Trying to claim the term “Web3” is a futile battle. It is already widely understood to mean crypto and blockchain. If I see a job posting that says the company is built on Web3, I know immediately that the job is built on scams and grifts without having to ask further questions. Web3 as a term is ruined already.
For this to work it must be a different term than Web3. Maybe “Web 3.0” is different enough?
Know what you did was ignore my comments regarding you being a shitty person, so you could try to make this about your original comment again, which it never was. Go fuck yourself and eat shit
I mean lemmy.world does actually kinda suck. They block piracy communities, don’t know a shit about cyber security and can’t keep their servers online for more than a day before they go down. The only reason why people use lemmy.world is because they want to avoid lemmy.ml.
There’s several reason i dont use my lemmy.world login much at all anymore. But when I was there, it was because it was supposed to be “the right instance for me” according to the info I had access to. I knew nothing about all this lemmy/federated stuff (my only federation experience was with star trek… and federated architectural 3d modelling coordination programs like Revit/BIM360). So i joined the “right instance for me” and guess what? it kinda sucked. but it was frustrating. I just wanted things to work, but there was drama over hexbear and others, and half the time the servers were being ddos’d. So i jumped ship to lemmy.zip and discuss.online as a backup. Could just have easily been me this user was insulting, a few days ago. Insulting me would not have pushed me closer to switching instances, it would have just convinced me further that this place is just as, if not more toxic than reddit. I didn’t vote to de-federate hexbear, or any of the other recent de-federations related to piracy (insert legit argument about server hosted content vs. US law), and I was still trying to get my bearings.
Just because lemmy.world does “kinda suck” doesn’t mean we should berate their users, thats antithetic to the entire idea of federated communities interconnecting this way.
If Reddit can host a piracy community, why can’t lemmy.world do it? I made an account the day lemmy.world defederated with that community. After I noticed that I immediately deleted my account and switched to sh.itjust.works and lemm.ee is there as a backup. But you’re right, we shouldn’t hate on innocent lemmy.world users who don’t know any better. It’s not their fault that the admins are such morons.
reddit.com is Reddit.Inc. with investors and lawyers and content curators and admins galore etc.
Lemmy.world is idk some guy named ruud in a basement with servers or something idk. The point is they aren’t equivalent resource pools to protect them from legal issues.
Right, but AFAIK he hasn’t even received any legal complaints. He could have done nothing, and only defederate when some shitty media company complains.
Yeah, I don’t want to hate on lemmy.world for no reasons, but the things I described earlier turned that instance into a shit show pretty quickly. Which is unfortunate.
I can’t blame him for wanting to avoid legal issues before it gets to the point he is receiving notices, C&Ds and law suits. That can get very expensive, very fast.
It’s not like it’s hard to make an account on another instance to look at piracy related content.
It’s not like it’s hard to make an account on another instance to look at piracy related content.
That’s right, but lemmy.world claims to be an instance for anyone, which it isn’t anymore. It’s not neutral anymore.
I can’t blame him for wanting to avoid legal issues before it gets to the point he is receiving notices, C&Ds and law suits. That can get very expensive, very fast.
It’s not like you immediately get sued, you first get a DMCA takedown notice. At that point, he could just defederate and everything would be fine.
Note that not all Web 3 v2 final (1) features are required to be labeled Web 3 v2 final (1). Please consult vendor documentation to determine which features are supported on their device.
Abusing terminology, especially by marketers, is frustrating and cringe. But don’t underestimate the value in having a simple, shared term to describe a paradigm many things fit into.
I think it’s useful terminology, but only very generally and in hindsight. Web 1 is a pretty clear era in the 90s and early 2000s, characterized by simple static blogs and personal websites, and email. Everyone knew this would be big, but nobody figured out how, that was the dotcom bubble. Web 2 began with the rise of big tech companies like Google and Facebook in the late 2000s, it has been characterized by social media apps, centralized platforms hosting user created content, funded by targeted advertising and data mining. Web apps became possible and smartphones took over. Every product became a subscription service.
I think we’re at the start of web 3, but it’s hard to say what that is yet. The big tech companies are crumbling and there’s increasing unrest at the old system of web 2. Fed up users are turning to platforms like this. There’s a lot of demand for crypto nonsense like NFTs. AI is changing the way we do everything.
I hope that web 3 is the age of decentralization because that would be awesome, but it’s impossible to predict the future.
