There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

lemmy.world

OneLemmyMan , to nostupidquestions in What is the thing that resembles a camera shoe under the handset holder found on telephones with a handset used for?

could had posted a picture of a horse it would be just as helpful but a lot funnier

pinkdrunkenelephants , to lemmyshitpost in It's like a foodie version of a fleeting love story.

Those are mobile restaurants run by kitsune who cross dimensions to serve a variety of clientele. You just happened to have stumbled inside on the night before they left to another realm. Consider thyself lucky, mortal, for their food is god-tier

GrammatonCleric ,
@GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world avatar

🤘🏻🦊

Pandantic ,
@Pandantic@midwest.social avatar

New reality headcannon. And if this is a simulation, why not?

JustMy2c ,

I’ve heard if you take a plane, the simulator gets twisted around a bunch and you can experience some Real Shit.

LordKitsuna ,

Oh I saw that one on nhentai ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Custoslibera OP , to memes in Now let's not go making this a habit...

I’d really be sad if Donald Trump died tomorrow.

tacosanonymous ,

lol. Unfortunately, it would be Jimmy Carter or something. This is not the worst timeline but it’s definitely one of the more cursed ones.

empireOfLove ,

It would be OK to be Carter though since the dude’s almost 100 and has done enough good in his life to deserve a final rest. Man’s absolutely based.

drcobaltjedi ,

Hus wife also just passed away they were together for ~70 years. Lets face it here, its also roughtly his time too.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Only supplied arms to Indonesia so they could commit some light genocide; Great guy.

Perfide ,

Well fuck you, NOW it will be. You overrid their spell on Trump and redirected it to Jimmy by mentioning him.

tacosanonymous ,

Well, I’ll mention Putin then.

GrammatonCleric ,
@GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world avatar

I think you have to type it in blood or something

ElBarto ,
@ElBarto@sh.itjust.works avatar

Nah it seems to work through low effort memes, a highly efficient assassination tool.

name_NULL111653 ,

ᛞᛟᚾᚨᛚᛞ᛫ᛏᚱᚢᛗᛈ

Ranvier ,

Nononono, you’re doing it all wrong. The dude in regards to kissinger wrote something like, “when will that bastard finally die?”

Holzkohlen ,

Trying reverse psychology on death itself? Bold

Baphomet_The_Blasphemer ,

I would be sad if he died tomorrow. He needs to face the consequences of his actions, be tried, convicted, and sentenced to show once and for all the “elite” also must play by the rules… then the fucker can die.

EmpathicVagrant ,

Look at who he idolizes. If he ever truly believes he’ll have to face consequences, he’ll run away and then off himself before he’s caught.

gmtom ,

Please no. Could you imagine the never ending flood of conspiracy theory bullshjt from the MAGA morons when Trump dies?

SangersSequence , to aboringdystopia in Keep in mind that social security is set to run out in 10 years time.

$168,600

That’s the cap. It is clearly and obviously only benefiting the rich. Absolutely insane.

stevehobbes ,

It also benefits the upper middle class. And middle class in HCOL areas.

It should be adjusted based on cost of living.

Making $150k in NYC is like making $50k in middle america.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

I literally do not care about the upper middle class.

stevehobbes ,

👍

Good_morning ,

Is this accurate?

meliaesc ,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • jimbo ,

    I think you’re missing the point. He wasn’t saying that $50k is a lot in middle America. The point was that $150k in New York is also not much money.

    Showroom7561 , to mildlyinfuriating in Difference between first and third world countries.

    While Bill is right that AI could offload a lot of work off humans, it will never be used for the good of workers. EVER.

    Companies will use AI to replace workers, not make the lives of their employees better.

    This is what every technological advancement, from electricity to automation, has resulted in, and I expect nothing less from a capitalist society. Companies always win, CEOs always get richer, and everyone else loses.

    EatYouWell ,

    This isn’t necessarily true. Our company is leveraging AI to take a process that currently takes 18 months down to a few weeks.

    Yes, the people who do the 18 month process think it’s going to replace them, but it’s actually going to let them do all of the other things that get shoved on the back burner and never get done.

    0ddysseus ,

    You’ve just said the same thing but you don’t understand.

    Reducing that job from 18 months to a few weeks frees up workeder for other tasks. That means nobody gets hired to do those other tasks and people who would otherwise have good jobs have nothing.

    It also means the people Stoll there can be easily coerced into working for lower wages because there’s a line of people at the door who will happily work for less since they’re currently unemployed.

    That’s what replacing workers means and that’s the effect of labour reduction. It puts power into the hands of the owner of the tool instead of the people who use the tool to generate cashflow.

    This is capitalism - the one with capital exploits the many without, all backed up by the exclusive right to violence of the state which is owned and run by the capital owning class.

    rbhfd ,

    Do you think farmers should not use any tractors and pick their crops using manual labour?

    That would also create a lot of jobs.

    P1r4nha ,

    The problem is that better wages, better working conditions and fewer hours were never a result of technology freeing up workers, but strong labor movements. The technology only allows capitalists to keep increasing productivity without letting it cost them more.

    So tech isn’t bad. Farmers produce more food, which is good as we need that. But yeah, as a farmer you’re not looking at a growing labor market.

    0ddysseus ,

    Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.

    0ddysseus ,

    Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.

    Showroom7561 ,

    I think you just proved my point.

    18 months down to a few weeks. That’s great, for the company.

    But, did anyone get 17 months off or get paid 17 extra months for doing the same work that would have taken 18 months? I don’t think so.

    You got extra work but didn’t get paid for the extra time it would have normally taken to complete the task.

    See, what Bill said can’t actually happen, because people are paid for the time or work they produce.

    How would an employee be paid for something that AI did? Capitalism won’t let this happen.

    EatYouWell ,

    I did not prove your point at all.

    I’m not sure why you think employees should be compensated for the productivity increase that’s created by products the employer is paying for. AI is just a tool, like Excel.

    Mister_Rogers ,

    People far too often argue "Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/etc. is the best economic system, because blah blah blah". Anyone that has played Civilization and has half a brain cell can tell you that there is no single best economic system, as it's so heavily dependent on the structure of a country, current levels of development, and many other factors.

