edit: I don’t know how to make it clear: I live in California. If I voted for a ham sandwich for oresident it would have the same impact as voting for Biden. My state’s EC is clear and chosen, and popular vote doesn’t decide the president otherwise we’d never have Trump. I was considering going Greens, but I’m looking forward to Harris. Get mad at undecideds in Swing States and Trump supporters, not a registered Democrat in California.
A very common position among the lemmy crowd, unfortunately. I really don’t expect much to change either, just swap Harris for Biden in the hit pieces.
I’ve disengaged from political news and discussion over the last few years for my mental health, and this confirms that was the right move. shit is driving me crazy.
I don’t know how to make it clear: I live in California. If I voted for a ham sandwich for president it would have the same impact as voting for Biden. My state’s EC is clear and chosen, and popular vote doesn’t decide the president otherwise we’d never have Trump. I was considering going Greens, but I’m looking forward to Harris. Get mad at undecideds in Swing States and Trump supporters, not a registered Democrat in California.
I’m trying to. I live in the district Kevin McCarthy was in. His replacement isn’t great. Our blanket primary was “Republican backed by Kevin and Trump” and “Republican backed by conservative think tanks and Trump staff”.
I’ve considered running for office using a form of leftist talks masked like Republican talking points. But an openly queer leftist in Republican territory won’t go well, unless I figure out what urn I want ahead of time.
so you’re going to vote, but not for biden because of galaxy brained electoral college games. this isn’t time to fuck around with rhetorical voting no matter how safe you think your state is.
As a non American I just can’t comprehend how any of you even have to think about this.
On one hand, an old man, who, despite his age and stumbling over his words, has ran the country relatively successfully for the last four years.
On the other hand, another old man that was a global embarrassment, cosied up to Putin and Kim, spent most of his time golfing and shitting his pants, stole classified documents and likely sold state secrets, he is a sexual abuser, an actual criminal, clearly has corrupt justices on his side with crazy plans, chummy with epstein and took multiple trips to pedo Island, promoted racism at every opportunity, many of the people connected to him for his first term were imprisoned, refused to accept your democratic process, contributed in instigating a fucking coup attempt, and that’s likely not even the half of it…
Like, how the fuck can ANY of you look at that and say “Yeah but Biden stumbles over his words so I’ll just throw my vote away/vote for trump…”
I feel like I’m going insane just watching this shit unfold. It is all so bizarre.
Don’t worry, those of us Americans who don’t have their heads up their asses are just as baffled as you are and 3 times as embarrassed that Trump is even an option again.
I am in a fucking loop of laughter and tears because I don’t even know what to do anymore.
Yes. It’s insane. I will vote for whoever is most likely to beat Trump. It’s embarrassing that he is RNC’s pick for candidate. He demonstrated his inability to do the job and his fans still want him because he hurts the “right people”. Horrifying.
It’s not even “he hurts the ‘right people’” anymore, because Trump’s policies hurt everyone. It’s"he hurts the ‘right people’" more than he hurts me. I will give myself a cold to give you a fever.
The criterion is very simple: Don’t vote for genocide committers, enablers or planners. That excludes Biden and Trump.
If the Dems manage to produce a non genocide loving candidate, then vote vote vote and drag everyone who will vote for the non genocide candidate to the polling station.
You did the investigation yourself or you watched the news and believed whatever you heard? There are lots of versions of his motives, depending on who you’re listening to. I’m sure some far-right media outlet has “evidence” that Biden hired him.
If he just wanted to kill people, he would have taken more shots. Nothing in his past, that has been released at this point, shows he wanted to kill people for no reason. This was intentional, and seeing as he is a political figure, having this be politically motivated makes the most sense.
I’m sure the fbi don’t want anyone to know that it was politically motivated so he doesn’t become a martyr. You’re free to believe the government never lies or manipulates the facts, but historically that’s not always been the case.
“I’d rather let someone who actively, aggressively advocates, enables, and wants genocide domestically and abroad to win the presidency, over voting for somebody who passively enables genocide to happen abroad because actively trying to stop it could ignite WWIII” is still a bad take.
It is hypocritical to delude yourself into believing voting for genocide is somehow not approving genocide. And i hardly doubt that stopping Israel from committing genocide in Gaza would ignite WW3.
If you mistake it for Ukraine, think about all the help Ukraine is not getting so Israel can get it instead. Dozens of Billions in Weapons to slaughter a civillian population instead of helping Ukraine defend itself against Russias invasion.
I’m not deluding myself about anything. The choice isn’t “vote for or against genocide” it’s “act to get less or more genocide”. It’s not a false dichotomy; if you’re not voting to defeat Trump, then you’re acting to get more genocide.
By not acting to defeat Trump, you’re enabling genocide more than Biden ever has.
In some takes on the trolley problem (do nothing, five people are run over by a trolley an die, flip a track change switch and two people are run over by a trolley and die) flipping the switch is the morally worse option because then those two people’s deaths are your fault, whereas the five people who die because you did nothing are someone else’s fault. I don’t agree with that take, but it’s taken seriously in philosophy circles.
I don’t get how in the Levant, where both Hamas and the Israelis have significant factions that want to genocide the other people, a situation where Hamas does the genociding (because an Israel without attack capability de facto also loses defense capability) is somehow more moral than a situation where Israel does it.
You are making multiple false assumptions in there. The first being that 2.000 pound bombs are somehow “defensive”. The next being that a 30.000 fighters Hamas would somehow genocide all of the settlers, despite their army having hundreds of thousands of members. Then it goes further with this idea, that they want to eradicate them, when all they want is to get their land back. The settlers always have the options to leave and go back to their home countries. Meanwhile Israel as a settler colonial project has to commit genocide to complete itself because as long as a Palestinian people exists, it will demand to get back to its rightful land. Finally you are wrong about the reasons why people in Palestine support violence. They do so, because it is the only thing protecting them from annihilation. For Israelis it is a mix between believing, they need to commit genocide as being the perpetrator protects them from being the victims, classic imperialist greed and a big portion of racism and fascism.
But in the end Israel will destroy itself from within as all fascist states do eventually. The question is how many more people the US helps them to murder in the meantime.
Even if Trump wasn’t going to do awful things, I can’t stand his stupid face or his stupid voice or his stupid stupidity. That’s enough to vote for someone who’ll beat him.
Get out of my head. I only watch late night talk shows on Youtube now just so I can skip past any Trump video. I hate that guy so much it makes my jaw hurt whenever I see his image.
No. It absolutely isn’t. I was too young to vote in the 2000 election, but Gore had the same stupid face, long drawn out speech paterns, and general unlikability.
However, his policies, and his message were good. I would have voted for him despite his stupid face, because of him being the better candidate.
I FULLY understand people hating trump…but I underatand the hate because trump is a piece of shit. I get why trump is hated for his bad policies. I get why people hate having a criminal in the white house.
But to say that if a candidate were good for the position, but you hate their face and voice, I wouldn’t understand that.
Yeah but Gore did win that election. It was stolen from him. Just like Bernie won the DNC nomination and it was stolen from him. Fuck the DNC. But fuck the RNC harder.
This is the kind of comment that makes me angry, while I agree with all of it. It’s a weird feeling to be yelling “YEAH I AGREE WITH THAT!!! RAAAAHHH!!!”
And not just genocide overseas. Trump has made his position on immigrants and queer people very clear. And if anyone thinks ‘immigrants’ won’t include brown people that are native-born citizens who don’t happen to have the right ID on them, you’re wrong.
Cool strawman you’re beating up. I think the majority of us that didn’t want Biden is because he didn’t have a good path to victory. We didn’t want to just stand by and watch the train wreck happen. Harris isn’t much better, but at least she is better, and I will be on board with that of that’s who is chosen. I would rather see Whitmer be on the top of the ticket though.
Any moment now, the ‘don’t vote for Biden’ group will be in here telling us not to vote for Harris. And if it isn’t Harris, they’ll tell us not to vote for whoever it is.
as a queer leftist (look up ag kamala’s record on gender affirming care for trans inmates for a fun time) I support her on electoral grounds- she isn’t visibly falling apart at the seams like Biden and can do the physical work of campaigning and interacting with potential voters. We can work with this.
She is also on record as having a somewhat tougher stance on Israel’s war (unlike Joe, who supported them no matter what they did). That’s my personal red-line issue so I’m glad there’s some semblance of a shift there :/
I’m sure that her stance could have changed from that time as it’s become a more understood issue now from then. It’s the people that the president appoints that are ultimately responsible for policy in their departments.
Unless they’re a cop. Then it’s the defense they go to and can never be convicted under unless we have them on video calmly shooting the handcuffed guy in the back of the head.
She has a really checkered record wrt trans stuff altogether. I’m concerned.
She’s better than Trump but a significant step down from Biden in terms of most of the things I care about which makes her a concerning pick, combined with the fact that she performs worse in polling (if that was the main concern). I hope I’m wrong but I’m concerned that this basically sealed the Dems’ loss.
Here is the internal polling that was released, this was before Biden resigned
Through 7/21, Biden trailed Trump 46-44 nationally; Harris was ahead 48-46. Trump is stuck at a ceiling of 46. Harris gains from 3rd party/undecided voters.
