I’ve actually looked into this a little bit, and it seems that the best strategy is to have a lot of money. It doesn’t actually decrease the rent at all, and in fact makes it worse in the long run, but it keeps it from becoming a problem for YOU.
Watergate overshadows how Nixon’s Vietnam War inflation started the death of the American middle class. In 1968, a High School graduate with a union job could expect to buy a house and a car with one salary. By 1976, two incomes was the norm for lower income families, and it was enshrined by the time Reagan/Bush Sr. were done.
Agreed, but Reagan popularized the ideas that it is elitist to expect a president to be competent, that complex legislative topics should make sense at the dinner table, and that government is the enemy of freedom. Both Nixon and Reagan were willing to trade in bigotry for political gain, and both were the sort of cynical “me-first” conservatives that taught boomers to mortgage the future. But Reagan had the charisma that Nixon lacked.
The best way to get back at someone is to have a great life. Ignore him and block him, and carry on with your great life.
He’s obviously insecure, fragile, and arrogant. Move on - you’ll never win anything by stopping to his level, and you’ll never convince him to change his ways by putting him in his place. The older you get, the more you realize quickly people just aren’t worth your time.
When you see him next, just ignore him. When he gossips about you to his brother or your friends in an attempt to get a rise out of you, laugh and ignore him.
My one addition is to consider how you will handle this as time goes on. Will you laugh it off to mutual friends with a “Why would I care what he says? There are a million people who’s opinions of me matter more.”? When would you consider it actual harassment? What impact would it have to have on your life to effect your mental well being enough to take action, and what would that action be?
I pose these questions because proactively answering them can put you in a much better situation in that happy life. Most likely, it will also mature your opinion of the situation over time, allowing you to be just the right balance of firm but level-headed on how you alter those plans when and if the time comes.
As time goes on, I’d rather not think about him at all, but for the rare times that I do, I would want to laugh it off, because his way of bragging is actually kind of funny.
Yup, tried to correct something about a motorcycle manufacturer (no road legal model between year A and Z), linked to another Wikipedia article proving what I was saying (road legal modelS in year W to Y, just before Z), the next day the page was back to its previous version. I linked to the article about the road legal model they pretended didn’t exist and they just edited the page back to its previous version…
Even for political content it’s damn good. Every time someone on Lemmy points to an explicit article of bias, it falls into one of 3 categories:
Slightly unfair bias, but still largely true
Article is correct, Lemmy cannot provide a reliable source proving otherwise
Article is incorrect, reliable source found, article amended
The third case happened once in an article about a UN Resolution on North Korea, and it was because the original article source was slightly misinterpreted. But yea, basically what I’m trying to say is if a “political article” is “wrong” but you can’t prove it, it’s not the political article that’s wrong but you.
Edit: ITT - People upset with my analysis, but not willing to provide sources to the articles they disagree with
And sometimes it literally is USA propaganda. It’s quite rare, but those articles should get fixed. Changing something like “The guerrilla fighters killed babies” to “The US State Department claimed the guerrilla fighters killed babies, but critics call the claim “wholly unfounded” [source]”.
But yea, as I said, actually a lot more rare than you’d think.
Yo the tankie wiki is fucking hilarious. The USSR page has this gold mine:
“On 8 August 1945, exactly three months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Soviet troops entered Manchuria and Korea, and Japan surrendered within a week.”
And Wikipedia has an overall left-bias, because of the demographic of contributors.
FROM YOUR LINK
Until 2021, we rated Wikipedia as Center, but changed them to Not Rated because the online encyclopedia does not fit neatly into AllSides’ media bias rating methodologies, which were developed specifically for news sites.
Allsides, that rates media outlets, doesn’t give a media bias rating. However, that page I linked still shows the bias even if it doesn’t get them a media bias rating.
Because the average American is much more likely to bump into American military personnel than people from countries that use 24 hour time. It’s really as simple as that.
The entire US logistics chain runs on 24 hour time, even the 100% domestic aspects.
The logistics chain would also save tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year if we ended daylight savings time and time zones, and collectively is one of the biggest lobbies for those changes
Logistics uses 24 hr clocks to be as precise as possible
The reasoning for lost revenue is a long story, but to heavily TLDR it, the entire logistics chain is basically a giant house of cards, and every mistake compounds repeatedly. Everything from a scheduling error at one warehouse to a driver not knowing about weird time zones (like AZ), to international miscommunications, all pile up on both their own individual load/order and every other step in the chain. A mistake at one manufacturer rolls to the next manufacturer, which then snowballs to the receiver, influencing timing on the last mile delivery.