    I have always said, that capitalism is very probably the best economic system for rapidly developing countries in a state of industrialization (there was obvious horrific cons to this, but the complexity of discussing the use of slavery, child labour, land repossession, genocide, etc., is a conversation beyond the scope of this simple remark on economics. Consider the dominance of France, Britain, and Spain in 1800 and compare it to the juggernaut that the US became in the next 100 years by 1900, and the benefits of relatively unfettered capitalism during industrializing periods, should be readily apparent given that colossal level of growth from a sparsely populated and undeveloped country in it's infancy in the late 1700s-early 1800s) and is probably the best economic system for this, BUUUUUUT commensurate with the level of automation, and computerized work roles within a society, a more and more heavily socialized economic system makes sense to stymie the accumulation and sole ownership of the automated systems by the wealthy few who profit off of it, while job opportunities dwindle for the rest.

    The world needs to socialize more heavily, and fast, the US is in a particularly precarious spot. The number 1 job in nearly every state is truck driver, and there are already autonomous trucks on the road today. Between AI, and autonomous vehicles, we will see what happened to jobs in the automotive sector from 1950-2000, in industries like taxis, truck driving, coding, graphic design, journalism, and much much MUCH more in the next 50 years, and the US is not ready for it's job market to do country wide, what happened in Detroit. The wealthy owners of these automated machines, and AI systems filling these job roles will become richer off of them, while the rest of the country struggles. Heavy socialization, alongside reduced work weeks and either subsequent massive increases in minimum wages, or guaranteed basic income will be a necessity for coming generations to not exist in poverty.

    radioactiveradio ,

    Also reduced pay, cuz “AI is doing all the work”. They’ll hold that over your head every time you mess up.

    an_onanist , to aboringdystopia in The state of the discourse.

    And if it turns out that the accusation Hamas was using the basement as a command post is true, is that the new bottom?

    yukichigai ,
    @yukichigai@kbin.social avatar

    I mean what's worse: using a human shield, or deciding "nah fuck them kids shoot through them anyway."

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?

    257m ,

    Hamas barely has any power against Israel and two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing children is off limits period. Dosen’t matter who is hiding behind them. Also the children are not Hamas’s kids. If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    Hamas barely has any power against Israel

    Indeed. It would be nice if they would acknowledge the reality of their situation. Maybe they would release the hostages, lay down arms, and sue for peace, if they acknowledged as you do that they don't have any hope against winning against Israel with violence.

    the children are not Hamas’s kids.

    The children that they hide behind are Palestinian children. Hamas is the government of Gaza and every citizen there is under their jurisdiction and control until they are deposed; i.e., "theirs."

    two wrongs don’t make a right

    War is always ethically shitty, but I see no other option for Israel at this point. If they don't meet violence with violence and achieve meaningful objectives to keep themselves safe in response to Hamas' mass slaughter, it's just begging for more of the same in the future. War is what happens when deterrence fails, perhaps this will serve as an example to those who would consider attacking Israel next time of the consequences.

    If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.

    Israel's intention is not to shoot children being used as shields. It is to neutralize the one shooting from behind them, even if there's significant risk of hitting a human shield. This devalues the strategy and discourages such people from using human shields in the future. It's the same reason one does not negotiate for hostages, it encourages future hostage taking. You let this be a viable strategy that deters reprisal, expect more of it.

    257m ,

    I don’t want to flame but I am just going to put this here: A person was faced with the choice to kill a innocent child or not do anything. They chose to kill a innocent child. Doesn’t matter who is behind them you still shot to kill the child. They deserve to burn.

    GingerHobbit ,

    Kill a child or watch the person behind the child kill your child. Ftfy

    257m ,

    No you killed a child period. This has nothing to do with your child dying. Killing a child dosen’t stop your own child from being killled.

    Ethanice ,

    Except in this situation, it literally can stop your child from being killed.

    TigrisMorte ,

    Only in your imagination.

    burchalka ,

    For strangers arguing on internet it’s a mind game. For some IDF soldiers it’s a messed up reality, and their daily struggle

    TigrisMorte ,

    Something about two wrongs...

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Hamas barely has any power against Israel

    I mean this is demonstrably untrue considering the attack where they killed and kidnapped hundreds of innocents.

    That doesn’t make Israel’s response even remotely justifiable of course. But Hamas is not some plucky rebel group throwing pebbles. They’re dangerous and need to be removed from power in a method that doesn’t kill babies.

    bjornsno ,

    Yes? What kind of question is that? If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?

    DarkGamer , (edited )
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?

    Yes

    Nice of you to value their citizens' lives above your own. I doubt that will be much of a consolation for your countrymen that you're willing to sacrifice to violence. Expect more human shields in the future now that you've proven the tactic so effective.

    What kind of question is that?

    A moral dilemma.

    If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?

    If you answered no to that I'd say you're honestly assessing the grim realities of war, where the goal is to pacify the enemy without sacrificing your own people, even if that may result in collateral damage.

    14th_cylon ,

    Nice of you to value their citizens’ lives above your own.

    the question wasn’t about your citizens, it was about your kids. which makes his answer even more laughable.

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    For purposes of this conversation you can use citizens, civilians, and children interchangeably. All are examples of collateral damage, and many of Hamas' human shields will fit into multiple categories.

    14th_cylon ,

    For purposes of this conversation you can use citizens, civilians, and children interchangeably

    no, you cannot, read the conversation again.

    most people have closer relationship to their own kids than to some other random co-citizen. so if some clown claims, for a sake of his argument, that he would be willing to sacrifice his own kids to protect… literally anyone else, you know he is a moron, or a liar. or both.

    All are examples of collateral damage, and many of Hamas’ human shields will fit into multiple categories.

    sure, but that was not the point of my remark.

    14th_cylon ,

    really? you would let them continue killing your kids? tell me you don’t have kids without telling me you don’t have kids 😆

    bjornsno ,

    How good of you to put words in my mouth. I would not kill your children if you killed mine. You’re fair game but I’m not gonna shoot your children and any other children nearby to get to you. This is not a tricky moral question.