I mean… We are getting to a point where die off of a good chunk of the World-Wide Web due to bad actors and drying-up ad revenue isn’t implausible. The Web is only one part of the Internet.
Blockchain and crypto are both decentralized, which is exactly what Web3 is defined as. Just because they came before federated websites doesn’t mean the definition is exclusive to them. I would call “Web3” ruined, rather I would say that ActivityPub is the first great implementation of it.
PS: The distinction between Web 3 and Web 3.0 is giving me some real USB 3.2 Gen 1 vibes.
Fixed the fix: “Leaders of Religion That Relies on Internalized Cognitive Dissonance Surprised When A More Insidious Manipulation Out-Manipulates Them”
But Islam often doesn’t let women think on their own, their husbands or fathers are to think and choose for them. That isn’t always the case, but often is.
This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean anything is possible
Let’s investigate the list of natural numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It stretches on for infinity, but nowhere in this infinite set will you find the number 2.5. Or negative 1. Or countless other examples.
Next let’s consider a warehouse with an infinite number of CDs, each burned with a copy of the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack. Each of these discs are different. They have slight differences in the label, diameter, and flatness, due to manufacturing tolerances. They have different random bits that get flipped sometimes due to solar particle collision and quantum variation, which may eventually make different discs unreadable. They decay over the centuries at different rates, due to temperature and sun exposure differences in the warehouse (climate control for an infinite space is very expensive).
Each of these discs are, materially speaking, completely different from one another. But, from the perspective of our limited human perception, they are for the time being completely interchangeable. Whichever one you select, you will listen to and have the same experience.
This is by far the most likely scenario if we indeed live in a multiverse. An infinite number of earths, with an infinite number of you, lives filled with all the same mistakes and triumphs, all reading this comment together right now.
Natural numbers doesn’t contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it’s made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
It means it doesn’t predict correctly in quantum physics but still predicts correctly in 90% of other cases such as motions and thermodynamics in daily scales. Why do you think schools still teach those if it’s not useful?
It’s taught because it’s a convenient way to teach children the scientific method, and has some practical benefit in low stakes problem solving. Those who progress beyond the basics realize there is more to physics than predicting the final destination of a billiards ball in a perfectly frictionless vacuum.
Although if you want to believe everything you learned in high school is the Truth with a capital T then you do you. Explains a lot actually
It’s an analogy, the specific case doesn’t matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it’s possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won’t have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won’t have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won’t have a universe which isn’t part of that multiverse.
Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
Well, if we’re talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it’s only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn’t tell them apart. It’s the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity
nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I’d say that’s probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn’t happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.
That’s true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.
What blew my mind is that it hasn’t been proven that pi contains an infinte number of ones, for instance. It’s not out of the question that there is a decimal place where the last 1 appears and there are none from then on.
It’s not really likely, but we simply don’t know and it is possible. It sounds weird given how many decimals of pi we’ve calculated, until you realise we’ve literally calculated 0% of them.
From a mathematical standpoint you’re right, but from the standpoint of application pi has an infinitesimal accuracy without going to 45 digits. At 3.1415926535, we’re more accurate than the distance between 3 atoms.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. Plus your last sentence sounds like you’re just repeating something you heard but forgot a part of it, because it makes no sense as it is.
The part they’re misremembering is that if you used 39 digits of pi as pi (not 45), it would be enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a forward error of less than the width of a hydrogen atom (not the distance between 3)
Yep! Pi might be a “Normal” irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the “random” arrangement of numbers in pi isn’t weighted and so you’ll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We’re kind of at a point where we think Pi is “normal”, but we can’t prove it.
If it is “normal” though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that’s not proven, but we think it’s the case
Whenever I think about the possibility of a Multiverse it just gets so unbelievably convoluted that I can’t believe that that’s how the Universe/Multiverse actually exists. Is the idea that every potential change in every atom or event in the Universe leads to all these other Universes, all co-existing, no matter how small & insignificant the differences? So we’d have a ridiculous number of Universes whose sole difference from ours is that a single atom behaved slightly differently in a rock out in the parking lot. Then multiply that by EVERY possible atom in the entire Universe, all behaving slightly differently.
