Steal. To take another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Take. To remove someone or something from a particular place.
I’m not taking anything, I’m merely creating a copy of it. I would 100% download a car if that meant cloning someone’s car for free and without damaging the original one.
If you wrote a book, and I photocopied it from the library and redistributed copies to all my friends, you can’t be mad because nothing was taken from you.
I don’t understand the downvotes. I’m justified in making copies and distributing those copies to my friends without paying the creator. Nothing was taken.
Wrong, I could get mad, just wouldn’t call it theft because it’s not.
I hope your friends like it enough to buy it if they get the chance uwu I’d be doing my best to provide a better product/service than the pirate alternative.
This doesn’t get said enough. Piracy is only damaging if I would have paid to get the thing in the first place. If I’m pirating something that I would have avoided entirely had I needed to pay, literally no one is taking any losses.
If I’m pirating something that I would have avoided entirely had I needed to pay, literally no one is taking any losses.
What does this statement mean then? Why would you pirate something if you had no interest in it? If it’s interesting enough to download, it must have been worth something to you.
I think everyone here is just trying to justify piracy because it doesn’t meet some archaic definition of the word “theft”, when in reality, the definitions of counterfeiting and unauthorized access to intellectual property are 100% met.
Yes, but for me it’s just not worth the price that the official distribution channels are asking for it. If I didn’t have a free way to consume the content, I would skip it, and I wouldn’t lose anything by doing that. There is plenty of other content to consume, a lot of it legally for free.
I’m not saying that piracy, as a general concept, results in zero losses for a company. There are people who would have paid to see a thing, who won’t thanks to piracy. I am saying that there is also a ton of stuff I would never pay to see, but would happily watch if it were free. Having some interest in a thing isn’t the same as being willing to pay for it.
Hell, there’s also stuff that I saw thanks to piracy that I wound up liking so much I went back and paid for a copy. In that sense, companies can make money through piracy. The point is that piracy isn’t taking something like theft is, it’s copying something.
What does this statement mean then? Why would you pirate something if you had no interest in it? If it’s interesting enough to download, it must have been worth something to you.
Sure. But it doesn’t mean it’s worth the asking price to me. Because I can’t negotiate on that price, my interest is effectively worth nothing to the company.
Let’s pretend for a minute that piracy wasn’t an option. In that scenario, I simply wouldn’t watch it. Therefore, there’s no potential that the company will get money from me, and there’s no opportunity for them to get money. Because there’s no opportunity, there’s no opportunity cost for the company to me pirating the content.
That’s what people are talking about when they talk about the company losing money to piracy. They’re talking about the unrealized potential income of people that would have paid for the content, but didn’t because they pirated it instead. The counterpoint to that is that there’s no way I’m going to pay for it. Therefore, there’s no unrealized potential income. They’re not out of anything by me pirating their company.
If it creates a copy of it, like a car-sized star trek replicator, sure. It wouldn’t matter who’s car you’re cloning as long as no harm is done to the original car.
I’m only 18 and I’m already so fucking tired of existing in this world, seems like everything is going downhill and I’m just gonna be forced to live in an authoritarian dictatorship world where all the air is full of toxins and the water is full of plastic
Look on the bright side: it’s not as if this will continue forever. If our infrastructure is failing as deeply as it seems, society will reach a breaking point. The real question is where that point is and making sure you reach it. If it truly gets bad enough we’ll see the return of the guillotine, maybe even literally if we’re feeling spicy
The French Revolution wasn’t what pop-history suggests. It was a genocidal civil war that killed far more commoners than nobles. There was a point where they were killing so many people, the only way they could keep up was to drown them en masse by chaining them to a barge and sinking it.
I hate thinking so negatively about the future but the more the world seems to crumble around me the more I feel like we might be one of the last generations of humans that got to experience civilisation for a long time.
The planet is dying, fascism is spreading, the tensions are rising, and everyone has nukes! woo! future!
What is the lie? These headlines are not edited in any way. Writing suggestive or misleading headlines and/or articles is a key component in manufacturing consent as headlines are by far the most important part of an article which decide even whether people will click on it.