    14th_cylon ,

    question was:

    What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own?

    and your reply was

    yes

    albeit with a question mark, but you followed by explicitly refuting the “no” answer

    If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?

    what exactly am i putting in your mouth?

    bjornsno ,

    I don’t know how to explain to you that it’s wrong to kill their kids even if they’ve killed your kids. Especially when you seem determined to misconstrue anything I write.

    14th_cylon ,

    even if they’ve killed your kids.

    they have killed your kids and THEY ARE GOING TO KILL MORE YOUR KIDS.

    when you seem determined to misconstrue anything I write

    i am literally quoting you. what is there to misconstrue?

    bjornsno ,

    Your still don’t get to kill kids! I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand about that or why you want so badly for it to be mostly justifiable to kill kids. You’re saying that because of how morally heinous it is to kill kids you should be allowed to kill their kids. Do you not see that?

    You quote me and then you attribute meanings I don’t profess. I do not say you let them keep murdering, I say you do not get to murder children to stop them and frankly again why the fuck do you want to?

    14th_cylon ,

    Do you not see that?

    i don’t see that because that is not what i said. you should learn to read. i said i will do anything to protect my kids, even if it means killing yours. i will not protect your kids at the expense of mine. if there is a way not to kill anyone, great. if not, well, bad news for you - you probably shouldn’t have commited terrorism and then hide behind your kids.

    I do not say you let them keep murdering

    x

    I say you do not get to murder children to stop them

    eh? what? you don’t say A, because you say A?

    bjornsno ,

    Holy mother of cognitive dissonance… But let’s set that aside because at least you said that if there’s a way to avoid murdering children, great. Israel has one of the largest, most technologically advanced, highly trained armies in the world. Their whole rhetoric right now is that Hamas is hiding in tunnels and caves under ground. And that they know where the entrances to these tunnels are. You’re trying to tell me they can’t get to those tunnels with their fancy military without murdering thousands of children first? Because your last sentence there is clearly meant to say to me that there is definitely no way to stop Hamas without murdering thousands of Palestinian children.

    It simply is not right. Your stance is that murdering children is ok sometimes. It is not. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that it is not, and I don’t know how to.

    14th_cylon ,

    Israel has one of the largest, most technologically advanced, highly trained armies in the world. Their whole rhetoric right now is that Hamas is hiding in tunnels and caves under ground. And that they know where the entrances to these tunnels are. You’re trying to tell me they can’t get to those tunnels with their fancy military without murdering thousands of children first?

    you really should offer your brilliant tactical analysis to the army, i am sure they can’t wait for it, your talent is lost just arguing on the internet.

    It simply is not right. Your stance is that murdering children is ok sometimes. It is not.

    who sows the wind, reaps the storm. if israel let this go, it will result in more dead children in the future as well. war is messy and sad business and there is no way out of this that would result in zero dead children. it would be nice if there was one, but there isn’t. if you have one, your nobel peace prize is waiting for you.

    bjornsno ,

    Thank you for the snark, really appreciate it. Obviously you can’t be convinced that child murder is wrong no matter who does it, and I simply can’t see a way forward in this conversation if that’s the case.

    14th_cylon , (edited )

    that’s the problem right here. it wasn’t snark. if you have a way to deal with this without any collateral, lets here it.

    otherwise you are just a holier-than-though shouting “killing kids is bad”. yes it is. everyone knows that. so what is step 2 in your plan when you are done shouting? there is a step 2, right?

    14th_cylon ,

    so… no step 2, it seems. imagine my surprise :D

    TigrisMorte ,

    They just love their non-representative and in no way realistic strawman.

    running_ragged ,

    But they’re not. Unless you’re claiming all Palestinian kids are Hamas, and then if you are, or if your ready to punish an entire people for the actions of an extremist group, you’re committing war crimes and are well on your way to Genocide.

    So maybe a more tactical approach would be better for everyone.

    TigrisMorte ,

    That is how they justify genocide.

    yukichigai ,
    @yukichigai@kbin.social avatar

    False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children.

    Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children."

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can."

    yukichigai ,
    @yukichigai@kbin.social avatar

    My dude, you're arguing that a certain amount of shooting children is okay. If you can't see how this is a problem I don't know what else to say.

    Ethanice ,

    As are you? If they don’t take out the military targets, kids die. It’s essentially lose lose for the civilans, but one course of action leads to bot prolonging child murder.

    TigrisMorte ,

    Nope. Preemptive killing is not justifiable. No children are saved by the killing of these children.
    In fact all that is being done is assuring the next generation of terrorists.

    https://youtu.be/QkgPYFy7NM4?si=5OEjgnFd4beRTtkH

    TigrisMorte ,

    That isn't an option atm so just a pointless strawman being propped up.

    rosymind ,

    Yeah, this is the problem I’m having with people picking sides. It’s a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there’s a good side. Nah, everything’s a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all.

    There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died.

    The whole thing is out of control

    Zorque ,

    Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government.

    rosymind ,

    Sure that can change, too. I don’t live there, so it didn’t come to mind. My desires mean nothing to anyone by me- but I want the violence to stop.

    I can’t imagine that the Israeli people so close to the border are just totally fine with what happened to the civilians and likely would want their government overhauled- but again, I don’t live there. I only know what the media as told me, and I acknowledge that all that could even be a lie.

    It’s messy

    Zorque ,

    Indeed it is messy. But "removing" Hamas from power is about as easy as "removing" Bibi and his cabal from power. They feed off each other, and blame each other just enough to sway their populace into letting them stay in power.

    The problem isn't as easily fixed as "just take Hamas... and put it over there".

    rosymind ,

    Never said it was.

    I have no stakes in the game. Just an opinion

    kbotc ,

    Bibi can be removed via an election. There literally does not exist a method of removing Hamas other than violence, either from the people of Gaza or an external force.

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option.

    Zorque ,

    And the IDF will bomb as many civilians as they need to to remove them from power!

    EatYouWell ,

    True, but it doesn’t require killing civilians to accomplish. Just assassinate the Hammas leadership until there’s no one left who wants to risk it. Mossad is pretty good at tracking people down.