That’s just physical matter, what about conscious decisions made by living things? So in one Universe I filled my bowl of cereal with X oz of milk VS another universe where I filled it with X+1 oz of milk, and so on. All these micro-decisions that branch out into separate timelines, multiplied by the number of living entities in the Universe, every second of every day.
So are new Universes just constantly springing into existence at every moment in time, connected to every atom and every living thing, just brought about by tiny differences? I write some gobbledygook here: aksfhkashdf in one universe, adshfoasfdoajsidd in another, pooigjmasiodmfas in another, and so on. Multiple universes all suddenly springing into existence based on random key presses? Universes can’t possibly be that “easy” to create can they, all that mass and energy, just poofed into existence, and it’s constantly happening every second? Is mass, energy, and space just meaningless?
Or is it some other more basic set of differences describe the universe, just the starting conditions are different, but from there, each different Universe just proceeds as is, without multiple branching timelines? I’m not smart enough to understand any of it, it just quickly gets so incredibly convoluted and complicated for me to wrap my brain around.
All the universes existed from the start. Most just haven’t diverged yet. At any given moment, there are an infinite number of completely identical universes.
The universes literally split, and some quirk of quantum mechanics makes this actually possible.
They aren’t universes, they’re timelines. All the universes are in quantum superposition with each other.
There aren’t actually multiple universes. It’s just acknowledgement of the infinite possibilities. (This is how I like to think of most quantum mechanics, tbh.)
I think a lot of people assume a multiverse works that way because popular fiction makes it look like it does. However popular fiction is using something more akin to an omniverse (idk if there is an actual agreed scientific definition for a collection of multiple multiverses so Im just using that).
Using your analogy with the donkey kong discs being different universes with slight alterations in the warehouse (multiverse). In an omniverse scenario that you see in popular fiction, next door you’d have another warehouse but instead of donkey kong discs it is mario discs, or maybe donkey kong plushies.
However again that’s all speculative of if there even is a multiverse let alone something larger than that
You haven’t disproved anything. The common understanding of multiverses typically only extends to livable multiverses, but there are infinite multiverses capable of sustaining logic and organization, just as there are infinite universes of junk data.
I have disproven that an infinite set necessarily contains every arbitrary possibility. And quite simply, too. Notice how the set of natural numbers does not contain any grapes.
Thus, the burden of proof is now on those who claim they do know what is in the multiverse. Such as yourself. What evidence do you have for these “junk data” universes?
I’m going to blow your mind with a simple bit of logic. IF the junk data universes don’t exist, then the multiverse isn’t infinite. Order is an infinite subset of disorder.
You’re talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you’re proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You’ve just abstracted yourself into a corner.
Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You’re not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You’re only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.
Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.
They’re slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?
due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.
Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except “small” doesn’t make sense in infinity — “small” just means “a less common certainty”
An infinite series of random letters would of course contain every book, that’s definitionally true.
But infinity itself does not empower the whims of the imagination (indeed this is the entire point). Yes, it is definitely impossible for the warehouse to contain a sentient race of CD people. Polycarbonate plastic simply cannot exhibit any of the qualities of being alive under any circumstances
I know I’m nit picking here but that’s the point of examining infinity, but wouldn’t it be foolish to say “there are no examples of hydrogen gas becoming sentient under any circumstances!” because, well, we’re both sentient decendants of a reaction between two or more hydrogen atoms.
Yes the conditions that led from hydrogen > helium > deuterium > … > … > … single celled organisms > … > … primates > … > … humans are incredibly complicated and specific. But what if we applied the same complicated and specific process (or an infinite variation thereof) to the CD factory. Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
This is known as an argument from ignorance. I’m not sure how familiar you are with this terminology, so to be clear, I am not insulting you or calling you ignorant. But in summary, something is not true until proven otherwise.
The conditions inside the warehouse are not similar to the conditions of the early universe or the primordial soup. You need to demonstrate a mechanism for stable, non-reactive plastic to become sentient if you assert that it’s indeed possible.
for one - it’s an infinite warehouse, so the parts of it that are near stars, black holes, planets, moons and comets are destroyed, sucked in etc, creating several stable “rare-Earth” conditions at the Goldilocks distance from heat sources, and using the debris from collision follows the same basic principle of how life on Earth started, but with melted plastic from the burned cds instead of in water. Life - uh - finds a way.
This adorable goofball grew up on the streets where she lost an eye, lost a bit of movement in one of her hind legs and was shot twice before being patched up by an animal hospital and adopted by my housemate.