Young voters (18-34) go from Biden 44-36 (+8) to Harris 57-37 (+20)
Independents go from Trump 48-32 (+16) to Trump 49-41 (+8)
Harris picks up 7pp among Black voters and 8pp among Hispanic voters, almost all from 3rd party/undecideds
Well VPs traditionally will say the things the President can’t say publicly for geopolitical reasons. Harris may have been saying the things the Biden was thinking but couldn’t directly say while actively negotiating with Netanyahu. Can’t be sure but it’s a more likely scenario than her going rogue against someone on the same ticket as her.
Doesn’t matter now, but more for future reference. If a future President Harris isn’t saying what you want her to say on foreign policy issues but her VP is, you’ll know what’s up.
Until Harris fucks up terribly in public and jeopardizes her campaign, I won’t be advocating for her replacement. I never said “don’t vote Biden.” I said “run somebody better.” Keeping Trump out of office is more important to me than living in this country and I love where I live. I’m hopeful that Harris can win the trust of the people and prevent my having to relocate (and a bunch of other bad shit).
Most of the biden haters i know on the left are upset about his support for israel. Harris has been much more critical of the genocide. We’ll just have to see.
I didnt want to vote for biden, but was still going to vote blue no matter who. Im glad i dont have to vote for genocide anymore.
You wanna know how to shut those people up? Replace First Past The Post voting with something like Ranked Choice voting. Then they would have to make their own party and show us how it’s done. (No spoiler effect to)
The reason we haven’t seen it happen yet is that they weren’t prepared for this. They need to make some memes and talking points, make sure everyone is on the same page. Give it a day or so, and we’ll start seeing a strangely concerted effort against Harris.
Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even “unobtrusive” ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I’ll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I’m all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
… what’s your content? If you’re not comfortable posting it, them what type of media is it? Not to rub it in, but getting your content from you, your fans, or someone who contacts me currently is the only way I will ever get your content, as I ruthlessly block advertising in every aspect of my life.
To be clear, I’m not against self promotion. For example, if you went into a video game forum and posted links to your game, that’s not advertising in my view. More importantly, I would probably actually be interested in a new video game by you if I were browsing a video game forum. Hell, if you randomly PM’ed it to me or emailed it, that would be fine too.
I make games and stuff. Let me tell you, it’s pretty hard to get noticed on the internet. There comes a point where whatever you’re selling will be popular enough in a closed circle that it spreads through word of mouth but before that you need to get an audience. That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces. If you don’t get that momentum whatever content you’re making might be dead on arrival. A lot of people and companies making ads don’t actually like annoying others with them, but it’s really hard to get anyone’s attention now that there’s like a billion new things releasing every day.
That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces.
I’d have no problem if you just spammed my inbox or all of my communities. I’m all for self-promotion or even just promoting stuff you like. I don’t get adverts anymore, but there have been so many times where I got a negative impression of something I later found out was cool because it was advertised to me first.
I have no problem with people being annoying in my inbox or trying to promote themselves. What I do have a problem with is the constant stream of undiluted, intrusive bullshit being sold to me since the day I was born. If I saw your game in a web ad that’s keeping me from the content I actually wanted to see, I would absolutely not be interested in it; if you or a fan blindly spammed it into my inbox 69 times in a row, I would definitely check it out.
Independent repair/handyman business pays google to place ads in their results when you search for relevant terms. In the past this was done through flyers & newspapers & billboards and such. If the business made absolutely no effort to advertise their service, then you would never be able to find them when you’re looking for that service, except for through word of mouth (which is arguably a form of advertising in itself.)
Don’t get me wrong, I hate ads too, and they’ve become far too prevalent in popular media. But they exist for a reason.
Edit: we also should have the right to block and deny ads as we wish. And at the same time, advertisers should have the right to exist. Google’s recent DRM and crackdown on adblockers should be met with forceful government intervention, in an ideal world, due to their debatable monopoly over their sector.
Unfortunately there’s a lot of products that most people don’t even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I’ve been doing things the hard way for so long.
OTOH, fuck all the advertisers who use shady tactics to make sales, and especially fuck all the people who pray on the naivety of others to steal their money. I was just showing a customer an email I got the other day stating her domain hosting was past due and required immediate payment, and she asked how I knew it was a scam. Uh, hello, because —I— am hosting your domain and website (and this is exactly why I share this kind of stuff with people, to make them think before they blindly write a check).
Unfortunately there’s a lot of products that most people don’t even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I’ve been doing things the hard way for so long.
For sure. I’m not against promotion in the large, but the constant and intrusive advertisements within other tasks, such as web ads that take up valuable screen real estate, or TV/YouTube commercials that keep me from the programs I want to watch.
Like my username is literally PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S. I have no problem getting PM’ed or emailed stuff. For example, I’m subscribed to a number of mailing lists from sites I ordered from. Guitar Center can send me all the emails they want [1], sell me all the crap they want, because I can opt out at any time, and I have a work email so I can put them aside for later.
[1] To the specific email I gave them, which I do check.
I would argue that if there’s a product that nobody knows exist that’s not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don’t actually need the product.
I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don’t need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don’t care about. I don’t care about the newest tech toys. I don’t care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don’t need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?
Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I’m drunk rn and estimating.
I keep throwing away ads from Comcast trying to sell me on the virtues of their business internet packages. Guys, I left you because your lame-ass shit was expensive as hell, slow as hell, and you couldn’t even be counted on to meet a single appointment in 6 months to bury your damn line you left laying across my yard.
I agree with you, there’s a lot of companies that just need to be silenced. You’re allowed to send me ONE ad, and you better make it good because I don’t ever want to hear from you again.
You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.
Disagree. Ad campaigns are made the way they are because marketing people are abusing how our brain works naturally. Some people have managed to build defenses for it, but most people simply lack the ability. That’s like blaming people on wheelchair that they can’t walk.
Exactly! I can’t even stand physical ads like billboards because the concept of reserving land for manipulating every passing person into buying something they don’t need is ridiculously perverse to me. Ads are an attack against my psyche and I will do everything I can to avoid them.
When I want to invest in a better product or look for something that solves my wants or needs, I research my options. I will never make my decision based on an obvious ad because they are intrinsically deceitful.
There aren’t really billboards (not many anyway) where I am around New Zealand so I never really thought about it but you are so right, and the fact that it by design distracts drivers… so bad.
If I’m looking to buy a product, I will always research it or go to a brand I trust. I have NEVER clicked on an ad for a product and then bought that thing.
People responding to ads are only human. Advertising companies went to a great length to hire psychologists and study the effects of ads on people to make them more efficient.
But that’s their manipulation towards their employers. These numbers rely on people who lie and manipulate for a living to tell honest numbers about their own worth.
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can’t sell you data to advertisers anymore.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
I brought this up the last time I talked about this, but to be clear, if we must choose between advertisements and paywall, then we should chooseadvertisementsas the lesser evil. However, we must never accept the fallacy that advertising or paywalls are theonlypossible choices! More generally, we must never accept the fallacy that a market is the only acceptable way to distribute goods, a corollary of which is the idea that any acceptable solution needs to compete on equal terms with existing products in a market.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
Well the first part at least would be a welcome change. The issue in my view is the very fact that poor people are treated as second-class citizens in information access or any other field of endeavor.
Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can’t sell you data to advertisers anymore.
I very genuinely want those sites to fucking die so I don’t have to coexist in a world where they dominate the internet. I would be literally thrilled to join a group of like-minded people who have to reimplement the conveniences of the modern web from scratch for free.
Why on earth is a paywall an evil and worse than ads? This idea that everything on the Internet needs to be free-as-in-beer is the toxicity that has resulted in our entire world corrupted with ads. A News organization needs money to pay journalists and to send them to where news is happening. A video service like YouTube needs to pay for massive amounts of storage and servers. If you want quality professional content, and not just fake blogging thinly disguising advertising, you need to pay writers.
The alternative is that is it all corrupted with ads, or by the “rich uncle” of the day like a musk or a zuckerberg or whatever with an ulterior motive.
If you want the provider of a service or product to be beholden and at all responsive to you, as a user, rather than someone else, you need to be a customer, a paying customer. That’s your only real leverage. If someone else is the real source of their revenue stream then their every act is geared to please them and not you. That’s what we have now.
If you want to socialize it all instead, like a PBS, I’m fine with that, but good luck.
Are there a nontrivial number of people who genuinely enjoy ads?
Maybe? My parents are boomers and they watch cable TV with ads. I’ve told them a few dozen times that they don’t need to watch them, that they could mute them or watch elsewhere, but they don’t care. My grandmother also watches the ads when she watches TV. Oh well…
I didn’t mind ads on TV as they were pretty entertaining until it became the same ten ads played in a loop over the day. Pretty much put me off watching cable forever.
How do you reach people with a new product that didn’t exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.
I don’t like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.
How do you reach people with a new product that didn’t exist before? Or a Service?
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them.
—Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version
EDIT: I’m not a Christian and I’m not trying to convert anyone to my faith (or lack thereof), I just think it’s a neat quote.
My point really is that you can generally talk about your products in some existing forum with reference to existing things. For example, if I wanted people to listen to my music, which I have deluded myself into thinking is a unique, previously unheard-of blend of genres, I would post links onto music forums and groups who are interested in recommendations of music adjacent to the type I produce. And that is how I actually spread my music on Reddit (although not as PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S) back when it was fresh. No ads, no wasting people’s time and internet. I only reached people who already expressed their interest to receive music like mine. I got a very small following, but I achieved my goal.