    Cut off the head and the body will die.

    But, that’s pretending that Israel just wants to protect itself instead of looking for an excuse to genocide.

    GingerHobbit , (edited )

    OOOoh now I understand! Just kill Hamas, it’s easy! Wish we’d thought of that sooner. Wow, war must be a breeze. No innocents ever die in wars!

    If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker. Bombing the places where the refugees are gathered, for example, instead of telling them to get out of harm’s way.

    The whole situation is fucked, and war is fucked. There are no easy answers.

    Threeme2189 ,

    Finally someone that gets it… People think fighting those terrorists is just like a computer game, where the objective is simple and doable. Just stroll on and kill all of the Hamas leaders, which are conveniently located in the same room. Cue the ‘boss fight’ music!

    They don’t understand how these people operate.

    gever4ever ,

    I mean they sometimes literally march civilians in front of their troops in active combat. It doesn’t help that their fighters are sometimes dressed as civilians, either.

    The IDF also has to guard those humanitarian corridors themselves otherwise Hamas would shoot down all those trying to evacuate.

    If Israel didn’t care about civilian deaths the war would be over on October 8th.

    jalda ,

    If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker

    In one month and a half, Israel has killed 1 out of every 200 Gazans. For comparison, the death toll in Gaza is about 11000 civilians, while the death toll in Ukraine is 9700 (in 19 months). Isn’t that quick enough to you?

    Bombing the places where the refugees are gathered

    instead of telling them to get out of harm’s way.

    …only to bomb the people who are getting out of harm’s way: nbcnews.com/…/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna1… www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/…/index.html reuters.com/…/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-…

    DarkGamer ,
    @DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

    If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker

    In one month and a half, Israel has ... [many examples of less than total war]

    Your examples are clearly designed to create outrage, but you haven't invalidated their point with your statistics or articles. Israel could have killed everyone in Gaza immediately were they so inclined. They are a nuclear power. They have access to many munitions and tactics they haven't used and probably will never use.

    IDF has been clear that they will attack legitimate Hamas targets anywhere. Yes, even under refugee camps. Yes, even in the south.


    • Jalabia was in the evacuation zone. IDF has warned that anyone remaining will be considered potential enemy targets, and according to them there was a tunnel network with valid military targets underneath it.
    • According to your link, the only source for the attack on Al-Maghazi refugee camp is Hamas, which is not credible. It has not been verified by 3rd parties.
    jalda ,

    So, we have to be grateful that Israel hasn’t dropped a fucking nuke, how magnanimous! Not to mention the little detail that nuclear fallout doesn’t care about borders. A nuke in Gaza would kill hundreds of thousands in Israel.

    The previous comment tried to argue that Israel wasn’t committing genocide because they didn’t bomb refugee camps and because they evacuated the population, and I showed that both of the claims are false. The rest is you moving the goalposts.

    ThankYouVeryMuch ,
    @ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social avatar

    Every government should be removed from power

    CarbonIceDragon ,
    @CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

    The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn’t democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It’s also move salvageable though for the same reason: there’s little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal’s at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it.

    stewsters ,

    There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that.

    rosymind ,

    That may be so, but Israel clearly has the upper hand right now. It’s within their power to put the breaks on. I understand the depth of their rage after what Hamas did, but they shouldn’t soothe their sorrow with the blood of innocents

    Potatofish ,

    If only they were at level hand, then the killing would be okey dokey.

    rosymind ,

    I dont understand your comment. What do you mean “if only they were at level hand?”

    kbotc ,

    Your comment makes it sound like you’d be hunky dory with October 7th, and then the Israeli response of they had proportional militaries.

    PersnickityPenguin ,

    That’s why you don’t pick sides

    rosymind ,

    For sure. It’s hard to know what’s true and what isn’t. All we know is what the media tells us. Hopefully we’ll know at some point

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils.

    uphillbothways ,
    @uphillbothways@kbin.social avatar

    Well, didn't take long at all to find a new low.

    Makfreeman ,

    Wouldn’t proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children’s lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf.

    tryptaminev ,

    Also the comparision isnt Palestinian children vs Israeli children. It is Palestinian children vs. grown armed men and women aka Soldiers.

    Israel could have worked with insurgencies to target Hamas specifically, without having to bomb everything to rubble. That would have risked more soldiers lives though.

    So they are weighting their soldiers lifes at a rate of about 200 Palestinains of which 80 are children.

    For comparision. In WW2 about 4 Ally soldiers died for one civillian death in the Axis and about 6 Ally civillians, mostly Chinese, Polish, Ukranian and Russian, died for every Axis soldier. So the war of total annhilation, with death squads eradicating entire villages and concentration camps for mass murder still had a much lower rate of civillian to military deaths.

    PhlubbaDubba ,

    There’s an infinite spectrum between “not shooting children” and “letting the other guy shoot yours”

    Also, this “oh we’re so much better and civilized” act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it.

    not_that_guy05 ,

    Using the hospital for anything other than helping people is a bottom. They are both trash entities.

    devz0r ,

    And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective.

    Makfreeman ,

    Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes.

    devz0r ,

    Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;"

    Eatspancakes84 ,

    Just stating that they are a military objective (as IDF does) does not make it so.

    Threeme2189 , (edited )

    What about finding tunnels, weapons, bombs and having terrorists hiding and firing from within the hospital compound? Is that enough or does Hamas need to put up a sign reading “military objective” at the entrance?

    Sparlock ,

    I mean they DID find like 9 guns and a calendar we were told was a hostage watching schedule… so yea totally needs to be nuked just to be sure. /s

    Threeme2189 ,

    They’ve found a large amount of ammunition, IED and mortar shells in bedrooms, schools, mosques, hospitals, etc. Let’s just turn the other cheek and let them use them to kill Israel’s general population. No need for an /s

    Sparlock ,

    No need for an s? So you want them to kill Israelis? Wtf.

    How about being on the side of not killing anyone? Israel has all the power in this situation, and has for decades, but they show no signs of not wanting to just clear the Palestinians out.