To the person that shot her twice, I wish you stub your toe.
When I was young (10-12) we had a family cat named Simba. Short haired. Super cool cat. We lived in the middle of nowhere so Simba would roam the countryside like… well… Simba!
That is, until he came home one day with a bullet hole in his tail. Luckily his tail was saved, but on the upside we moved after that AND it was pretty hilarious to my 10 year old self to watch him walk around with a cast on his tail.
Poor kitty. He lived a full, happy life. I miss him
The answer is that you needed a different controller layout for different games so you would grab the handles that were needed essentially allowing for about 4 different options.
The problem was definitely when everyone started realizing if you had the buttons they wanted to program them to do something and you had to get weird with reaching between.
Just let me use the university wide template everyone uses instead of having a dedicated template for your department that looks like shit, uses a shitty ass font, and integrates packages I despise. god fucking dammit
Its always bothered me that a language meant to get rid of formatting there seems to be a lot of fucking formatting. There’s no way to change the way things look outside of explicit formatting (like themes). It’s basically all formatting.
And it’s a fucking mess. How in the fuck do I make titles? What about subtitles? Why is there no paragraph spacing? What’s the point of \title if it’s completely indistinguishable from other text?
I want a markdown editor that supports math LaTeX and a ton of plugins. Markdown is dead simple for a reason.
If you had seen some of the Word documents I have, you would not joke about that. People can really f-up text bodies.
Example: one guy wanted to keep two paragraphs together. He did not know about the necessary formatting option, but he knew that chapter titles did what he wanted. So he made the first paragraph a title and just reset font, size, etc to resemble a normal text. F-ed up quite some things…
That’s just an effect of shitty software that does too much (and yes I’m advocating for a simpler Word or something. Markdown is fine for 95% of use cases.)
Guess what? I have moved my large text layouts over to HTML. Creating printed TOCs in a PDF takes some effort, but once I got that under control, it worked. Takes a makefile, though, and a bit of discipline in the HTML file, but the result is surprisingly good.
Have you tried weasyprint? It turns .html into .pdf. Then I use a script with pdfinfo with the -dests option to get the page numbers of the chapters, mixes it with chapter titles from the .html file to create a ToC, which, in turn, gets included into the .html file again - just like TeX does it.
This is helpful in an environment where inputs are either HTML or EPUB files, and output is PDF for printing, HTML for the web site, and/or EPUB-formate.
I don’t know if that person would have the intellectual capacity to actually understand the very concept of TeX: Writing a source and compiling it into a document. That idea would probably fry his mind.
I see a lot of strange takes around here, and honestly cannot understand where you are coming from. Like really: I’ve written several 100+ page documents with everything from basic tables, figures and equations, to various custom-formatted environments and programmatically generated sections, and I’ve never encountered even a third of these formatting issues people are talking about.
You literally just \documentclass[whatever]{my doc type}, \usepackage{stuff} and fire away. To be honest, I’ve seen some absolutely horrifying preambles and unnecessary style sheets, and feel the need to ask: How are you people making latex so hard?
For the image one there is an option to control if the image is immediate, or when if finds space to insert. Trouble is I have to look these up all the time…so what starts as an attempt at creating a cleanly formatted document often takes more time than messing around with a shitty editor like Word
I feel personally attacked. Brb, making presentation slides in beamer and compiling 1000 times to get the figure to the exact right pixel.
I definitely won’t make any changes to the figure later that will make me have to adjust the position again. ^Why yes, this is better than PowerPoint, why do you ask?^
If you’re trying to do pixel adjustments of figure position and changing it breaks something, you missed the point of the software package and/or are doing something horribly wrong and unsupported.
Sheesh, now I feel actually attacked a little. I was being mostly hyperbolic, but you can do really useful things with complex figures in presentations. For example: revealing elements sequentially to build up to the final figure or altering opacity of different elements to bring the audience’s attention to specific parts of the figure.
This sequencing can sometimes very subtly alter the size of the figure as you change elements, so the default positioning will slightly change from one slide to the next. Most people won’t care or notice when a figure slightly drifts by a pixel or two during these sequences, but it bothers me tremendously so I add adjustments to keep every variation of the figure aligned on the slides.