Nothing is so unique that it belongs in no forum or is of interest to no existing community, yet simultaneously needs to be broadcast to the entire world. I have no problem with people sending me stuff they believe in to my email or other inbox, blow it up for all I care, but what I do take issue with is shoving that stuff into my web browsing experience or even sandwiched into the content I’m trying to watch.
Clearly an advancement from simple electromagnetism, which was the unification of the previous studies of electricity and magnetism. Not fully original.
Genetic engineering
Based on prior analysis of genetics, which itself descended from simple breeding, and chemistry. Not fully original.
Quantum computing
Hybrid of computing with quantum principles. Not fully original.
Like I get it, we do discover new stuff and create new techniques, but (1) these physics still existed before we discovered them and (2) (much more importantly) these things are not new in the sense that they’re not totally unique, that we can compare them to things that exist because they are inspired by things that already exist.
I mulled over whether or not to quote the Bible directly once I figured out where that quote came from, and I ultimately decided to do so because of the Bible’s reputation for needing to be “read into”. I think that particular passage says something really interesting about how, in some sense, nothing really new happens, that what we’re doing can be seen as a version of something else. This is particularly interesting as a piece of a Christian document; Christianity generally doesn’t posit a cyclical view of the world. You live, you die, you go into the afterlife, judgement day happens, and God’s chosen few spend eternity in heaven; e.g., the plot is linear. Therefore, there clearly must be some deeper context to the text.
Regardless, it was a minor part of my original argument. The rest should stand on its own.
Also, I went to Catholic school. I’d like to use my religion classes for something; I’m most certainly not using them for praying 😂
Ok so I suppose you’ll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics? Just because something has a history doesn’t mean it’s not new, and even if that were the case, just because something’s not new that doesn’t mean it’s not a useful improvement.
What I meant in the original argument is that nothing can be so new and original that we cannot talk about it without referencing previous concepts and those forums. For example, results in advanced electronics were initially presented in early electrical engineering theses presented to engineers and physicists interested in electrical [1] phenomena.
We would not need to show advertisements to promote advanced electronics. There are already forums of people interested in electrical engineering. We can promote advanced electronics to our heart’s content in those forums.
Ok so I suppose you’ll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics?
So this is a bit of a non-sequitur, but at some point in a complex design I might actually have to go back to “raw electromagnetism”, e.g. numerically solving Poisson’s equation or Maxwell’s equations for crucial parts of the circuit, depending on how small things are. What you learn in a typical electronics class is a behavioral approximation that’s good for describing the general expected behavior of a circuit, but not always precise enough to finish a design.
[1] Loosely, an electrical device is any device that uses electricity. An electronic device is a device that does “something” “smart”. For example, an amplifier is an electronic device as is a digital timer, whereas a light bulb is electrical but not electronic. Modern “Electrical engineering” is more precisely “Electronics engineering”.
How is you posting about your music on a forum not an ad? You saying you only reach people who might already be interested is just saying that you target your ads.
Do you consider it different because you’re an individual doing it manually?
I remember growing up in the 80s and we’d have adverts for milk and eggs. Not any brand or company. Just a general message to drink milk and eat eggs. Think it was like a farmers union thing.
Most people here will only know who Accrington Stanley are because of those ads.
Yeah, from the beef council. Also, “The more you know…” Those were kind of like advertisements. I tried to post pics of some Cuban billboards but this app wouldn’t do it. I’ll try again. They basically blame everything on the US embargo.
I’m upvoting because this should actually be unpopular. Intrusive ads are bad but less intrusive ones let you know who the patrons are of the otherwise highly expensive services you enjoy. That all of this gets paid for with ad money is nothing less than a miracle.
If you don’t want to see ads then don’t give them your notice! I like being informed when new products go to market.
Yep, like if you want to know about new phones coming out or whatever other topic of interest, subscribe to one of the myriad magazine websites that obsess over that kind of thing. Ads for that stuff showing up everywhere including our damn physical mailbox is a public nuisance, and a waste of resources.
Yeah, I watch about fifty different people making videos and they make money from it and all I have up do is watch fifteen seconds of adverts? I love it, my genuinely unpopular opinion is there should be more things making use of them, I wish Ubuntu had an optional add bar or advert box that I could watch while working to generate money to fund development, even better if they mix in adverts for cool open source projects so I can lean they exist.
YES this. We should start a community. I hate advertising, absolutely hate it, and do everything I can to avoid it. Pihole ✅, YouTube premium ✅, sponsorblock ✅, Firefox ✅, ublock origin ✅.
You don’t need to pay the people most responsible for the problem (Google). My primary instance is invidious.flokinet.to, but most others provide a good experience. With a small configuration change, SponsorBlock works with Invidious.
Also Firefox is pretty good, but check out Librewolf if you’re on Linux. No telemetry, and private by default.
We should start a community
Agreed, but I don’t have the time/energy/social skills to moderate it.
but what if the advertisement presents you something that you like and wouldn’t have found otherwise? I’ve had advertisements showing me indie games that I really liked.
I get your point, I’m just trying to add a specific scenario.
Then I will probably not get the game until I see someone I know playing it or recommending it to me. I literally do not care how cool or interesting your product is, if you make it block what I wanted to see or keep me from the content I actually asked for, you will generate a negative impression on me that will be very difficult to fix.
I actually said as much to an indie game developer who wrote a similar reply. I am a musician, and this is the approach I took to promoting my work back when it was fresh. I’m fine living in obscurity if it means that my music isn’t just some ad.
This has also happened a few times already in my actual life. IMO, the onus is on the content creator to promote their product in a way that is palatable. You are not owed my consumption.
I have already discussed a few unobtrusiveandopt-in ways to promote your work to interested parties.
I actually do block all advertisements and yet I still get games and music crammed into my content hole. We can do without ads.
It’s not supposed to be. It doesn’t jam endless recommendations in your feed once you’ve gotten at the end of the new, fresh content. I feel like it’s a feature, not a bug, to have platforms that don’t optimise for time spent on them, because they don’t need our attention to show us ads.
Exactly. Places/communities like Lemmy can and should serve different functions for different people - newsfeed, forum, meme collection/dumping ground - but the fine line between value and addiction gets obliterated by moneyed interests.
I’m so happy this is the top comment when I came in here. We’re not centralized social media that requires constant content generation to acquire more views and we shouldn’t try to treat it as such. Donate to your instances when you can, contribute to communities you care about with posts/comments, and then when you reach the end of your feed log off. How forums are supposed to be imo.
I just don’t get this “fiscally conservative” bullshit. You want to cut taxes on the rich as infrastructure continues to crumble? You want to hide your money in offshore bank accounts? You want to implement legislation that funnels unregulated money into corporate bank accounts then forgive all the debt? You want to use campaign finance to accept bribes then have the courts make it legal?
Edit: Maybe it’s you want to raise the national debt to record numbers then years later pretend all the sudden to be “worried about the deficit” and refuse to raise the debt ceiling and threaten to shut down the government.
I’ve gone back and my main feed is mostly posts about women asking for their “rating”, weird af. don’t miss it at all with lemmy and all the alternatives available.
My local city subreddit is still very active and where a lot of local conversations are happening. That’s the only parts I have reason go back to and visit
Add another. Deleted all my old posts one by one. I can see so many did the same when an internet search points back to Reddit. Only way I use Reddit now is when a tech question points there and I just amend the address to old.Reddit
Don’t use company computers for personal stuff, it all gets logged and can be used against you at the very least as evidence that you weren’t working come performance reviews.
I occasionally click on the little wether icon and see what the forecast looks like. Hope I don’t get fired!
At my old job we had to research customers which frequently involved looking on Facebook and other sites. I was very intentionally not logged in, which probably wouldn’t work now, and kept any and all searches to items that I could prove were related to a work item. It’s insane that people don’t follow that advice.
Work computers are for work, and pretty much every employer monitors what you do on it.
Depends heavily on where you work. My employer don’t track what we use the computers for (of course there’s a ‘TOS’ of sorts which says that it’s company property and should only be used for company stuff) but as long as you are at least somewhat reasonable on what you use the system for it’s fair play. Things like checking your personal email and occasional visit to lemmy/whatever your social media poison is doesn’t raise any flags as long as you get the job done and that’s it. Of course you can’t install anything on the system but as long as a browser session on incognito mode is enough and it doesn’t harm your duties, while technically forbidden, no one really cares.
And yes, I know this for sure, as I’m one of the guys who enforces the policies for our gear. YMMV.
Intelligent reasoning! Remarkable!
Here’s another take: it’s all down to the laws you let your law-makers write. If I quit my my boss is not allowed to read through or keep my account active - in their system.
Good advice always has its exceptions. But in general you should never use a work device for personal use because it’s very easy for that information to be either compromised and/or used against you.
My personal guidance is “if you don’t own the device, pretend the owner is looking over your shoulder” it’s incredibly easy for them to install keyloggers and trackers remotely and silently.
it’s incredibly easy for them to install keyloggers and trackers remotely and silently.
And in here that’s very much illegal thing to do without prior consent from the employee and even with permission it’s requlated on what you can do with the data. Of course companies are permitted to restrict traffic and otherwise limit what users can do on the devices they’re given to, but it’s still illegal to spy individual users and what they do. Strong(ish) worker rights are a very nice thing to have around.
Always use a VPN when on a network you can’t trust. There are plenty of free and trustworthy ones you can activate with one click, and then all the company sees is noise.