    And before you go all ‘but hamas’ you would need to explain the west bank.

    Threeme2189 ,

    No need for an s? So you want them to kill Israelis? Wtf.

    Is that really what you inferred from what I wrote?

    Sparlock ,

    You might need to re-read what you said if you can’t see how I got there. I can spell it out for you if you need a helping hand.

    But what about the rest of what I said? Have anything to say about that or not?

    Threeme2189 ,

    Not really, I’m kind of burned out arguing about the whole thing…

    tryptaminev ,

    Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties.

    So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder.

    kbotc ,

    newarab.com/…/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-e…

    According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital.

    tryptaminev ,

    “Israeli occupation asked the administrations of two hospitals, al-Awda and al-Quds in the north and centre of Gaza, to evacuate staff, sick people, and displaced people”.

    We are talking about al-Shifa now. Your source does not support your claim.

    CarbonIceDragon ,
    @CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

    I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one’s military operations doesn’t remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned.

    count_dongulus ,

    That’s exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida.

    Copatus ,

    Except in theory, you would want your hospitals protected regardless, even if it wasn’t a war crime to hide the military there. Because that’s where your population is vulnerable and being healed.

    Using your own population as shields is just next level. Those are the people you are supposedly fighting to protect in the first place.

    CarbonIceDragon ,
    @CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

    I don’t mean protected in a military sense, I mean protected in a legal sense, ie, assuming your opponent is bound by international law, having them forbidden from attacking those places. In a more normal conflict, it’s in the best interests of both governments to follow this sort of rule, since the military value of a hospital is (supposed to be) kept low, and each side knows that attacking medical facilities might lead to the other side doing the same in retaliation. However, this isn’t really a normal conflict, and Hamas does not act like a state (since it isn’t really, it’s a terrorist group taking on some of the roles of a state).

    letsgocrazy ,

    Both populations Palestine and Israel hate their leadership and want them gone.

    tryptaminev ,

    Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals.

    Instigate ,

    There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate.

    tryptaminev ,

    Are you implying that Israel is not a democracy and the government is not democratically legitimised?

    The coalition government is formed by a majority coalition. And people know that, so in their vote they consider the possible coalitions. Also Netanyahus coalition partners are by all acounts even worse criminals, demanding genocide in Gaza, nuking Gaza, forcefully displacing allPalestinians in the Westbank etc.

    There is a majority in Israel that voted the current government and by all means they knew beforehand what they would get.

    Instigate ,

    I’m suggesting that saying that the fact that Netanyahu is the Prime Minister is in any way indicative that a majority of Israelis personally support him as a leader is a laughable concept. He’s not elected by popular vote; he wins his own electorate and then a majority of other people who won their electorates voted him into the job.

    His party, Likud, has never held an absolute majority. Therefore, never has 50% or more of the electorate directly voted for Netanyahu or the party he represents.

    After the shit-shamble of the last five elections, Israeli voters have had less idea of what coalition would form government than they ever had. Suggesting that a majority of Israelis personally endorse Netanyahu is not reasonable.

    A Nov. 3 poll found 76% of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign. On Nov. 7, a leading pro-Netanyahu newspaper reversed its stance and ran an editorial calling for his ouster after the war. Polls taken last month show Netanyahu would lose if elections were held now.

    npr.org/…/israel-netanyahu-growing-opposition-ham…

    Sneptaur ,
    @Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

    We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie.

    11181514 ,

    Oh ok phew. I didn’t know it wasn’t a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo!

    Karyoplasma ,

    So glad Israel is the good guy here!

    umbrella ,
    @umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

    Both are trash but one has been killing for decades…

    agressivelyPassive ,

    Ehm, both have been killing for decades. Palestine consistently had about 10x the losses Israel had.

    umbrella ,
    @umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

    thats my point

    agressivelyPassive ,

    Both are trash but one has been killing for decades…

    Hm, either that is not really your point or you are remarkably bad at putting it into words.

    umbrella , (edited )
    @umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

    I mean terrorism and putting innocents at risk is bad. But this comes because of almost a century of oppression and death so it is expected at this point. You defend yourself whichever way you can I guess. I am from a colony, so I know shit can get desperate.

    You be the judge if I’m bad with words (spoiler: I am anyway) or if I just have a bad take.

    TheDoctorDonna ,

    Still not a good reason to kill babies…

    assassin_aragorn ,

    I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don’t care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can’t trade babies and children as acceptable collateral.

    bingbong ,

    Because you actually exhibit humanity

    TigrisMorte ,

    They had tunnels under it and the Israelis needed an excuse for having hit a Hospital when they were carpet bombing. So, no, there was no command post. No one shall ever be shown anything but the photos which could have been taken anywhere. None of which would change the bottom that bibi and hamas are the same picture.

    Sterile_Technique , to technology in If you live in the EU - you may also be faced with this Meta prompt. Info in text.
    @Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar
    Bishma ,
    @Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I swore off all Meta products before they were called Meta. One of the better decisions I’ve ever made.

    Bazoogle ,

    lol, saying “before they were called meta” as if that was a long time ago. That was 2 years ago.

    bayank ,

    Pepperidge farms remembers

    aluminium , to programmerhumor in Average TS developer

    I’d say its more like the gas tank telling you that you aren’t allowed to pour in brake fluid as that could lead to runtime errors.

    TrickDacy ,

    So much funnier

    hansl ,
    
    <span style="color:#323232;">tank.pour(brakeFluid as Any); // do not remove this for some reason will break prod
    </span>
    
    EinfachUnersetzlich , to nostupidquestions in Do the people in Reniassance festivals occurring in Britain also speak with faked British accents, or do they use faked French/Italian accents instead?

    What makes you think there are Renaissance festivals in the UK?

    Rakonat ,

    They just call them festivals and dress nicer.

    MindSkipperBro12 ,

    Why wouldn’t they?

    br3d ,

    Because we have a lot of history. If we’re doing an historic festival it would be more specific about the period, not just some homogeneous “past”. But that said, such festivals are quite rare anyway

    Countess425 ,
    @Countess425@lemmy.world avatar

    The Renaissance is not “some homogeneous past”, it’s a pretty specific time period: the 15th and 16th centuries.

    echodot ,

    With so many cultural and historical inaccuracies I did essentially is not a representation of any time period.