Because of the heavily interconnected nature, any mistake in documentation, ordering, or timing causes significant delays and missed revenue elsewhere.
Its definitely some fucked up attempt at uno reversing. They can’t admit mistake. Or worse, rather than try to understand the disconnect, they went into “it’s your fault”.
Don’t confuse it with the “I’m sorry you feel that way” as sometimes it sounds similar and used to the same effect, but different because it’s not trying to shift blame, but acknowledge your emotions.
When did the scroll bar area become so damn small? I still like to use it to move around a page. At 1440p it’s so tiny. I can’t imagine at 4k. Am I just old now?
It’s because touch devices and touchpads are the most common input devices now. Most people scroll with gestures on the touchpad so there’s no need for a scroll bar.
I rarely do, but they are very handy for quickly scanning a long document (drag the scroll bar until I see a header, stop, read the header, and keep going).
It was always a tankie den. The Lemmy developers are very openly tankies.
They held their heads relatively low during the whole Reddit exodus, but that's about it.
Yes, it might sound worrisome, but I dont think you are pushing authoritarian ideology by using Lemmy. The code itself is fine. The code is not authoritarian. The server which hosts your account is also not authoritarian.
Lemmy is, right now, the best alternative for a reddit-like platform. It is something created for the users, by the users. By using lemmy, you are not enriching the wallets of the shareholders. By using something like reddit, you provide content and a select few get to buy a new yacht.
Also, plenty of people are contributing code to lemmy. It is no longer just these 2. The code is also Open-Source. Anyone can fork it and create a new version of lemmy, with compatibility with the current version of lemmy. By using lemmy, you are allowing the possibility that, at any time in the future, someone else comes and says “I have some ideas to improve lemmy, let’s do this on my own terms”, forks it and continues the work without massively spliting the community.
I have openly wondered if now, thanks to the wider adoption outside of the tankosphere, would be a good time for a cornerstone fork to put these concerns to bed. It would be nothing more than a signaling that the proverbial hands have changed, but it would certainly soothe these kinds of concerns.
I don’t think comparing communism with fasism, at least when it comes to exterminating ethnic minorities is accurate. this is an opinion shared by academics, including coauthors of “The Black Book of Communism” (the book which claims communism killed 80M-100M people, though the upper end of the range is the one which has more attention. this number is disputed, again also by coauthors)
I could explain why I believe you shouldn’t do this in my own words, but I will use the words of Nicolas Werth, one of the three main coauthors who distanced themselves from the book:
Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union.
and
The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious.
Another quote I will give is from Amir Weiner an American historian and associate professor of Soviet history at Stanford University who wrote:
[w]hen Stalin’s successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution.
My point isn’t to say the Soviet Union, or other states which had or have Marxist-Leninist governments are without critique, but that comparing them to the III Reich, at the very least diminishes the crimes committed by Nazis and makes analysis of the aforementioned States more muddy.
Authoritarianism is bad regardless of the ideology behind it and leads to people with reasonable beliefs (communism could help people that capitalism harms) doing unreasonable things (denying active genocides being carried out by governments that have historically been pro-communism because… cognitive dissonance?) like the subject of this post.
I’m not attempting to argue communism is not bad in my comment, I believe this is even more true if you believe communism is bad.
I am strictly saying comparing Nazism and communism does not give a full picture, which is, AFAIK, something that experts in Soviet history, some of which I quoted, agree with.
What I’m trying to say is that comparing the two you risk either reducing the weight of crimes committed by Nazis, which are worse than those committed in any communist state, I hope you’ll agree and also risk loosing the detail distinguishing the two.
I would elaborate further, but I want to make this comment shorter to make what I’m saying a bit more accessible.
All three houses are finished by the time the wolf arrives.
The story goes the first two pigs were lazy and while the 3rd pig worked to build his brick house, the other two fucked about and danced or whatever, even teased the third pig in some iterations.
The first two pigs got their asses saved by their brother who actually worked hard to do it right. The first two weren’t valiant, they were lucky.
Most people don’t even think about burning man at all.