RiseupVPN, calynx and protonvpn are pretty great and trustworthy. 2 first ones are non profit based on donations only. And proton VPN is well audited (but require account while the first two doesn’t)
If the company owns the endpoint there’s lots they can do to monitor your traffic even with a VPN. For phones if you sign in to work mail with your phone and allow them to manage your device just assume they have control of it now.
And refusing to install your company’s software on your work computer is a good way to get fired for cause.
But some people have the option to access work email, etc on their personal devices, as long as they install their company’s monitoring/security software.
Depends on your work. I agree with you, but for example my work is different.
Yes, we have managed devices as well, but my department specifically went for unmanaged devices. Just plain old laptops. Install whatever OS you want, do whatever you want. I only have the base windows install on there for some compatibility reasons, I mostly just use PopOS.
And we’re also explicitly allowed to browse private content - as long as the work gets done and we stay in budget, do whatever.
They aren’t, and our private phones are also connected to the network ;)
But then again, it’s a fairly large organization vpn’d up over multiple locations, with server farms in different VLANs and so on, so the network we usually access when working are in a different subnet.
I do know what you mean though - it really depends on what the company does. Prior, I worked at a company that developed and manufactured hardware cryptography devices - I learned proper security procedures there :) our ‘actual work computers’ weren’t even connected to the Internet, and the unmanaged laptops accessed the same WiFi guests would access that, well, only went to the Internet. Just wpa2.
They aren’t, and our private phones are also connected to the network ;)
Why though‽ Most consumer routers even have a guest network enabled by default.
it really depends on what the company does.
That’s true, but an attack could probably cause a lot of damage to any company (especially a big one) without proper security. Regardless of what they do.
Well at least you don’t have to deal with ITs PC policies, which can get pretty annoying. Allowing any device to join the company network seems incredibly stupid though.
Let’s just hope that none of your unmanaged machines get compromised.
At my previous company, only domain work computers could join the PC WiFi (with a certificate, so no passwords) and work smartphones could only join the work WiFi for mobiles.
Private devices and very limited amount of non domain computers were only allowed on the guest network and couldn’t connect to any other.
The company didn’t do anything special that needed extra security.
agreed with the point. However, lemmy might soon be the new reddit for information, asking questions, troubleshooting.
So I guess a solution for accessing lemmy for such resources on company computer without being flagged would be good, especially this gets a bit more complicated with the decentralized nature of the fediverse (multiple domains of lemmy)
And at some point, someone looking for a payday^1^ is going to take video of us being herded off a cliff by an asshole^2^ even though we don’t actually do that unless provoked, and it will become a totally wrong impression of us that enters the common knowledge base.
Ironic, since lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs. The people making the documentary (Disney) that's famous from actually threw them over the cliff to make it interesting.
I like calling communities “slice” better, because even without the context, the people can guess what it may be. The context is a range of sources quoting:
A group of lemmings is known as a ‘slice’ of lemmings.
People always chime in with stories about how chiropractors helped them with XY and Z problem they were having.
And overall I don’t doubt them. There’s a lot of things that can go wrong with your spine or other joints, and I’m certain that some of them can be addressed by physically manipulating and adjusting it.
But the basic premise of chiropractic treatments is that basically all human ailments can be fixed in that way, which should sound like total bullshit to anyone with half a brain. And that’s before you get into all spiritual nonsense that pervades a lot of the field.
Now some of them understand that that’s a load of bullshit and may even be realistic about the things they can treat, but it can be pretty damn hard to sort them out from the ones who think that your pancreatic cancer is caused by ghosts in your spine and they know how to get them out or some bullshit like that.
Now if you have a good idea what your issue is and what needs to be done to fix it, take the time to carefully vet your chiropractor to make sure they’re not going to try some crazy bullshit on you, you very well may be able to get a decent treatment from them. Maybe you’ll even be able to save some money going with that.
But for most of us who aren’t doctors and so only have kind of vague ideas what exactly the issue is and that the treatments we’re doing actually make any sense, and don’t necessarily have time to do all of that research and carefully vet that the person treating them isn’t secretly a quack, you could just get the same sort of treatments from actually physical therapists, orthopedists, physiatrists, etc. with the added benefit of them actually understanding the issues and how to fix them properly.
Chiropractors are kind of like the rednecks of the medicine world. Some of them know exactly what they’re doing with that harbor freight welder, they may not do things by the book but they know for certain what works and what doesn’t and more importantly know when something is beyond what them and their buddies can accomplish on a free Saturday with a case of beer and when they need to suck it up and limp their truck to the shop and let a professional deal with it. Others know just enough to be dangerous and while they can get the job done 90% of the time or at least not make things worse, that 10% of the time something is literally going to blow up in someone’s face. And still others are just meth heads looking to make a quick buck and it’s a miracle they’re not behind bars. And when you see them hanging around the local watering hole, it may not be totally clear which is which until it’s too late.
Some homeopaths solve problems that allopathic doctors are unable to. Still it may be a placebo thing, but it is a valid option because it can work, and it is less quacky than quacks.
This guy gets it. Chiropractors are a scam, but scammers are drawn to people who “fall through the cracks” because they’re treated like their problems don’t actually exist. Finally, they meet someone who takes their pain seriously. It’s too bad the person who takes it “seriously” is a fucking charlatan.
It falls harder on women, who have more instances of pain that are ignored by the medical community, partially from the history mentioned above, claiming women must be experiencing “hysteria.”
It absolutely happens because of the failings of the medical community.
I was suffering from hyperemisis last year and it took 3 doctors before I finally found one to take me seriously, which I consider it lucky it only took 3. The last doc I was practically on my hands and knees begging them to take me seriously.
In the middle of all that I also ended up with pneumonia. Normally I never get sick so I was like wtf is going on. But anyways, a doctor finally took some chest x rays and 2 weeks later they call to tell me that my X-ray was clear. I. Went. Off. I ended up having to go to the ER 2 days after the doctor visit because I could no longer breathe, it was so painful. How is it possible that my x ray was clear??? Then another week goes by and the assistant calls to tell me that I do have pneumonia and a prescription has been sent in. I just hung up and filed complaints with everyone I could. That office was a hot mess.
I am so sorry. That’s devastating. You already have to struggle to fight your illness. But to have to fight that hard AGAINST YOUR DOCTOR when your doctor is supposed to be on your team? It’s a betrayal.
Seen this sentiment that green bubbles = bad a few times online but never it's never come up for me. I assume this is a teen - early adult specific issue where the idea is mostly to be part of the group
It’s been happening in high schools, to the point teens are bullied and pushed out of peer groups if they have Androids. It’s frankly disgusting that apple willingly creates this division to profit off teenagers bullying each other, and they don’t get called out for it enough.
But in the larger picture, it’s definitely going to be more common among the young, because iPhones themselves are ubiquitous among the younger. It’s something the tech space is slowly starting realize: Apple has almost total market dominance among the rising demographic, and this has led to increasing tech illiteracy due to the way Apple designs its software, and inability/refusal to learn anything else. That is a huge problem for the tech industry when the only thing they can do to find customers is dumb their software down to appeal to people that don’t know how to use anything other than iOS
About that, yes. Not in-depth and not each day, obviously, but I have quite a sizable crowd I deal with on a regular basis. Comes from having a lot of former students I keep in touch with.
It’s still about 30% here in Germany. It is rising though. And I think this is because of “clever” marketing. The highschools here in Germany started forcing parents to buy Ipads for their children a couple of years ago. Children with low income parents get it from the city for free. Nominally it is, because it is “easier to maintain”, but I honestly really doubt this.
These schools are using iPads in place of computer labs. I’m old enough to have actually managed a computer lab, and I can tell you that a fleet of managed iPads is way easier to maintain than a computer lab.
Everyone 30 and under at my office prefers Macs, to the point of bringing in their own machines to do 90% of their work and falling back to the Windows laptops issued by IT for the remainder.
I’m a software developer. MacOS is my choice for corporate dev (cause Linux isn’t an option) because it’s Unix based and has a working command line. Windows causes so many problems around dependency installs and frameworks.
Windows is still on my home machines, but they’re edging closer to going linux too.
They could be accessing virtual workspaces using a company VPN client. Or perhaps logging into a Citrix Receiver Workspace. Could probably access a VDI environment as well. 2FA with a work cell etc
Lots of ways for personal devices to be used in the work setting. Would I recommend it or do it myself? Nah. But it can be done.
If you think that the reason Apple makes the bubbles different colors is “to profit of teen bullying” then I think perhaps you might want to go back to reddit or Twitter.
Oh c’mon now, Apple and iOS apps have too good of a user experience? That’s the issue? You call it “dumbing down software”, I call it implementing user experience research and design.
I am an Android user but this comment should be taken very lightly. As this is not the cause the truth is that Apple is at fault here for still using SMS as the default messaging protocol. However, with that being said, SMS breaks messages on iPhone and the devices have been geared towards iPhone users in away that makes it seem like Android is the issue with image quality and texting. The marketing is excellent on Apple’s end towards the competition and it is working.
However, that doesn’t mean iPhone isn’t the problem. I have a sibling who got bullied for having an iPhone. Apple’s answer to these problems is just, “get an iPhone.” This is equivalent to, “can’t figure it out? Just Google it.” The problem with this mentality is it gives more power to monopolizing platforms. Apple is a growing giant and if they had their way you would just have an iPhone and if Apple has expressed anything in the past 8 years it’s that they aren’t exactly the innovators with mobile devices anymore. To me the problem is on an iPhone nothing would change.