    EinfachUnersetzlich ,

    A “specific” span of 200 years?

    gmtom ,

    Yes, but renaissance fairs in the US are not actually about the renaissance. They are pretty much just “vague Ye olden days”/fantasy fairs.

    stevecrox ,
    @stevecrox@kbin.social avatar

    Thats two hundred years and would cover the end of Plantagenet reign and the Tudor era.

    Henry VIII reign happened during that period, at the beginning of your time period everyone would be catholic and at the end Queen Mary of Scotts was executed because the idea of a Catholic on the throne was unthinkable.

    The UK is littered with castles and estates, normally they focus on specific historic events which happened at that location.

    vxx ,

    There’s indeed renaissance festivals in UK.

    I’m pretty sure they pretend to speak old English there.

    H2207 , to memes in Paradox how could you
    @H2207@lemmy.world avatar

    Assuming this is about C:S 2, turning off Vsync and setting to medium graphics gets my 60+ FPS. 6800XT and Ryzen 7 5800X3D, Arch linux btw

    XEAL ,

    I read C:S 2 as CS:2…

    bittersweetsymph ,

    Same, I had to go back and reread. I was so confused.

    A_Very_Big_Fan ,

    It’s the TF2 (Team Fortress 2 / Titanfall 2) situation all over again

    Rai ,

    Diablo 2 (good) / Destiny 2 (I have so many rants)

    fakeman_pretendname ,

    Transport Fever 2, surely?

    XTornado ,

    At least on this case they have the : to difference themselves…

    MudMan ,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    I had it running at 100+ fps.

    Some of the settings there are absolute killers. Volumetric coulds is nuts. The game is 90% staring at the ground, and I lose 10+ fps with that. Ditto for transparent reflections, and the settings for global illumination on high are insane as well.

    Sure, once you tune it down selectively it looks like CS1... but it also performs like it.

    I really don't understand some of the choices they made here, either in the way the visuals work, the way the default settings work or the way they communicated it. If they hadn't come out saying it'd be super heavy and they renamed "high" to "ultra" or had an intermediate setup between medium and high they wouldn't be getting this much crap.

    prof ,
    @prof@infosec.pub avatar

    I strongly disagree. The game has massive performance issues and I’m getting 10-20 FPS on the lowest possible settings with my 2080 Super. At that point it looks worse than CS1 and performs worse.

    Also the 7 FPS or so on the main menu are ridiculous, unless they’re using my pc to mine crypto in full force.

    If they release a complete game for 50€ or 90€, then I expect that shit to be a super smooth experience, even on the minimum recommended specs, which do in fact note a GTX 980 if I recall correctly.

    So either get the specs correct, optimise the game properly or get out of the business. I’m a programmer myself and I’d be deeply ashamed if I released software that performs so poorly.

    MudMan ,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    That does sound like a setting is bugged somewhere, or perhaps like one of the problematic settings is not toned down on the low preset. It's hard to tell without testing on the specific hardware. I'm curious enough that I may install it in more devices with less VRAM and mess with the settings just to see what happens.

    I do think if they hadn't told people that performance was going to be messed up you'd absolutely assume that's a bug, given that, as you say, it doesn't match their spec notifications.

    prof ,
    @prof@infosec.pub avatar

    No one told me before I bought it, and it’s not mentioned on the steam store, see the point of the specs. So I don’t quite understand what you mean with “if they hadn’t told people”, because they sure didn’t unless you’re on that specific social media they did it on.

    I’ve watched all those feature videos before and they don’t mention that I shouldn’t get my hopes up.

    Anyways I don’t want to occupy your time and argue, in the end I’m just super miffed and disappointed because I had a free weekend for once and was looking forward to binging CS2.

    MudMan ,
    @MudMan@kbin.social avatar

    They did put out an announcement that they had "missed their performance targets", and that made news.

    It's fair to be disappointed, though. There ARE serious issues here. The game can be made to run acceptably (I went and dug up a comparable card to your 2080 and yeah, it's a 1080p30 game there, but it works). That takes significant fiddling in their advanced menu, and there are significant visual compromises to be made.

    At the very least, their default presets should have been tuned differently. That would have been free and prevented the whole "it runs at 20fps on my 4090 on low" frustration with no additional development effort. Not to say that they shouldn't be patching this up a LOT going forward, but they had tools to mitigate that they're not using, which is very confusing.

    ColonelPanic , (edited )

    2080 SUPER here too and while I also get the seriously low framerate in the menu (1 - 2 FPS for me) I also get 30+ FPS in game on medium settings at 4k (on an empty map) so I’m not too sure what’s going on with your PC unless your CPU is the bottleneck. If I go up to high settings then performance does drop down to ~15 FPS.

    I agree the performance is not great and I’m absolutely not justifying it, just throwing in my experience too. It’s mostly playable for me and I can probably live with it until it’s hopefully patched.

    Takumidesh ,

    I was playing all night last night on low (second from bottom) at 1440p and getting constant 60fps with occasional frame hiccups if I zoomed quickly or scrolled way across the map quickly.

    I have a 2080 non super.

    So there must be something else going on.

    On the very lowest settings I was getting around 80-90 fps.

    azertyfun ,

    Yeah, a 2080 should be more than capable of handling a game like that, badly optimized or not. I’ve seen people report running the game much better with way worse cards.

    However all the people I see complaining here of terrible performance don’t mention which CPU they have, when it was already the bottleneck in C:S 1… And the kind of people who don’t think the CPU is relevant information probably aren’t the kind to use a modern, top-of-the-line CPU.

    I’ll still wait until the patches roll in before buying it, but I’m also not going to trust complaints from players who don’t even know which CPU they are using when playing a CPU-bound game.

    AVincentInSpace ,

    Sorry, that’s Cities: Skylines 2, not Counter-Strike Source 2, right?