And well, the people of the internet tend to be less fond of more wealthy people, like those that can afford to spend thousands to party in the desert. I may not want them to die just because they went to burning man, but I will laugh at the world essentially raining on their parade.
I dislike stupid shit that wealthy people do. People generally also do not sympathize with a nameless faceless entity. “70k people” is not something I can personally relate to. (As opposed to headlines like “kid with cancer” that normally gets sympathy.)
Additionally, there was all the warning signs this festival was going to be a disaster and people spent thousands of dollars on tickets anyway. Much like the submarine these people have to have someone come help them, which yet again, takes for the form of state resources. Once again, the American taxpayer is footing the bill helping save rich people of all ages from their own hubris.
you dont get why people would not be fans of people that exploit other people and the capitalist system to hoard resources that they then waste in rich people gatherings while normal people arent paying rent?
In Australia it’s not just knowing how to swim but where to swim and when. A lot of tourists drown in the ocean here because they don’t know how to read the waves / don’t have an understanding of the local area.
He must be referring to riptides. In some spots the water hits the beach as waves. In others nearby, the water gets pulled back into the ocean, and those are the spots you need to avoid.
Then depending on the ebb and flow of the twice-daily tides, the riptides are stronger or weaker.
There are ways to see where the riptides are, yet many people from my own coastal town are oblivious to these dangers. Inland/landlocked tourists are even more oblivious and vulnerable.
These are pretty common in northern California and Oregon as well. Just had 4 adults and 2 kids rescued from one yesterday at Cannon Beach, for example.
As an Aussie what the person below has said is a big one here. We just call them rips. Basically if you just try to swim in them normally you won’t go anywhere and will just make yourself tired. Same goes if you’re caught in a rip and trying to get out. It can lead to people drowning from tiring out and going under. What you want to do is swim diagonally across the rip. Then you can go about your swim or swim safely back to shore. Another tip is if you don’t know what a rip looks like then it can be hard to see them from the shore or while your in the water. They aren’t waves.
Another one I think people usually have issues with or you hear of a tourist going missing is swimming in water inland. This is more of an up north Aus thing. Basically if you can’t see into the water your going to swim in them don’t. Crocs like to hang out in that sort of water. Very easy to not see them at all.
Great advice, appreciate that! I’ve only swam in small lakes, a couple of rivers, and the Black Sea, so yeah, I could easily see myself making some mistakes in Australian waters. Not that I’m planning to anytime soon, but if I do, I might as well stay alive thanks go this thread.
If the internet has taught me anything, it’s taught me to never swim in Australia. In freshwater, crocodiles will eat you. In the ocean, sharks and saltwater crocodiles will eat you.
Also riptides will pull you out, small venomous fish will crawl up your urinary tract, volcanic gases will take away buoyancy from the water so you will sink (plus the poisonous gas will kill you). Oh, and the sun will give you cancer. That is, if you don’t get bitten by a spider or snake in your hotel room before you even get to the waterline.
Btw did I mention that basically the entire population is descended from criminals who were sent there as punishment?
Swimming in Australia? Are you suicidal? Hell, even just being in Australia is a threat to life, if the internet is to believed. If it isn’t animals that want to murder you in a painful way, it’ll be plants or fire or plain water.
Our first nation’s people are one of the oldest cultures in the world which is really amazing if you consider just how harsh the country is to live in.
They were the only ones who managed to make it work and when they managed they could chill because noone else would go there. Until the stupid europeans came.
It could be me but I think all cultures are “the oldest”. It’s not like the Dutch just magically spawned into existence 50 years ago and the first Nations people today are culturally very different from the ones a thousand years ago.
Beyond that, if you survive living in Australia for thousands of years then you deserve it
I don’t really see that- there’s a difference between a contiguous culture and genetics. If you’re living in western Italy, you might be descended from and still inhabiting the area of the ancient etruscans, but it doesn’t mean you have the same culture. One could make an argument that you’re from the Roman or florentine culture, but you are from a culture that’s younger than etruscan culture.
Aboriginal Australians (I’m not sure about Torres Strait Islanders, so I hope that’s the right terminology) have been practicing elements of the same culture for longer than any other civilization we know about. You raise an interesting point about them now vs them 1000 years ago, but I grew up wildly differently from how my father did, and we’re still part of the same culture. It’s sort of like the question of stepping into the same river twice- the water is different, but it’s guided by the same constraints.