A little irrelevant rant but my point is that the average iPhone consumer has been given a marketing ploy so it is a deal breaker because they think it is an issue and in all fairness it is one but only Google is trying to fix. Issue is that Google should have tried to fix it years ago. You can’t blame iPhone users for wanting to use other platforms to message you if your message is compressed heavily by Apple’s shitty and stupid fucking decision to keep using SMS to control the market. The care about user experience is overshadowed by the desire to use that as a means to make money off of a user that doesn’t understand messaging protocols. Fuck Apple.
Keep using SMS? What are Apple’s other alternatives, exactly? RCS is still a mess, the only way it has e2ee is if you use Google’s messaging app, and there’s no way you will see Apple adopting Google’s standard without having a say in it, and rightfully so - Google locks tons of proprietary features out of their APIs - EXIF data for Photos, Categories in Gmail, etc.
I think this is actually more of a comment on Google’s lack of direction with messaging - how many different messaging apps have they sunset by now? Half dozen or so? Messaging has always been a cluster on Android. WhatsApp is supposedly e2ee, but they have backdoor bugs being patched on a nearly basis - ask Jeff Bezos how his dick pics got hacked.
I mean you can install Google messaging apps on iOS (not that I would want to use them…). But try that the other way around. Apples option to not using SMS would simply be to provide iMessage for Android. Problem solved. They would very likely become the main messaging platform by doing so. Currently the majority of the market is likely split between WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat.
But obviously they fear that this would hurt iPhone sales. At the same time this also leads to iMessage being irrelevant in the majority of markets where iPhone isn’t as dominating as in the US.
Problem are the Android users as well that refuse to adopt messaging apps just as much.
Standard protocol on Android is SMS as well. RCS behaves differently from carrier to carrier and many Android phones still don’t support it by default.
Even if RCS worked perfectly fine, if Apple doesn’t want to use it, than RCS is just as worthless as iMessage, when it comes to cross-platform communication.
If anybody wants to judge me based on the brand of electronics I use, my favorite band or the brand of clothes I wear, I have no interest in interacting with them lol. This whole consumerist worship-culture is just toxic.
The worst thing you can do as a consumer is be (blindly) loyal to a brand.
E.g. I like Columbia jackets, footwear, outdoor wear, etc. If however their quality goes down, or there is another comparable product that happens to be on sale (and assuming I like the look/style) I wouldn’t NOT get it because it isn’t a Colombia product.
Also Columbia owns brands like Prana and Mountain Hardware, so if you want higher quality stuff that’s still basically Columbia, you have plenty of options.
If they don’t want to text you because they care what your device is, they’re not friends you want to have.
(this goes both ways. Lots of apple hate in this thread but, wtf, just get on with life folks. if you give a shit what hardware I run, or think i care about your choices, we’re probably not going to be friends).
Not really meaning for this to sound as arrogant as it’s going to, but… Lemmy is almost entirely populated by nerds so far.
Nerds tend to be open to tech, maybe a little smarter overall. You know? You can tell by the grammar, the spelling. It’s a different group here.
Reality is left leaning, and the stupider someone is, in general, the more likely they are to lean right politically. The rest of the right are the really rich, who tend to be up the psychological spectrum toward sociopathic, so of course they would have no time for caring for others’ needs.
To an extent. But whenever there is a political discussion on Hacker News, the lib right response is very, very loud, and I try to remind myself I appreciate Hacker News for its tech news.
I think the culture is just different. Lemmy was started and run by Tankies. Hacker News was started by Y Combinator, which incubates silicon valley startups. They're going to attract different audiences, or at least different groups of people who will put up with different politics. I can't claim to be particularly upset about the .ml domains being pulled and the center mass of Lemmy moving away from those instances.
I had to look it up too. Apparently it’s an authoritarian leftist. Thinks state-socialism was a good thing. As while most leftists are more of the democratic, market, and anarchist varieties.
State socialism is a good thing, what tankies promote is something else, they’re fascist that can’t accept that fact because it would mean having something in common with the fascists in the USA, a country that they hate so much that they’re ready to deny reality to have an anti USA opinion.
I’m confused, and you seem to be a lot more familiar with the term. I read the wiki link that explains tankies. I don’t personally know any left leaning people who support Russia/Stalin/China regimes. Maybe because of my America-centric viewpoint and where things are today, but typically people who are economically left are also socially and politically left (equal opportunity is more important than individual freedoms), which is very anti-fascist. I’ve heard people say how great a true communism could be if it were possible, but no one’s ever made it past a dictatorship to get there.
Are tankies people who are economically left but socially and politically right, and think someone has achieved a communist utopia without knowing anything about the corrupt oligarchies in Russia or CCP China?
The problem is not state socialism, it's the authoritarian side of it. Tankies promote authoritarian views similar to fascists but with a different economics view (not even that different some times), hence they prefer the dictatorships like USSR (in these days even Putin, which is idiotic), North Korea, China; over what they perceive as imperialist, the USA (I agree on calling it imperialistic and disliking it, but not on considering it worse than dictatorships).
I'm a communist which likes state socialism, but what is and was present in those dictatorship (ignoring the authoritarian side which I despise) is state capitalism.
Not really, communism is about owning the produce of your work, that can be achieved in different ways, one for example (the main one) is by democratising the work place, which at the moment is run in a feudal and authoritarian manner. Where you work and your employer owns what you do, similar to how the feudal system would function.
In this case communism would be more democratic than our current system.
The confusion comes from so much mass media that equates socialism with communism. They’re orthogonal concepts! Saying socialism is the same as communism is like saying beer-making is exactly the same as cheese-making. Anyone who understands what beer and cheese are would be like, “I’m sorry, what‽”
The best way to think of socialism is that’s it’s a governance strategy that can be used wherever you want. Want everyone to pay taxes in order to fund and deliver government-run firefighting services? That’s socialism. Want to do the same with the military? Socialism. Whenever the government is delivering some good or service by way of taxpayer dollars that’s socialism.
Capitalism and communism are economic systems. You can have socialist government constructs under either capitalism or communism. It’s just that communism doesn’t really have the flexibility to provide goods or services in any other way than via the government.
Then there’s countries like China that claim to be communist (and the Right loves to call them that) but really, they’re more capitalist than communist. What they do have that most communists and fascist governments have is authoritarianism.
That authoritarianism is what fascists and “tankies” have in common: Fascists support an authoritarian, pseudo-capitalist government while “tankies” support an authoritarian, pseudo-communist government.
Congratulations: That, and only that, is a tankie. It is a good practical defintion for the term.
Are tankies people who are economically left but socially and politically right
As I see it, tankies are just the same as the Trumpers. You can’t really say where they stand socially and politically, because they do not have a coherent opinion or ideology. Everyone who opposes their favorite regime is WRONG, and everything their favorite regime does is RIGHT. Bonus points for every action and opinion that hurts “woke lefties”, because the favorite regimes of tankies are all inevitably incompatible with progressive ideas and ideologies.
without knowing anything about the corrupt oligarchies in Russia or CCP China?
Imagine the answer a Trumper would give when you ask them if they don’t know about Trump’s corruption and character. The tankies answer just the same in response to allegations in regard to corruption and character of their favorite regimes:
First of all, none of that is true, because the woke lefties, the media, and everyone are all corrupt, and lying. And what is true, is all a well played move of brilliant 5D chess which will save us all, because the supposed “corruption” is actually all part of a very smart and deliberate system of ploys and strategems which the woke lefties just don’t understand.
Now, do the tankies and Trumpers truly believe that? Who knows. Doesn’t really matter anyway. What is clear is that both of those “ideologies” are dumb idiots.
They’re authoritarian. Not fascist. There is a difference. Even if both groups are more dedicated to authoritarianism than anything else. I would not be caught dead voluntarily anywhere with a fascist. While I disagree heavily with ML communist I might associate with them a little bit. But just never give them power.
I'd say most people are Chinese, but that's not correct - a quarter of the world's population is East Asian. This is the largest group in the world.
So, I'd say that's an odd quantifier that doesn't really seem to have any support or credibility or relevance. Seems based on entirely nothing, actually. Further more, were that true or even possible, what's your point?
There’s a huge contingent of socialist/leftist techies. How do you think the open source movement happened? The most popular operating system for both servers and smartphones is given away to the world by a .org
overwhelmingly tech dudes with no social competencies.
Ablism, real nice.
I am really not liking what you are throwing down and I am not seeing evidence of your multiple assertions. I am fairly leftwing, been an engineer for 15 years, I don’t enjoy dealing with companies that are run by rightwingers but I am not going to do a purity test.
Stop with the discrimination against the high functioning autistic at least. I am sorry your glowing rectangle provider who let you unlock it but that is hardly our fault.
i’m high functioning; so maybe that’s why i don’t understand how people get triggered by broad brush statements. what made you think that this statement was ablism instead of a simple broad brush?
i didn’t think you were being an ablist either and, since it pertains to me, i wanted to understand why the other person thought you were being an ablist.
incel also pertains to me because i’m convinced that if i were straight, it would perfectly describe me. however the name/title is clearly sourced from some sort of privileged condescension since it’s meant as an insult and i can’t apply to people like me in name only; do you have any links you can share so i can read up on that pipeline?
googling it only provides slightly more information on bannon’s work history and has zero mention of any attempts to cater to incels; is there something in particular linking incels to that feedback loop?