    StorminNorman ,

    Correct.

    scrubbles ,
    @scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech avatar

    These worked for me. I’m at about 10k citizens and the game is running fine. 3000 series GPU

    Pfnic ,

    I’ve the same GPU but way older CPU (3900X) and could play for 3h without issues yesterday. I noticed that the game is using multithreading way better than C:S 1. All cores of my CPU were used equally which made me think that the technical foundation seems to be solid, just too demanding for the average gaming PC. I’m on openSUSE btw

    Gabu ,

    The 3900x isn’t really way older than the 5800X3D, only 1.5-ish generations older.

    Pfnic ,

    I guess so, though I imagine the 3D cache of the 5800X3D might benefit the workload of this game specifically

    BlackVenom ,

    Vsync off, high settings, full screen windowed Ryzen 2700x, 7700xt… no idea what frame rates are but perfectly playable… Only 5k in city so far.

    Biggest complaint are the maps… Pretty but annoying.

    spacecadet , to mildlyinfuriating in the internet is worse.

    Worse than what? Paying Atlantic for a subscription?

    BolexForSoup ,
    @BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

    Whether we like the Atlantic or not, I feel like at some point if we want quality journalism we need to fund it.

    WarmSoda ,

    I agree, but

    They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize that ads alone weren’t going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn’t be an issue.

    If you give everything away for free for thirty years, Then make it worse, and then suddenly charge for it, you’re going to have a hard time getting money.

    cave ,
    @cave@lemmy.world avatar

    I pretty much agree, but I really wish we could move away from ads being literally everywhere in our lives. I’d rather them just charge a little bit more and have a better experience. It’s probably falling on deaf ears, though, because nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet.

    ZombieTheZombieCat ,

    nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet

    To your point, maybe if what we got in return were worth a shit, people would be more willing to pay. But it gets shittier and shittier, more and more inundated with ads, worse journalism with more clickbait and AI, all for prices that go up every year to multiple times per year.

    It was more reasonable when you could go to the store and pay for one newspaper or one issue of a magazine. Then if you really liked it you could subscribe. Now there’s no other option but to subscribe. Not everyone wants to be paying a bunch of separate subscription fees per month just to get decent news, and not everyone wants one hundred percent of a news outlets content. But we’re charged for it regardless. Fuck no, no one wants to pay for that.

    Maybe if it were one of the only things that required a subscription. Like it used to be. But now, almost every single thing we use comes with a subscription charge and there’s usually no other way to pay for it. It’s all or nothing. And it gets totally exhausting, aggravating, and ridiculously expensive, especially when they force you to pay for a bunch of shit you don’t need, or they charge you cancellation fees on top of an extra month, or raise the monthly price without telling you, or tack on extra charges for shit that should just come with it in the first place, etc etc.

    My point is, no one should defend the subscription model. If an outlet does good journalism, they’ll have donors. PBS Newshour, NPR, Democracy Now, they’re some of the best souces and they’re all nonprofit. And, what do you know, none of them have actual ads.

    And shoutout to local libraries to loaning current magazine issues online. I get a Libby notification every time the New Yorker comes out. And I’m sure they’re losing a ton of money because I don’t personally pay for a subscription /s

    cave ,
    @cave@lemmy.world avatar

    You make good points. I do think maybe if we never went down this road of everything being ad supported, then it wouldn’t be this bad. It is the world we live in now, though, and I doubt there is any going back to what could have been

    theneverfox ,
    @theneverfox@pawb.social avatar

    I think the real problem is enshittification. Ads are gross and annoying, but ads are sold through ad networks. The networks started by enticing sites, who built their revenue model around it.

    And with news in particular, guess which ad networks both sold ads and drove most of their traffic? Facebook and Google. And then they used this power to come up with the embedded standard that let’s them show articles without using the site, and threatened them with cutting off the user stream entirely if they fought back…

    Then toss in ISPs and later csps killing off local hosting, and hosting a website is no longer something you just do with your old computer in the basement…

    I think it’s time to make a more decentralized Internet not run for corporate profit. It’s not going to save news sites, but the main Internet seems doomed from where we are…

    Steve ,

    I can’t stand when companies double dip. I won’t pay if I still get ads.

    willya ,
    @willya@lemmyf.uk avatar

    What if it comes with one of those cologne insert peel back samples?

    Steve ,

    Then I must’ve stolen the wrong magazine by mistake.

    what_is_a_name , (edited )

    You miss the bigger picture. The shit journalism and propaganda are still free - funded by … other means . That is why magazine have tried to be free in the internet.

    You’re also operating with the wisdom of hindsight. No one knew how to handle internet publishing. We all learned together.

    WarmSoda ,

    I’m just saying what happened. History is inherently hindsight.

    stillwater ,

    Doesn’t matter how it happened, only that it is happening and everyone is disinterested in saving quality journalism.

    The fact that yellow journalism is free and quality journalism is hidden behind a paywall, and the fact that many internet people are indignant about both journalism in general and paying for it while also guzzling down exclusively headlines and third hand information in comment sections through a firehose, are what will be studied in future decades about why there was suddenly a strange and convoluted anti-intellectual movement in this era.

    GlitterInfection ,

    Regulation would be a better way to improve the quality of journalism, IMO.

    Theharpyeagle ,

    I think that would be opening a pretty nasty can of worms. I don’t trust any ruling power to decide what “quality” means for the press.

    GlitterInfection ,

    Not really opening up anything. For instance, BBC news is regulated and a lot more reliable and factual than anything in the US. And the US had minimal regulations which were removed in the late 80s and others removed in the 90s. That’s why the quality of journalism in the corporate-controlled world has crumbled in my lifetime.

    Or another way to put it: the ruling party DOES regulate the news in America, but the ruling party is the wealthy folks who own the news. There is almost no worse system than “funding” the news to get quality.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    But do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.

    BolexForSoup ,
    @BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

    NPR is funded by underwriters, donors, government grants, and licensing their content to affiliate stations. It’s actually really interesting to see how they’ve cobbled it together. So yeah it’s free for you and me but a lot of money is actually flowing back and forth.

    Point being there are a lot of ways to fund things!