The most consistent theme we find is that Palestinians keep being “found dead” instead of having being killed.
None of them use “killed” when talking about the little girl. I presume that’s because she survived the first Israeli attack (hence being on the phone for three hours), was assumed to be alive, and probably died of exposure as far as I can find.
That means she died of natural causes and israel was not responsible?
Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7.
One typical headline from the New York Times, in a mid-November story about the October 7 attack, reads, “They Ran Into a Bomb Shelter for Safety. Instead, They Were Slaughtered.” Compare this with the Times’s most sympathetic profile of Palestinian deaths in Gaza from November 18: “The War Turns Gaza Into a ‘Graveyard’ for Children.” Here “graveyard” is a quote from the United Nations and the killing itself is in passive voice. In its own editorial voice, the Times story on deaths in Gaza uses no emotive terms comparable to the ones in its story about the October 7 attack.
Would be more true if they stabbed the hand, because after they suggest budgeting, that employee will be put on a list and be first in line to be terminated due to being incompatible with the work culture of pretending to be shiny and happy living in subsistence.
It really is. We have to do a yearly health incentive thing that requires going through PowerPoint about certain topics. This is exactly the kind of shit.
“Feeling sad? Try a salad! Some greens are sure to put you in a good mood?”
“Grief got you down? A funny movie is sure to cheer you up?”
“Want to retire by 65? Put 70% of each paycheck into a high interest high risk account!”
Are you saying rich people don’t have problems? Because that’s far from true. Although they are less severe problems, they are one you probably can’t comprehend about some weird business shit and other stuff nobody knows about.
I’m saying when you have 9+ figures in the bank, you have no idea what a real problem is until you get so old that modern medicine can’t treat you anymore.
Money doesn't solve everything. The probably have way more issues with stalkers and death threats than any of us do, for example. Even with hired security that can't feel very good.
I can’t figure out why this is so hard to comprehend. The rich have so many alternatives that the poor don’t to any given problem, and its still so common to find the middle class rise to take up pitchforks for the richest segments.
Not true at all. Take a look at Elon musk for example. Just because he has money doesn’t stop him from being sued or keeps the government out of his ass. He gets all this negativity from the media and other things and you act like he doesn’t exist because he has lots of money. And I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it, but you are still insulting a real person, no matter how much money he has. The human brain finds ways to make small things seem big. We all need problems to thrive or else life would be lifeless and boring. If you’ve ever watched the show The Good Place, you might remember the scene where everybody is so happy for so many years that they basically became boring slugs that don’t do anything and have no emotion. To say that the rich are exempt from this is bs. They are humans like everyone else and all humans have these problems.
When you get the IRS on your ass, you lose your hair from the stress, your colon turns inside out, you get every one of your transactions scrutinised, and you scramble to deal with it while trying to still keep your life going. When musk gets the IRS on his ass, he hires the best tax lawyers in the world to deal with it, and fucks off to his private beach to sip martinis and get sucked off by whoever the fuck. If he’s feeling particularly ornery, he calls up his accountant and donates a billion dollars in “favors” and “services” to whichever SuperPAC lobbies to defund the IRS. Same if he gets sued or slandered by the media or whatever other problem you can think off. As long as it doesn’t threaten his wealth at a systemic scale, he doesn’t have to give two fucks.
As far as I see, Elon Musk is bigger than a real person. He can insulate himself from real people problems to such a degree that many of these problems dont even show up on his radar, instead being taken care of by his assistants before they get to his table. You have as much in common with elon musk as human DNA does to Onion DNA - technically you’re similar to each other in that you’re both human beings, but you aren’t even close to the same thing.
The only problems that he might have in common with normal people are interpersonal ones.
I really don’t understand how you would even arrive to “My calling is to defend Elon Musk”. I feel dirty even spending the time to write this comment.
Yea oddly, celebrities die younger and if suicide more often than the average (depending how you want to define that) person. At least in the US. So they do deal with personal problems, and even have greater access to far greater resources to deal with their problems. But life is hard, for all of us.