Oh your feelings were hurt after you stereotyped me? Boo freaken hoo
I am not an incel. I have been with my wife for 13 years. My eldest is 9. Before I met her I did more than alright in dating, thank you very much.
I am not right-wing. I consider myself a centralist but in practice I vote democratic the vast majority of the time.
I have never found crypto to be impressive but yeah I do have a few hundred in it because meh why not? I bought 20 bucks worth years ago and didn’t sell.
As I explained to you I don’t exactly get veto power over my clients and I am not in a position where I can storm off when Koch comes by with an order. If you want a fucking purity test go work for that overpriced ice cream place in Vermont. Just don’t come crying to me when they make you watch videos about issues you disagree with. I live in the real world where it isn’t realistic to only do business with people who 100% agree with me on every issue and have never ever done something wrong.
It’s funny how you demand this from me but wouldn’t yell at some guy working at a McDonald’s for filling Cheney’s order. Shows how consistent you are but demand that I be more consistent. Hypocrisy.
Must be nice on that high horse. You go enjoy yourself. I am going to deal with the real world, warts and all.
I’m not saying there are no right-wing tech nerds, I’m saying that your argument that tech nerds are right wing is overly reductive.
You concede my point about FOSS but then try to muddy the waters from there by citing “their platforms started getting cracked down on and [their having] adopted cryptocurrency” to try to make your prior pidgeon-holing still work. Mind citing me a source for either of those claims? Neither of those seem to me to be issues plaguing the wider FOSS community, and as a participant I’m interested to hear about this news I’ve apparently missed.
Silicon Valley is not representative of tech nerds in general. It is, like Hollywood, a small area filled with desperate people trying to turn their talents into fame and fortune. Insinuating that tech nerds in general have the same culture as Silicon Valley is like insinuating that actors in general dress, act, and think like Hollywood actors do. It’s ridiculous on its face.
All this to say it really sounds like you’ve built up a stereotype based on what you read in the news rather than by engaging with the actual community in question.
I wasn’t asking if right-wingers love crypto, but about what you were arguing about the FOSS community having “their platforms … getting cracked down on and [their having] adopted cryptocurrency”, which sounds an awful lot like a specific claim or two.
I literally still have no idea which events you’re referring to, unless you’re just saying “but crypto exists”. I mean, we’re on a FOSS platform right now.
Nice strawman, though. Honestly pretty ironic that you’re implicitly accusing me of arguing in bad faith when you’ve misrepresented my question so entirely.
I asked you to establish the truth value of your claims about the FOSS community 1) adopting crypto and 2) being cracked down on. That’s not sealioning. I genuinely had no idea what you were talking about and I’m in the FOSS community.
Even with this correction I think you’re maybe referring to RedHat being shitty with regards to going corporate, which is a bit silly since they’ve always been the corporate-friendly for-profit Linux company. I mean it is worse than it had been but it’s hardly indicative of a trend across the entire community.
I honestly still have no idea what you’re alluding to WRT the FOSS community adopting crypto, though. Blockchain stuff I get, it was a trendy technology and IPFS is neat and all, but I’ve seen no trend towards cryptocurrency in the general FOSS community. Like what, did Apache mint some NFTs? Tell me what you’re alluding to so I can Google it, even, if you’re too lazy to send me a link.
Your strawman (from my perspective) was the reframing of my request as needing proof that “right-wingers love crypto projects” which was not what I was asking about at all. You decided that I was sealioning because I called bullshit on your claims about trends in the FOSS community, from my perspective. That seemed to me an awful lot like misrepresenting my argument in order to dismiss it out of hand, so, y’know, a strawman.
I wouldn’t call them nerds because they’re venture capitalists not nerds. Nerds implies some sort of technological or engineering skill or ability. Steve Jobs would qualify; not these two.
Well first off software isn’t just flowing rectangles connected to internet tubes. Many of us work in Industrial/Chemical/Civil control systems. Like me. There is a lot of thought that goes into making sure what you flush doesn’t just pour on the ground. I made a decision early in my career that it was more important to me that we don’t drown in our own waste vs making sure slack integrated well with outlook.
As for how I would go about changing stuff the answer is I do it everyday. Can do it a lot faster if the rest of you people stayed the hell out of my way.
I know this was a joke Colbert made, but the truth is the reverse: the left is reality-leaning. It’s truly terrifying to see how divorced from reality the right-wing is, and how gleefully they just keep storming in that direction.
Do you realise how dehumanising and ignorant you’re being? You’re just using stereotypes of your specific country to generalise everyone you disagree with.
Underestimating your “rivals” never goes well, as reality is often more complex than “we empathetic genuises they dumb psychos”
If anyone is basing their morals specifically just to go against their “rivals”, I would seriously question that person’s ethics, empathy, and reasoning skills. I’m absolutely serious about that. I would not trust that person in real life.
I would also have little sympathy for anyone who makes their own life worse just to get one in on their “rivals”. You should always think how a new law might expand in 5-10 years, and not just focus on the current emotions.
If someone who you considered to be a truly terrible person got into power next, would you feel comfortable with those groundwork protections being seen as changeable? Would you be ok with that terrible person having that level of say over your life, knowing that they would get away with it?
If you hypothetically start messing with things like your country’s ground-level human rights, it’s likely to only be a matter of time until everyone is effected by it in unpleasant ways. Everyone thinks these changes will magically stop before it hits them, but I would strongly recommend for these people to brush up on history again. How has that gone in the past?
Politics shouldn’t be some lame “gotcha” game because politics effect the real lives of many people. If anyone wants to do “gotcha” games, there are many places for those that won’t possibly end with someone dead. That “someone” may be a stranger today, but it could be your child, spouse, or best friend next time.
Not even close. Do you project this anger on complete strangers all the time?
I was referring to things like labor law changes. It’s fine when it’s someone else to a lot of people, but those people are silly to think that their jobs would be the one exclusion.
The super rich are usually highly educated but they live in such a homogenous bubble that they’re opinions on the majority of society should be entirely discounted. They usually have a total lack of empathy for people and vote for politicians with the same attitude. I have met some super rich people who try very hard to go against the grain and not fall into that mindset, but something about the need for protecting your money and lifestyle usually promotes an untrustworthy and skeptical view of everyone in their lives including their own family.
Your memory is awful, or you haven’t been on it that long and are just making up its history to suit yourself. The earlier days of reddit’s politics were mostly liberal. Although liberals were significantly more awful on social issues back then than they are today.
The political vibe on Lemmy isn’t really a new thing. Reddit had it 15 years ago. Good forums and IRC channels had it before that. It’s been part of the “golden age” of every online social medium
Eventually, teenage edgelords find start taking up too much space. Shortly after that, the far-right turn up to prey on them.
The people who made the platform good in the first place leave and the cycle begins anew.
I’ve been a fan of Star Wars since I was a kid. But Disney’s management of this IP has totally ruined it for me. I still haven’t seen The Rise of Skywalker after the trash that was The Last Jedi. They also seem to be focusing on pumping out as much content as possible, which has diluted any feelings of longing I had to see more.
They also need to branch out a bit more. The best of new star wars imo (Rogue one, Mando, and Andor) are so awesome because they focus any other aspect of the immense galaxy instead of focusing on the same 1 family from sand planet.
I’m on the same train. The original trilogy never did much for me (maybe if I was around in the 70s/80s when it was groundbreaking VFX), the prequels obviously suck, and the sequels are a hot mess too. Now you have Disney milking the hell out of it with all the TV shows and spinoffs. The only Star Wars thing I ever enjoyed was Rogue One.
…then I discovered Dune. And Dune is exactly what I wished Star Wars had always been.
I’ll second this. I was hesitant to watch it but my boss kept raving about it and I was hooked after the second episode. I really hope the strikes don’t turn S2 into a burning pile of garbage.
I have, I thought it was decent, definitely better than most of the Star Wars stuff Disney has put out for a while. Problem is I’m just over that whole universe I think. Sort of how I’ve been over the Marvel universe for the better part of a decade now. Nothing against people that like either of those franchises, it just all feels like slight variants on the same stories with the same characters or character archetypes to me. I’m not finding anything interesting they can offer anymore.
Young guy gets cast into adventure by a grey wizard to battle and defeat an evil villain clad in black.
J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings was a principal driving force in the early drafts of the 1977 film. In fact, Lucas nearly copied Tolkien’s dialogue, word-for-word, borrowing Gandalf’s greeting to Bilbo in The Hobbit.
Both works are based on the conflict between the ultimate good and the ultimate evil. The two sides are represented by a single protagonist, surrounded by a team of helper characters, and a villain, supported by extensive antagonistic forces.
Licas has often cited The Lord of the Rings as a major influence on Star Wars. The superficial stuff is the most obvious, but the subtle lesson Lucas learned from Tolkien is how to handle the delicate stuff of myth. Tolkien wrote that myth and fairytale seem to be the best way to communicate morality.
I downvoted because this is a popular opinion. MCU is the same thing. Most people probably don’t have a strong opinion on Star Wars either way, but for the people who do there are plenty who think it sucks.