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    My point is they don’t have to rely on paywalls. And I don’t know about The Guardian, but NPR isn’t trying to make a profit, which is probably part of it. Anyway, I use it for a lot of my news. It’s not wholly impartial, but it tries a lot harder than most American news outlets.

    BolexForSoup ,
    @BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

    I’m just saying there are a lot of ways to make it work!

    FireTower ,
    @FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

    Worse than it had been previously.

    sbg OP ,

    Fair point. I don’t mean to suggest that authors don’t deserve to be paid for their work. And while the article discusses Google and Amazon’s attempts to manipulate online behavior to drive up their profits, I remember a time when paywalls were a rare exception rather than the rule while reading articles online.

    Copernican ,

    That’s because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.

    bandario ,
    @bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Is anyone actually paying for it though?

    Don’t get me wrong, actual journalists deserve a great wage. I just haven’t seen much of it worth paying for in recent years. Real journalists get locked up and it looks like the rest took that threat very seriously. I’m not going to pay money to read corporate puff pieces and controlled opposition.

    Copernican , (edited )

    The Atlantic is a pretty reputable source. And I think there’s a difference between subscribing to news for news reporting like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc, vs subscribing to magazine like the Atlantic, New Yorker, or New Republic that will give you more political commentary and analysis. Both have a role to play and both need subscribers. I subscribe to the Atlantic on and off (I’ve kind of rotated between the atlantic, new republic, and the nation over time). Primary subscriptions for my household are the New York Times and New Yorker. Then I have my annual membership/donations for NPR and PBS. Gotta support the news and good political commentary. It’s holiday season soon. Subscriptions make good holiday gifts.

    ReluctantMuskrat ,

    The Atlantic often does long, in-depth stories and has proven to be a very reliable source. Their journalists have proven themselves in getting some great sources. Just in the last couple of weeks admissions by John Kelley and Gen Milley have proven stories The Atlantic broke 2 years ago with anonymous sources were accurate and credible.

    CubbyTustard ,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Maeve ,

    Yt is complaining about adblocker not being allowed. Waiting for disable unless you whitelist

    PutangInaMo ,

    Oh the irony

    Amends1782 , to memes in Your big brain conservtive/capitalist takes will be laughed at

    Cancer post, glad people are calling it out. Some of you need to get off the internet a bit more.

    MisterScruffy ,

    Please lead by example

    IndiBrony , to memes in "Oh, hi Steam!"
    @IndiBrony@lemmy.world avatar

    ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ this is the 5th time today you’ve played “Femboy Milking Simulator”

    ZILtoid1991 ,
    @ZILtoid1991@kbin.social avatar

    I couldn't find it unfortunately.☹️

    bilboswaggings ,

    But at least I can play it for free using family share

    Or just play couch co-op

    lowleveldata ,

    Sorry I’m just that energetic

    kemsat ,

    “Femboy Milking Simulator” sounds kinda similar to “vegan steak” to me.

    MinusPi ,

    Think what else the milk might be

    kemsat ,

    That’s not milk

    gnutrino ,

    Not with that attitude

    kemsat ,

    “Where’s my bonking hammer?” Said the Doge.

    balderdash9 ,

    It’s nut butter

    WhiskyTangoFoxtrot ,

    I can’t believe it’s nut butter!

    kemsat ,

    Y’all nasty lmao

    evilgiraffe666 ,

    Malk

    synae ,
    @synae@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Now with vitamin R!

    kemsat ,

    Bonk!

    TheCannonball ,

    That’s sounds terrible. That can’t be a real game, can it?

    Asking for a friend…

    fri , to programmerhumor in War Crimes

    Looks like it creates a few emoji printers in a vector, then prints them all. The output is all emoji, of course. The main function exits with a random return value just to be more quirky.

    I’m not sure what the purpose of the 😎 function is. In main that first predicate is always true, so it prints the poop emoji. I don’t know why it’s behind an if.

    Also, there’s a copy-paste error on line 31. Wrong emoji is used.

    randomuser38529 ,

    This guy emotes ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ

    CrayonRosary , to mildlyinfuriating in higher wages for the servers... by the customers. Fnbs

    All wages are paid by customers. Where do you think the money to pay them comes from? Heaven?

    The underhanded and sneaky part is that the menu prices are a lie. If they want to pay a decent wage to their employees, good on them, but they should just raise all menu prices by 18% instead of surprising you later.

    BigDiction ,

    Kids pasta shells are already $16.25. I don’t think they can raise them any more.

    MNByChoice ,

    Of course they can raise prices higher.

    Sadly, there have been studies (too lazy to find a link) that indicate being sneaky like this, instead of raising prices, leads to a better reaction from customers.

    partizan ,

    if by better reaction you mean never ever return there, then for sure…

    Kinglink ,

    You nailed it. It’s artificially deflated prices, and dishonest…

    Would be the last time I visited them.

    DarkDarkHouse ,
    @DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Upvoted, but just want to say that the payment usually goes customer -> owner -> employee. Don’t let the owners trick anyone into thinking that someone other than themerlves are responsible for paying employees.

    CrayonRosary ,

    Why though? Why does that asshole get to decide how much the cook makes, and his much the server makes? Why do I get no say in it? After all, they’re making and serving food for me, not the owner. I should be allowed to negotiate with the cook and the server and write up a contract we all agree to. The owner gets a cut, too, for providing the space, and paying for the ingredients, but the cook and server pay him out of the money they make. Don’t forget the dishwasher. He rents the dishes to the cook.

    I realized this sounds very silly and weird, but that’s exactly how contracting works. You directly pay who you interact with for the work they are offering, and if their work requires good or services from other people, they pay them.

    Why not run a restaurant like a hair salon where a cook rents a time slot and a part of the kitchen. And the server is like hiring a private courier.

    Again, its silly. I’m just saying… The whole customer -> owner -> employee relationship you seem to hold sacred is totally arbitrary. It’s a system some men with capital invented thousands of years ago. Why is it necessarily good?

    DarkDarkHouse ,
    @DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Nobody’s saying it’s good, I’m saying it’s usual. Partly because it’s simpler in this situation, but you’re right to point out alternative models. Heck, where I’m from tipping is an alternative model.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines