If I’m really honest I often feel that way about the questions here. I suspect that most of us are here just to gawk at how truly stupid some of us are.
I don’t. The closer this place gets to FYAD idiot kings and people migrating to new communities if they don’t like a particular idiot king mod, the better. Modlogs should be funny.
The military is the only form of upward mobility for large swaths of the population, they are chewed up and spit out by the machine, after being indoctrinated in nationalist propaganda from the time they were able to form memories. Veterans are members of the Prolitariat and should be educated about the system that abused them, not mocked and rediculed for being a victim of it. Yes America has committed mass atrocities, but almost every service member who signed up was completely unaware of that at the time of their enlistment.
It’s not about atrocities at all. It’s a question of whether kids understand that they are signing up for a job that involves using explosives to kill people. It’s kinda hard ignore that aspect of what the military is, no matter how sheltered or propagandized one is. As the propaganda has grown, so has the ability of literally any child to google “what do militaries do?”
Being aware of the atrocities might require someone to have been paying attention at some point in school, but knowing that you’re gonna face bombs and killing in the military, that takes even less awareness.
The human brain is really good at keeping two conflicting ideals “harmonized”. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to fall to the romanization of the military while also recognizing the killing part of it.
It’s easy to fall to propaganda. Is it the recipients fault? Is it the sender of propagandas fault?
I would argue both to some degree, but mostly I will blame the sender because they are generally older and better at rational thinking when compared to younger people. (I’m grossly generalizing here. I know younger people who can think more critically than some older generations).
Summary: by the time they realize they don’t want to be part of it, it’s too late and they have to serve their time.
No. I don’t that would be a good solution. Maybe create a law that the military has to give informed information. The intention would be to prevent propaganda in the first place. Then age or wisdom would be less impactful because education on the horrors of war would be more universal.
Gotta tell ya: The atrocities and stress of war doesn’t really seem real until you’re hunkered down in a cab because the truck in front of you took an IED, to use just one scenario. I could throw a few more your way if you like.
Having said that, and here’s the irony, not everyone in the military is “gonna face bombs and killing”. There are huge swaths whose job it is to do anything under the sun that doesn’t involve firing any form of weaponry. Chances are you’d have had to been paying attention at some point in school to know this, or something.
War is shit. The military has good and bad people, and often shit practices. For some people it’s one of the only ways, in the U.S. at least, to stand even a fleeting chance of doing more than becoming a low-rung manager at Walmart.
Do people get to choose whether they face “bombs and shit” in the military? Like can a person say “I don’t want a position where I can get PTSD”?
Having said that, and here’s the irony, not everyone in the military is “gonna face bombs and killing”. There are huge swaths whose job it is to do anything under the sun that doesn’t involve firing any form of weaponry. Chances are you’d have had to been paying attention at some point in school to know this, or something.
Or, I’d have to be aware people can’t just check “No PTSD-inducing positions please”. Or if they can, they are signing up just as equally at the moment they either check or don’t check the box. My point stands. You get PTSD from military service, you signed up for it unless you were drafted.
Now whether an 18 year old is wise enough to be capable of making that decision is one and the same as their being capable of making the decision to join up. If you think an 18 year old is not old enough to sacrifice his mental health for his country, then why not argue to raise the recruiting age?
A low-rung manager at wal-mart
I’ve never held a managerial position. I don’t see myself as entitled to any particular level in the managerial command structure. I don’t think my rights are being violated without any kind of guaranteed path up to there.
I dunno man. I’ve got nothing but compassion and gratitude for vets. But you don’t get to claim the shit is something that just happens to people. Adults join up, take an oath, stone cold sober.
Again, if you think those people aren’t old enough, I’d probably agree with you. I’d be all for raising the age to 30, if you wanted to push for that.
But for whatever age it is, that’s the age because ir’s the age at which it’s no longer a thing happening to someone.
Like if it was “military or die”, that’s a different thing. But if it’s “military or no upper management jobs for you” it just doesn’t move me.
And that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing we have a volunteer army. It’s good for everybody.
My uncle came back from Vietnam with really bad PTSD (among other problems like alcoholism). Every fourth he would spend the whole day/night in the basement with the curtains drawn (to block out the flashes) and headphones on with the sound turned all the way up (to block out the sounds).
He would also take my cousins to buy fireworks every year.
I don’t mean to minimize your struggle, I just thought the juxtaposition was interesting.
I hope you could work through your struggles. I’m happy to say he was able to. He was able to quit drinking and minimize the effects of his PTSD. By the end of his life he was out there watching us shoot off the fireworks.
Because every other “generation” is about 10 years and yet somehow “Millennials” are an almost 25 year gap. Notice how it’s “Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc”. You don’t use those qualifiers with the other generations because they are appropriately sized.
Millennials should be 2-3 named generations. It currently refers to 80’s kids, 90s kids, any kids alive when 2000 happened, and early Aughts kids(probably because the last name sucked and no one wanted to use it). Too many generations wanted the claim of “I was the first generation of the new millennium” and everyone co-opted the term even when it didn’t traditionally apply(newborns because they were closest to the date as opposed to when their major development occured is part of that stretch)
You’re further proving my point. A person born in 1981 would be 18 years old in 1999. They will have had NONE of their childhood during the Millennium(unless you’re counting the very end of it)
I think you’re focusing on what really amounts to a bad nickname for the generation that obviously is Generation Y. (Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, I wonder what letter was left out??)