I like Star Wars fine. If they make something, I’ll probably watch it. But I don’t consider myself a fan. I don’t keep track of the lore and would be hard pressed to tell you the plot of anything I hadn’t seen recently. Which is a long way of saying I’m in the don’t have a strong opinion camp.
It was a different perspective on an imperfect galaxy and one that felt like it was lived in.
Not just Aliens visit earth!
But a new perspective like.... what if just because we have faster then light travel, racism didn't go away, and it had laser swords and near super human abilities powers!
On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.
As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.
The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.
If I come across you in a dark alley and we’re all alone then you better be ready cos I’ll accept your opinion and offer some other suggestions of movies that we might like, such as all 3 Lord of the Rings (extended editions of course).
I absolutely loved Star Wars as a kid. Every movie since then has been a major disappointment. I’ve only watched the first of the OT as an adult so far (with my kids), and I was not as into it as expected. Luke was one whiney kid.
Some of it does. Maybe even a lot of it. Andor is a pretty good miniseries though, I like that it’s more mature and has a bleaker undertone like Rogue One.
No Star Wars media compares to the idea of Star Wars.
Except maybe for Andor. I liked Andor. Make stuff that gets away from those fucking Jedis and the whole Skywalker family. They’re the worst bit about the whole franchise.
I think so much about it is awesome (visuals, design of ships and sets, music, etc.) but maybe due to lack of repeated exposure to the movies as a child I don’t feel much about them. The modern movies were especially meh, since they all feel like they are trying to recapture the feeling of people who saw the originals in the cinema in the late 70s and 80s, but without doing anything new. I did quite enjoy the Fallen Order game and will probably play the follow up at some point too though.
I feel the originals were great when they came out, but haven’t aged well. Of course, I was a kid and the special effects were cutting edge at the time.
They’ve aged fine if you don’t expect the effects to be 2023 effects. If you accept that they were top of the line 1978 effects, it won’t bother you at all. What always made me laugh is my mother telling me how they were all dumbfounded, not by laser blasts and cool ship exteriors, but rather the introductory text moving off into infinity. I think she’d have been something like 21 at the time.
As a lot of people have already pointed out it’s mostly prevalent in arguments. Like a comment I made on a video about lane splitting on motorcycles.
The video was explaining why lane splitting is safer for cyclists and shows a cyclist get rear ended at a stop light. The title of the video was “Most people don’t understand lane splitting”
I simply commented “No we understand this specific scenario but to continue driving between stopped traffic is completely different”
All the replies to my comment were about lane splitting at a stop sign/stop light. The very thing I specifically stated I understood.
lane splitting is legal on the highways in california, I don't know about on all streets. it sounds like maybe you shouldn't do it on streets where you'd run into stop lights, or generally anything more complex than the interstate. personally I'm always careful whenever I see a motorcycle.
why is lane splitting safer? intuition suggests that treating a motorcycle like a car and giving them the same space or more would be safer, especially since you could predict what they'd do better since it would be the same as a car
I’m not trying to be rude but did you understand what I said? Lane splitting at a stop light/stop sign/stopped traffic is safer for the cyclist. Lane splitting and continuing to drive between the lanes of stopped traffic is not.
When all the cars have stopped, that’s the safest time for the cyclist to slither up to the front of the line. At 20 mph on a crowded freeway, it’s a little more dangerous but legal in CA as long as they don’t go more than (iirc) 20 mph faster than traffic. At 65 mph on a still-crowded LA freeway, having a bike race past you doing 90 can be disconcerting to say the least. At least you know if they cause an accident and you’re injured, they’ll probably be your organ donor.
One reason I’ve been told lane splitting is allowed is because motorcycles are air cooled and stopping for prolonged periods in a traffic jam can be bad for the engine. Also by allowing motorcycles to move forward it frees up space for more cars, though that seems like a small impact.
Well that’s sort of a bad example. What your explaining are two separate things. Filtering (moving to the front of a stopped lane by moving between vehicles stopped or by stopping) and lane splitting (moving between lanes at highway speeds).
Iirc filtering is safer but splitting is like way more dangerous but I’d have to look it up.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.
Oh thank goodness I thought it was just me. When I read that I thought ‘dang covid messed me up’
Been a few years since having covid, but my wife and I both feel like we lost some memory and brain power from it, even though we were both vaccinated and had less evere symptoms than others.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You’re not wrong. It’s the operator. If people actually drove responsibly, we probably wouldn’t have as many issues. There are definitely too many distractions, and people in general just naturally mind wander.
That being said, it would be much better to have a mass transit system. Less accidents, I can watch my phone, do my nails, and eat my mcdonald’s without worry of killing someone.
What we need is mass transit with cubes. I think a lot of the reason people dont like busses is having to listen to peoples screaming children, dealing with drunks, etc. I imagine a bus with small cubes that are soundproof kinda like those portable toilets but with a bus seat instead. Get on the bus, pay, go into an empty cube, slide the door closed. No crying babies, drunk people, etc. Pull the cord when your stop is announced.
Buses are designed to carry a lot more people than the number of seat they have since they allow for standing. Adding cubes would take away that standing space.
But that’s the thing: like you say, people are naturally prone to “mind-wander”, keeping that in mind and to then compare the amount of rigorous training and checking that pilots have to go through compared to the in comparison measly process of acquiring a driver’s license (and then indefinitely keeping it with no questions asked unless you do indeed run somebody over) is absolutely mind-boggling. Some countries have some safequards in place such as required driving-tests when you reach a certain age as a driver but it still does in no way account for how much of a murder-machine cars are and how casual we are about just about everyone with a shrimp for a brain driving them.
No it doesn’t lol. You need an operator for a car to function. Cars just don’t go driving around running into people and random objects. If you get into an accident, who do they go after? The at fault driver. Not the car. It wasn’t the vehicles fault it got into an accident. It was the person operating said vehicle.
Operator error.
Edit: I’m starting to think most people here just don’t want to take responsibility for being stupid. Downvote all you want, drivers in cars kill people, not the car itself.
while you are factually correct that the human is a part of the chain of blame, it is systemically inefficient to blame the driver
in order to make systemic change and make cars safer, we CANNOT say “oh lol drivers fault, get good.” expecting that order of change from hoards of people is unrealistic.
however if i blame unsafely sized cars, fast, wide unsafe roads, a failure of US public transport—these are also realistic points of systemic change that i can point to.
tldr cars are unsafe, cars need to get safer, no amount of blaming the driver will solve things
Driver chose to drive, therefore taking the responsibility of not only their life in their hands, but others on the road as well. Yes, you blame the driver. Because the driver also made the choice to drive the vehicle, then chose to check their cell phone and cause an accident. It’s just responsibility at that point.
It’s not vehicles, it’s people. Cars are safer than they’ve ever been. People in general, just choose to not be responsible. And that’s the reality of it.
Don’t get me wrong, vehicles in general are dangerous in the fact that they are basically rolling hunks of metal with combustibles.
At the end of the day though, it’s just that most people aren’t willing to admit to themselves that they shouldn’t be driving because they’re too easily distracted in the first place.
Responsibility and self awareness. Put the phone down, don’t eat and drive, put your music on before you put the car in drive. It’s not rocket science.
At the end of the day though, it’s just that most people aren’t willing to admit to themselves that they shouldn’t be driving because they’re too easily distracted in the first place.
Is there any room in your mind for the possibility that some people simply have different values than you?
You’re acting like the only people disagreeing with you are people who have been in accidents and are looking for something outside of themselves to blame. You’re acting like deep down they agree with you that all error comes from a lack of competence and responsibility.
(Aside: I hate cars and our car-centric infrastructure and I haven’t been in any accidents, which means I don’t fit into your narrative here. But that’s not likely to sway you. And I know that’s not likely to sway you. Because I know you don’t share my perspective.)
But is it remotely possible to you that some people out there might just believe:
mistakes and errors are inevitable for everyone – not just for stupid, careless, irresponsible, incompetent, hopeless lost causes masquerading as people.
And even if mistakes were only made by those kinds of people – meaning a single mistake could mark you as a “bad person” – saving “bad people’s” lives is still better than letting those people die. Just because they couldn’t figure out a car doesn’t mean they deserve to die in an accident (or starve to death because their suburban house is too far from the nearest grocery store and they accept that they can’t drive.)
Is it really impossible for you to imagine that some people might just place value on human lives, regardless of cost and regardless of personal responsibility?
Prehistoric humans are now known to have spent years dragging around and caring for their paralyzed tribe mates millennia ago. Meaning the kind of people I’m talking about have existed for thousands of years. People who don’t care about personal responsibility. People who just want the best for everyone around them.
If you told these people, “some of your tribe mates will be incapable of safely driving vehicles. How should we build this city?” They would (once you showed them what all of those words meant) have intentionally laid out the city to allow those poorly-driving tribe mates to walk or use transit. They would place nearby grocery stores. They would direct high density housing to go up in the area. They would try to make it possible to avoid using cars. And the city they built would have 90% less cars because of it.
To them such a city would be an obvious choice.
You don’t have to agree with the cavemen who cared for their dying relatives. But please acknowledge that they existed, and didn’t hold your beliefs. Please acknowledge that the people you’re arguing with, don’t hold your beliefs.
The issue for the commenter you replied to is that they think that laying the blame for a specific incident at the personal responsibility of the people directly involved somehow means that the diffuse responsibility of wider society in creating conditions wherein those incidents are guaranteed to regularly occur is somehow no-longer relevant.
All that seems to matter in their assessment is who gets the finger pointed at them when the problem happens, not, why does the problem happen and what can we do to avoid it?
In that video, Innuendo Studios lays out the idea that there is a base, core, philosophical difference between conservatives and progressives in how we think the world ought to be, and what kind of world we think is possible.
To the conservative, nature is full of hierarchy. The strongest chimp gets the most bananas, you know? (Yes, I know that’s not actually true. But it’s the way they see the world.) The smartest, strongest human survives and hunts well and eats well. (Yes, I know early hunter-gatherer societies hunted in worker cooperatives and raised children cooperatively. So I know this isn’t really a well-researched scientific hypothesis. But it is believed by a particular group of people.)
When they say, “take personal responsibility,” it’s kind of a code word for, “accept your rightful place in the hierarchy. Accept that you are simply the weaker, stupider chimp and you are inevitably going to get less bananas and society can’t be expected to coddle you and give you more than you deserve.”
According to a worldview that asserts humans are naturally divided into the strong, the weak, and the in-between, a person complaining about their own outcomes is just in denial of this fundamental, universal “truth.” A whiner unwilling to admit they receive less because they provide less. A deceiver attempting to usurp a more deserving person’s place in the hierarchy because they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their “actions.”
There’s no better frontier for this idea than the open road, where a single mistake can kill you and everyone in your vicinity. Transit activists, who want to take people off the roads, put them on buses and in trains where they will be safe even if they aren’t “vigilant” and “responsible” and “alert” (read: unlucky), are trying to spend society’s limited resources coddling people who will never really provide a return on that investment – because they are weak. Which wastes money, since the money could have been spent on responsible people who will lead society to better places.
To these people,
society’s responsibility is to make sure everyone stays in their place.
there will always be starving monkeys.
the folks who would crash a car probably can’t manage their bank account. Or learn valuable skills.
Hence, roads are a convenient way to cull the weak.
The driver can be personally responsible for their own failures without that alleviating the responsibility of good decision making by those who are responsible for ensuring people are able to live their lives safely.
overall, my position is the same as yours: the average driver is WILDLY unfit to operate a multiton chunk of metal on a daily basis.
however, it is wildy unrealistic to hope against hope that one day, every driving person will wake up and realize that they should drive safe. there has to be systemic effort, whether thats reduction in cars, increase in mandatory car training or increased access to public transport, in order to see systemic improvement.
Okay, yes. You are correct. The weight of the car is what does the damage since a bike or scooter doesnt kill people. However, the carelessness of the driver is at fault. If the person never got in the car and ate the big mac the car would not have killed somebody. Because the car would never have moved.
Its also people who dont know how to cross the street or anyone who disobeys traffic laws. Ive seen bikes just run red lights, dart through stop signs, people just cross against the light without even looking.
Its general carelessness with regards to the roads
But if they were doing all those things while being a pedestrian among other pedestrians none of them would die. It’s adding the car that makes it dangerous.
But for those of us who don’t live in a city, it’s not an option. I live about a five minute walk from my nearest neighbor, and a 20 minute drive from work. I’m not in a neighborhood or apartment. They could not feasibly build a rail system to service me and the millions of others who live like I do.
Busses are an option but then my commute would start hours earlier, and they would not pay for themselves where I live. Or I would be paying a very high fair.
I think it’s got to be subways in big cities, buses in suburban towns, and trains to connect rural/suburban/urban areas. All of these being free like libraries would be great, and the commute would be shortened by rides available every 15 minutes.
Public transit isn’t supposed to “pay for itself” via fares. It is a net-good that makes it so that everyone doesn’t need a car and all the supporting infrastrucutre and wastes of space and energy that cars require.
If cars weren’t subsidized to be the primary mode of transportation, you wouldn’t live “5 miles from your neighbor,” and you wouldn’t need a car to get to work.
Yes via the commerce that results in taxes. But the pint is that public transit does not get built unless you can convince law makers that it will be cheaper than any alternative to the government’s pocket.
Tell me this, if your sparsely populated area justifies asphalt roads because of the “resulting commerce”, why can’t public transport achieve the same?
Okay, but we aren’t willing not to license dumb drivers because we have decided as a society that to lose your car is to lose your right to an independent life. We aren’t willing to hold dumb drivers accountable for killing people for the same reason. We establish parking minimums for dive bars even though we know people are going to drink and drive and kill people.
Almost got hit today by two separate dipshits not paying attention and/or having zero awareness about the size of the dumbass large trucks they were driving.
This is a technology community, and (whether you like it or not) Twitter being rebranded to X is pretty big news in the world of tech.
Especially with the slipshod way they are doing with it, there is bound to be a lot of articles covering different weird tangential effects from the rush job.
Could be a solution. But what if that company has an actual tech news, like release a new open source software or started contributing to a given web standard.
Well, then I guess you should put your priorities on a balance before making any filtering route.
If it helps for something I also get tired of repetitive news (especially because I’m subbed to many tech communities), but I just scroll and hide (Voyager and Summit), so not much of my “time is lose”.
This is an absurd position. I agree there could stand to be fewer posts. I don’t need to hear fifteen times that Mastodon has record increases (which would actually qualify as technology news by your standards, wouldn’t it?). But I would like to see it once. A limitation to keeping one popular article (as determined by the mods) per discrete news item would be a far better approach.
I’m not interested in hearing about how Elon took over an X Twitter account yet again. I am very interested however in hearing that companies will lose verification on Twitter unless they buy enough ads. That is currently newsworthy.
It’s clear that a substantial number of users are interested in hearing about this. It’s also clear that a substantial number of users are sick of hearing about this. There should be a compromise to find a middle ground, not either extreme of “as many posts about Twitter as you’d like” nor “no posts about Twitter at all”.
Yeah let’s have no news at all about one of the largest and most influential tech companies going through massive restructuring! That kind of thing has no place on a tech community
I don’t know if it works, but I found this post where someone claims to have made a keyword filter. sh.itjust.works/post/1715366 I don’t think you’ll be able to filter out “X” though
Are you really suggesting that we take the low quality Reddit approach to high quality subs like /r/funny?
I suppose this is what happens when the lowest common denominator goes down coupled with ignorance of how the lowest common denominator affects community quality.
Communities lose their niche by catering to the lowest common denominator and become homogeneous with each other. This has been a long-standing phenomena on Reddit, one which I would expect to not be carried over to Lemmy since it’s largely a symptom of a user base that has more interest in memes, funnies, and celebrity worship than discussion and real news.
How about the people who stumble across the comm’s posts on All but aren’t subscribed? On Reddit you could also talk about the original user base from before a sub started hitting r/all but !technology doesn’t really have an ‘original’ user base.
It does sound reasonable to prioritize subscribed users when counting upvotes, to reflect the interests of that particular community.
But I don’t think that will stop people from bringing up any news involving Twitter. The submission and initial momentum likely happens within the community itself.
That would be cool, never thought about that. Straight up not allowing voting from All/when you’re not subbed could also be interesting as an experiment. But yeah, here plenty of people are just interested in Twitter news.
From the way I’m interpreting that… shouldn’t that demand for ‘just twitter news’ lead to a new community for that specifically? Like if it’s really that interesting to enough people, wouldn’t that be the better outcome?
Most people on All don’t check what comm a post is from before upvoting. That’s why on Reddit all subs that regularly hit r/all are basically the same. I’m fine with the Twitter news here, but upvotes don’t work as quality control.
The point is that news about Twitter rebranding is simply not related to technology. This is a technology community. These submissions should not even be posted in the first place to have the opportunity to be voted on.
No, a rebrand is not a true technological news. It is regular news. Same would apply if Pizza company changed it’s name. Internal policy changes of a website are not technological news either. Appointing a new director or firing staff, is still are not technological. Sure they its news, but have nothing to do with technology.
twitter isn’t relevant in technological development, it’s just a toxic social media site which hasn’t changed in any significant way since its inception (technologically speaking)
I agree with you that no one in the tech world is looking at Twitter for advice atm, but to say nothing changed at Twitter in any significant way since it’s inception is disingenuous at best. Twitter’s rapid growth and adoption led to the development of a number of key technologies needed to run global 24/7 uptime services at scale, just to name one macro example.
Reread what I said: I agree that nothing major has been introduced by Twitter lately, but to say that they contributed nothing to the tech world since their inception, which is what the user above me was claiming, is disingenuous. Both can be true: Twitter can be a flaming pile of shit now (and it is), and it can also have been a very influential and technologically forward-thinking org at one point in time early on in their inception
Yeah I never got the gimmick of that sub because it’s actively contributing to the problem. Guy lives rent free in their heads and they have to take it out on the rest of us.
I agree. I don’t use Twitter and I really don’t know much about Elon, but when one of the wealthiest people in the world is doing something with a major tech company, Id like to be somewhat informed
This would be a welcome development, I feel like social media is something you use tech to do, but it’s very rarely an interesting conversation about the tech itself.
Like how a grocery store has food but you wouldn’t call it a restaurant.
The side car says this community is about technology news. I don’t think they should list everything it’s not, but maybe clarify if news about the tech industry are wanted or not.
What technology was developed, explored, integrated, improved, or otherwise innovated or more broadly applied by this?
This is an interesting standard to apply and I’m curious to see how many posts would actually fit that, especially posts which seem to be about tech. Arguably, 30-60% of the top posts right now don’t meet this.
kbin.life
Top