He said that rich people don’t know what real problems are. Look, we all have our little issues and problems, okay? I don’t think that anyone is saying that’s invalid because someone has money. But when you get into a real problem, where you have to pick between paying rent and living with a roof over your head for another month, or buying groceries so you don’t starve in your dwelling… Then you have a real problem. Go homeless and eat, or have a home and starve?
IDK. I’d probably pay rent. At least I can die in the comfort of my living room… Rather than suffer every day trying to stay warm/dry/cool/safe…
Avicci was rich, he had severe mental problems which lead to his suicide. They don’t have financial problems but I can bet they deal with similar personal problems.
Well they way I see it I literally dgaf about how much or how little money a person it’s the way they behave in society and what they contribute contribute to society that carries their value an worth to me at least. Just because Mr Jones happens to be more successful than me according to bank account, I’m not gonna be sour about it.
Succefull people are still people. They have the same emotions as each of us. Like I said they don’t have financial problems but they certainly have emotional problems, family problems, relationship problems etc.
Yes this thread is about Taylor Swift. Whether she is a good or a bad person, I couldn’t tell you. I don’t follow her.
There are good people on this world and you don’t have to look too far. Whether they have money or less is irrelevant.
Tldr; yes many wealthy people are dicks but not all.
They bitched about taylor swift CO2 emissions, but otherwise never say CO2 emissions are bad. CO2 is bad, CO2 is good, they can’t explain that. Goose angry!
What is the square supposed to be proving? That astronauts can put objects somewhere and they’ll stay there in zero g? That’s pretty much how zero g works.
They can eat whatever. Even spill drinks. Everything constantly moves towards the air ducts where liquids get filtered and solids get scraped. And sometimes you can find your lost pencil or flashlight there.
Questioning how they have fresh fruit in space maybe? Without knowing anything about the logistics I don’t think it’s improbable, I’m sure lots of what’s at my local grocery had been sitting in boats and trucks and warehouses for a good month before I see it.
The orange slice appears to be balanced on its peel the way it would in gravity. But the ppl probably just placed it that way because that’s what they’re used to
There’s a clip that regularly goes around the internet of an astronaut doing something like drinking a glass of water and they just let it go and are shocked when it drops. I’m sure the same thing happens in space when they set something down and not perfectly still and it kind of floats away.
A distinction without a difference. Religion produces demonstrable harm to many people. To be religious is to be an extremist. The entire idea that a being from your imagination should influence my behavior is whack.
Again, can you tell me how if you are not religious, how is religion influencing you? And how is your opinion different than any other religious extremist who also claims that anyone who doesn’t follow x religion is bigot? It’s the same thing where everyone is just hating everyone else who doesn’t share the same belief, except being an atheist somehow gives you a free pass to bash on everyone else’s belief, you all then should not be complaining if anyone starts saying all atheism is extremism
Edit: I am gonna clarify that I personally don’t think atheism itself is extremism, anyone has the right to chose what path they think is correct
Religion teaches and reinforces bigoted and anti-science views, generally. Yes, there are good people that reject this basis of their religion, but religion itself has done far more harm than good.
Please provide sources for your claims, what religion you want to believe in is a different topic, read the books of all the major religions and see how many and which one of them is ‘bigoted’ and ‘Anti-Scientific’
If you are not gonna do that, atleast not fire such claims because you yourself don’t have the knowledge.
All major religions reject science by asserting the baseless claim of divinity. They propose a foundational divine, without any proof. This is anti-science.
As for being bigoted, quick examples are Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions supporting homophobia, transphobia, sexism, strong gender roles, and more.
You’re putting words in my mouth, lmao. I explicitly separated Religious people from Religion itself, and you’re tying them together as slander.
Religion has done more harm than good as it has been the foundation of racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, rejection of science such as Evolution, and more. Religious people can be good, and have done good things, but Religion itself is harmful.
I respect people’s rights to practice, but I don’t respect Religious people using religion as justification for anything bigoted, anti-science, or generally harmful.