Secondly, a millennium is a thousand years. Are you saying the previous thousand years (1000-1999) don’t count as a millennium that millennials… existed in?
Thirdly, it’s the change from one new millennium to another that people were excited about, no one gives a shit about the before or after. It’s simply excitement about the changeover. In 2024, no one gives a shit that we’re living in the “new millennium.” The song goes “let’s party like it’s 1999” not “let’s party like its 2001” or “let’s party like it’s 1981.”
Finally, last I checked, humans tend to celebrate things before they come to pass, kind of like how walking for graduation comes before finals. We celebrate New Years Eve all night leading up to the New Year. New Years is over when the new year has actually begun. Nobody celebrates on January 1st.
So literally no one born in the new millennium gives a shit about it being a new millennium. Only people born before it cared or would care.
Secondly, a millennium is a thousand years. Are you saying the previous thousand years (1000-1999) don’t count as a millennium that millennials… existed in?
I agree with that the comment you’re replying to is basically nonsense, but I do have two points to correct about this.
First, a small nitpick. Technically, millennia go from 01–00, so 1001–2000, with 2001 being the first year of the new millennium.
More significantly, it is obviously the case that millennials were so named because of something to do with the turn of the millennium. Frankly I don’t know what that is and it would have made more sense to name gen Z millennials because they actually span across the millenium divide and are the first generation born into the new millennium. Or if gen Y had started and finished 5 years later, they could have spanned the bridge, as well as even older genYers still being children during it, which would have been more appropriate.
Notice how it’s “Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc”. You don’t use those qualifiers with the other generations
Of course you do. I, a young millennial, have a lot more in common with my old genZer sister than she does with a young genZer born in 2011. It’s an important distinction because we both didn’t get smart phones until we didn’t have smart phones until late teens at least, while young genZers weren’t even born when the iPhone was first released.
My parents are young boomers. For my dad that means he never had to worry about getting drafted like his older boomer brothers.
1997–2012 is the definition used by Pew (which also uses the oft-quoted 1981–1996 definition for millennials). Statistics Canada uses 2012 too, while the US census uses 2013.
But anyway, the earliest cutoff I could find was 2010, which is what the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses, and my point still works for 2010 kids. (The ABS’s other boundaries also don’t change the fact that I’m young millennial but my sister old gen Z, or that my parents are young boomers, either. So every point I was making still works.)
When it was growing up, the definitions kept changing.
I was born in 1986, and while in primary school I was told that makes me GenX. So I grew up thinking I was GenX. Then in high school, my teachers said actually anyone born after 1985 is GenY, so we’re definitely GenY.
Then when year 2000 came around people started talking about a new generation of people who would “never remember the 20th century”, or “never know a world without the internet”, basically people born after 1997 so they grow up completely in the 2000s. They called them Millennials.
From then on the usage of “millennial” kept growing, starting to see it everywhere. Mostly by boomers complaining about millennials.
Around 2012 I stated seeing some youtubers around my age referring to themselves as millennials, I thought it was a joke, or a bad understanding. Then people started referring to me as a millennial. Someone who’s whole childhood was in the 90s, how could I be a millennial, it defied the definition.
So I imagine my shock when I find now they’ve removed all trace of the usage of GenY, and retroactively applied “millennial” to mean anyone born after 1985. So maybe I am a millennial? I remember staying up late to celebrate with my parents and make sure our computer didn’t crash at midnight on new years eve in 1999. I remember wondering why dragonballz wasn’t on TV when the news was showing footage of American skyscrapers in 2001. Are those the things that make me a millennial? If so then what about the original definition? Those born 1997 or later won’t remember those things, so now they’re Zoomers? All this business makes me so confused.
Thank you, someone who gets it. The definition has expanded so much it’s essentially meaningless now.
When I grew up and the term was first coined, it refered to the generation coming after mine. It was literally “what will we call this next generation? Well, they’re growing up during the turn of the millennium…”. Then suddenly years later it included my generation. Then suddenly it includes the generation before me? When really it’s just a lazy replacement for “kids these days”.
And look at all the other dates others are giving me. They’re not the same as yours. THATS my point. No one actually agrees on the dates and at this point, it’s expanded to include other generations.
Yet I have 10 different people spouting different dates and all telling me I’m wrong. None of you see that you’re the exact point I was making. Everyone tries to shove in some extra years before or after.
Which is exactly why I qualified it saying it’s not exact. What dates are you using? You must be using something to say that Millennials are 25 years while the others are 10. That’s MY point.
The bit you’re getting confused by, I think, is that some generations are just bigger than others. The boomers were by their name sake a big generation. Millennials are essentially boomers’ kids … and so they’re bigger than both Gen X and Gen Z.
Most “generational” definitions span about 15 years, sometimes more. EG, Boomers: 1946-1960
There are sensibly defined micro-generations typically at the borders between generations.
EG, “Jones Generation”: 1960-1965 … “young boomers” … they had a distinct life experience from “core boomers” not too different from that of X-Gens. Vietnam and 60s happened while they were children, Reagan was their 20s, not 40s, etc.
Xennials are notable here because they’re the transition between X-Gen and Millennials (late 70s to early 80s) … probably what you’re thinking of as “older millennials”. What’s interesting though is that the relevance of Xennials is that technological changes mark the generation … they’re essentially just barely young enough to count as part of the internet generations but not old young enough to be ignorant of the pre-internet times. Which just highlights that how you talk about generations depends on what you more broadly care about. In the west, arguably not too much political upheaval has occurred since WWII and its immediate consequences (basically Boomer things) … and so the generations are distinguished on smaller and probably more technological scales.
Seriously. Those materials are essential and necessary for growth. Allowing some capitalist douchebag to hoard it all and make profits from it is a national security threat.
And then on top we provide these with parasites with transfers from federal budget to develop their mines and fields... and they get to price gouge on the back end.
China announced they’re cutting production to prop up rare earth mineral prices, a lot of people here seem to think something very different is happening…
I see now, I must have missed the word ‘prices’ on my first read. Fine by me though. As if the west hasn’t tried to economically destroy China for decades. Good for them. Get the bag, kings.
Cutting the mining and refining of rare earth oxides, aka the production of rare earth metals. That’s what this conversation is about…
Xinhua reports (Google translation) that the state will implement a unified plan for the development of the rare earth industry. The aim is to encourage and support the research and development of new technologies, processes, products, and new materials and equipment, it says.
Regulations will be implemented to control the total amount of rare earth mining and smelting. Additionally, Beijing intends to introduce a product traceability system to “strictly manage circulation” of rare earths.
According to Nikkei Asia, underground resources in China already belong to the state, but illegal mining and smelting of rare earth elements is known to happen in the private sector, and it seems that Beijing is keen to tighten its control over them.
It’s in every article about this. The price of rare earth ore in China has dropped precipitously, almost 80% since 2022. China is going to punish unauthorized mining and smelting activity and limit production among authorized producers.
Here’s one article, use your favorite search engine to find a bunch more
Dude, the frequency with which people are accepting this screenshot of a headline as a statement of fact is frightening. Please read about what they actually announced rather than falling for what is essentially propaganda
Specifically in games: constantly repeating the flavor of the month insults. Typically some influencer comes up with a funny insult then for the rest of the month some kids use that one singular insult for every situation
I bought a dehumidifier off amazon that was “rated” for 800 sq ft.
Not only did it not live up to that promise, but it also served as the worlds shittiest ice maker. Ice formed on the radiator inside and stoped it from dehumidifying the air.
Thats right, you too can have a ice maker that makes ice in the shape of a radiator while ineffectively dehumidifying your home!
Best part was they reached out after I left a one star review and what they could do to change my rating.
I wonder if we had the same dehumidifier. Same 800 sq ft claim, except it didn’t produce ice because it couldn’t pull enough moisture out of the air to do so despite it being ~80% humidity in my apartment.
After a night of running at full blast, I woke up and poured out a whopping 10 mL of water from the basin
From my understanding, a lot of the products on amazon are resellers that buy stuff from alibaba and then resell it at a markup so it would not surprise me if that was the case.
They all looked the same when i was last on there searching for one.
I’m constantly seeing the same items with different branding all at a similar price point - it’s all AliExpress garbage. And if the AliExpress version suits your needs you’re better off ordering from AE directly as it’s significantly cheaper. AE shipping speeds have improved over the years too, I’ve gotten items within 1 week several times now
We are in a time where a single invention can rarelt be great. For technological development you need thousands of small inventions, each that use previous technological breakthrough through decades of research. And even great things we have, are just refinement and miniaturization of things we already had.
But if a single thing had to be said, I would say mRNA vaccines. Covid vaccines saved milions of lives, were developed in record times, and their technology could be used for HIV or even antitumoral vaccines.
Was going to say that too. Regardless of the motives and driving forces behind the incredible speed at which the vaccines were developed (i.e. certainly a similar urgency could be applied to other diseases killing thousands and millions in poorer countries, but there ain’t as much interest in that), the mRNA technology proved quite powerful and an avenue to continue exploring in future research.
People forget that the research behind those vaccines had been going on for 30+ years. What was accelerated was the trials and the gathering and analysis of efficacy and safety data. The actual vaccine technology had been in existence for around a decade at the time.
The first successful transfection of designed mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was published in 1989. “Naked” (or unprotected) lab-made mRNA was injected a year later into the muscle of mice.
But on the other hand, first human test was in 2001
Fully agree with it, but they’re still extremely popular, and people will gladly keep handing over their money.
For me, I say “Ok” to them wanting us to get used to not owning our content - followed with “Then I’ll pay rental prices. Which means I’m not buying at $60+ dollars, if all I get to do is rent it then I’ll pay <$15 going forward.”
kbin.life
Top