Riptides are scary shit. Even if you do know how to spot them, and what to do if they catch you. Thankfully my 42 year old ass brings a surfboard with me every time I go to the beach. I dunno if our beaches in SoCal are as dangerous as your beaches though.
A lot of people who don’t grow up here don’t know this though. I used to go on trips to the beach with my international student friends and they had no idea what those flags are and why you should swim between them.
i never been to australia. For me as a good swimmer even as a kid the flags at the balticbsea cost meant nothing. my sports club would regularly go for a camp at the balticbsea and the stronger the waves the more fun we kids had. With such a background that the flags are just a hint for old and unsporty people, it is easy to underestimate the ocean.
Recently had a similar discussian with an Australian-German who went to elementary in Australia and a German life guard and the “how” is certainly interesting as well. Apparently, you get drilled to crawl in Australia (which is just called “swimming”) because that’s the only style that’s powerful enough to save your life in the face of strong ocean currents. Meanwhile, Germans start by learning the breast stroke in elementary because it’s the most efficient/least tiring form of swimming and the most dangerous water scenario here is people swimming too far out into lakes in forests in the middle of nowhere with no life guards, so the no. 1 priority is stamina to get you back on shore.
I was on Reddit since almost the beginning and I would not say it’s similar, but I also don’t think that culture exists on the internet anymore, closest thing might be tildes?
What I really miss is the intelligent conversion and actual debate in the comments. People don’t really lay out arguments anymore, complete with sources and logical conclusions. Back in the early days of Reddit you’d be downvoted and told off if you made a claim without evidence. Anecdotal evidence, speculation, and bias were called out. There were still jokes and light comment sections, but comments aiming to make a point were essays where you could actually learn something. Might sound exhausting to some, but it feels like the internet has turned into just upvoting whatever confirms your bias, whether there’s evidence of it or not. I’m sure you can find some excellent examples in the old r/bestof posts.
The content was a lot different too, the community was just a lot more scientific. Studies were posted over articles, and clickbait articles (before they were even clickbait) were called out as not having substantial content or evidence. Even studies were heavily scrutinized by identifying the bias in the methodology.
There were a lot less communties (subreddits) too, which I think lead to healthier discussion overall and less of an echo chamber effect. It was still always criticized as being a “hive mind”, but it felt less like one to me back then anyways.
I guess overall it feels like the main difference is everything nowadays is meant to radicalize you, or get a reaction out of you. Back in the day if something political or scientific was being shared it was shared with the intention of changing minds, not confirming bias.
Anyways, that’s my old person rant. I’m probably looking at it all through rose tinted nostalgia glasses, but there’s definitely been a shift in how we communicate on the internet for better or for worse.
It’s not and that’s because it’s bad for Reddit’s business model in the short term. If you zoom out this is exactly why reddit is on a nose dive over the last 3 years. More. Shit. Content.
Yeah good point, that’s probably part of it! Reddit was probably used more during active time than passive time (while shitting). Gave you time to properly research a topic and structure arguments.
People don’t really lay out arguments anymore, complete with sources and logical conclusions
I only joined reddit like a year or so ago and have recently ditched it. I was never a fan of someone just spamming links to studies and condescending to me while doing so. I think people use links to sources as a way to control conversations. Or at least, that’s all I ever saw it used as.
We have outwards opening bathroom doors in the office and they’re great for giving people concussions and bumps on their head, as well as knocking coffees out of people’s hands. When we pass these doors in the hallway we put our hands up like our abusive dad went for a high five.
Nope, it was built within the last 10 years. I don’t know what Danish building codes are like but these are definitely built different from everywhere else I’ve been in Denmark
Sunwise, as it was based on the movement of the sun during day (in the Northern hemisphere). As watch faces were modelled after sundials, sunwise and clockwise describe the same direction.
Turnwise is a word invented by Pratchett for a book, but it’s clearly based on sunwise. He also used widdershins in his book, which is indeed the unmodified antonym to sunwise.
Not just any book. The discworld series. It’s the direction the disc rotates! He has so many easy to miss spots of genius. Amongst many easy to see spots of genius
Was it Name of the Wind or Wise Man’s Fear? I just read both of those and I remember looking up one of the words and going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole.
Well shit… those are the only two books that I read recently, maybe a similar word… I left my kindle at home today I know that keeps track of words I’ve looked up and now I’m curious
kbin.life
Top