As long as you let TeX do it’s job, you usually don’t get such issues. But there are many people who mistake TeX as a “Word for Scientists”, and just make the same mistakes they make in Word because they do not grok TeX.
If you’re trying to do something on LaTeX and you find yourself wrestling with the software or writing TeX commands. Take a step back and reconsider. The reason the software is fighting you is because you are trying to make it do something it is not meant for or you’re actively asking it to do the opposite of what you stated earlier you wanted to achieve. Thus creating a contradiction of intent.
Obvious examples are using the article template to write a book, or using the book template to write a letter. It is akin to using Excel as a game engine, possible, but not easily. You’re trying to use a hammer to unscrew a bolt. Of course the tool is gonna fight you.
Take a step back and reconsider. The reason the software is fighting you is because you are trying to make it do something it is not meant for or you’re actively asking it to do the opposite of what you stated earlier you wanted to achieve.
Wise words, and true most of the time.
But goddammit is it so hard not to write over the page border? This isn’t something I should have to specifically define as bad.
You don’t generally have to. There’s a package or environment somewhere that lifted that restriction or force it by trying to do something else. LaTeX is 100% deterministic. Someone, you perhaps unknowingly, told it to put that text there while trying to achieve something else.
Remember that LaTeX is about setting rules then letting it arrange the text in a way that follows those rules. If you try to meddle into the typography by hand, forcing specifics that break the rules, you will break its behavior. If it is putting text over the margin, it is because it determined that is the only way to fulfill the totality of your instructions.
My guess is that some businesses get tax breaks from municipalities in exchange for filling office spaces with warm bodies. The idea is that people in office buildings support local businesses by buying lunch, and sometimes grabbing a pint after work.
I’m not trying to excuse this trend, in fact as an IT person myself I 100% agree with the sentiment, I’m just trying to share what I’ve been told.
It’s even simpler than that: they leased the office space and have to continue to pay that lease or else pay an early termination fee. This is basically the sunk cost fallacy. But you are right that sometimes additionally they get tax breaks for certain office space, for instance the San Francisco mid-market tax break (AKA the Twitter tax break)
This is the excuse my employer gave. So I’m to take a pay cut (gas, wear and tear on my vehicle, loss of time to commute) so I can spend more money to prop up other businesses for a tax break that is likely to go into some rich ass C-levels bonus or shareholders pocket for cut costs?
Fuuuck that. Its just another way of picking the labor class clean to the bone.
Commercial realestste makes up a significant amount of rich people’s investment portfolios. And if people stopped needing office space the property would devalue and those rich people would lose easy money.
So they have all collectively agreed to force their workers back to the office I order to keep the real estate values up and keep their investments positive.
Also rich can afford to have a investment in busy city areas while regular folk can get a house in urban areas at best. And work from home is leading people to the urban areas where rents are less.
And yeah, yeah, I’ve heard they are a pain to maintain and break easily. I don’t care, I’ll fix it every week if that means I get a balcony and fresh air every day.
I know it’s just another type of lawful evil, but if it helps, I used to work in those types of insurance claims and we denied every single one where they knew or should have known about it (and the rapists themselves were never covered).
I quit, because generallyfuck that, but part of what made me leave was the experience of gathering lists of credibly accused priests and finding their earliest accusation. Any wrongdoing after that could be considered expected and there would be no coverage for it. At the very most, we covered the person who initially hired the perpetrator, but only until the point that they should have fired them (first complaint, sketchy behavior, etc.). If they ignored or reassigned the priest into a new position with access to children, then often even that was denied.
I’ve since moved to another country, where insurance works completely differently (and the church is in nearly every country), so they definitely have a variety of policies, but at least in the US, you can’t insure expected or intended consequences with most companies, and you can’t insure illegal conduct at all.
The amount the Italian government makes in taxes should EASILY cover any restoration. I think the correct term you are looking for is economic mismanagement.
Religious monuments in italy are owned by the catholic church. If they are in need of money perhaps the pope could sell same of their golden gauntlets or their apartments in london
Dark reader is great. It can also be used to prevent fingerprinting based on your preference, as most are configured to light mode by default.
However it often makes the site nearly or completely unusable, as it isn’t (and can’t) always be 100% correct. Having dark mode configured by the site is often much more useful.
or… just lower your monitor brightness so you don’t feel like you need dark mode, which is actually worse in every way than just using the correct monitor brightness.
lemmy.world
Top