It’s right there in the title of Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
It’s human nature to fight each other, and the tendency towards extremism is universal.
I did not claim religious people were uniquely racist, only that religion supports and reinforces racism. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and actually answer my actual points.
Human Nature is a naturalistic fallacy, and is a way to avoid actually addressing whether or not religion assists and reinforces racism or not.
foundation noun foun·da·tion 1 : the act of founding here since the foundation of the school 2 : a basis (such as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported the foundations of geometry the rumor is without foundation in fact
Technical arguments don’t change the fact that Darwinism is inherently racist.
It’s certainly not the only foundation, but it is a foundation.
Darwinism is not inherently racist, race isn’t even real, it’s a social construct. You’ve been doing Nazi apologia, intentionally or not, by attempting to tie Hitler to actual, sound science, and pretending the science must be bad.
On the contrary, this entire convo you’ve been diligently trying to claim I was saying something I wasn’t, then mouth off about how Darwinism is racist because the Nazis cited Darwinism as justification. You’re dedicated to deliberately misinterpreting and derailing all conversations here.
Something about my religious leaders wanting to strap electrodes to my junk and torture me for being gay has given me some strong opinions. Don’t you dare dismiss my experiences as invalid, I’m fighting terrorists here.
And there’s the problem with the idea of extremism to begin with. It’s only extreme because too different. The idea of extremist ideologies is inherently conservative, and really we should be judging ideologies by how they negatively or positively affect people.
Imagine the following scenario: you meet someone in college, and when you graduate at 22 you don’t want to split up. They say sure, let’s live together, but we need to get engaged; if it doesn’t work out we can just break it off. After a year you realize your lives are much better together. You decide to get married but not to have kids until you’re 30. If it doesn’t work out you can divorce, but you sign a prenup and at least no kids would be involved.
If you both have clear and compatible career goals, that scenario saves you a lot of dating drama and gives you valuable support. I wouldn’t call someone in that scenario “weird.”
Yeah I’ve noticed at least a lot from my high-school group that dating for about 4 years is a good amount of time, me personally and a lot of close friends seemed to have hit their hardships in a relationship around that 4 year mark. Also moving is a good test about how you do in stress haha
Our way of surviving furniture assembly is for him to Go Away And Let Me Do It, because I can follow directions and he just tries to slap things together without looking xD
I love my husband! Knowing when to just let the other person get on with shit is a pretty good litmus test, I agree, lol.
I just don’t get this. I’ve never had any issues putting together furniture or dated anyone who had trouble with it. I can’t think of a single ex where furniture assembly was an issue.
I think furniture assembly is more about being able to work together for a common goal and communicate what you need the other person to do and listen to what they need you to do.
For some reason a lot of people struggle to assemble ikea stuff (I honestly don’t know why, I’ve assembled dozens of items and it’s not rocket science). But there’s definitely been moments when I’ve been assembling some shelf and need my wife to assist with a two person step. If the assembly has been frustrating you have a really good test of how well can the two of you communicate through frustration and work together.
So maybe you are great at ikea assembly and don’t have the frustration factor, or you are a wonderful communicator and listener. For a lot of people though it’s that “this is the 12th step, I’m annoyed because I did the 9th step backwards and had to undo some shit, I’ve stripped this fucking screw… I’m gonna slide this piece and you need to guide it past the shelves, past them, you see how it’s hitting the fucking piece of wood, I need it not to do that!!!”
You probably shouldn’t marry everyone you can build a shelf with, but if you can’t effectively communicate when frustrated doing something trivial like building a shelf with someone you should work on that before tying the knot.
My wife and I have put many IKEA pieces together over the years, and she got her license at age 24 after I taught her to drive stick. We’ve been together 24 years, this coming Friday.
I think the main point here is people around those ages aren’t fully capable of making those kinds of decisions in the first place.
There’s a reason why most marriages end in divorce after all.
Get married before you have a clue. Get a clue after being married a couple years. Get a divorce because you realize you had no idea what you were doing.
lemmy.world
Top