Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !tvtoohigh
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !tvtoohigh
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !tvtoohigh
Naw it’s a sweet love story with a standard loss ending.
Rose’s motivations are primarily driven by her desire for freedom and independence. She feels trapped by her wealthy but oppressive family and her engagement to the controlling and wealthy Caledon.
She’s looking for a way to escape her life and find her own identity. This leads her to a deep emotional connection with Jack. Her motivations are centered on breaking free from the constraints of her upper-class background and pursuing a life of her own choosing, which ultimately culminates in her decisions and actions throughout the film. He represents everything she’s yearned for.
That said, on that specific night, women were lucky the patriarchy was still in place, as ladies first chivalry, based on the idea that women were objects/property to be cared for rather than individuals who could/should fend for themselves, still applied and well over twice as many women were given seats on lifeboats as men, which would be seen as really patronizing today.
It’s just once they got back home they still weren’t allowed to vote, grow professional careers, get equal access to higher education, own their own property while with a man because of coverture laws, be allowed to play in athletic sports or form leagues, hold any real position of political power, get a divorce easily to escape abusive relationships, allowed to be legally raped by their spouses as much as he wanted while having zero reproductive rights, etc.
Just some give and take for that one day for some unlucky dudes, as you put it.
…it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the dismissive retort of the person I was responding to…the tone of which was meant to convey the ridiculousness of the statement, which they heavily edited to be far less sexist, to their credit.
Also how would you like me to not recognize the disparity imparted by their “genitals” in a comment discussing how the people with openings for genitals were allowed special treatment at this time, and less so at later times. It’s literally the entire context.
How dare you combat my dismissive humor with well-said, thoughtful arguments!
I’m gonna upvote your comment, but while I do, I’m gonna be thinking about the words you said and how I’ve also allowed a misogynistic bias cause me to overlook Rose as the three-dimensional character that she is and it’s all your fault!
I would argue that next step YouTube is going to pull is just in time video mixing where they will overlay add on top of your video. This would make adblockers unable to block since it’s indistinguishable from regular video. However efforts like SponsorBlock would become dominant way of blocking ads. At which point YouTube will probably resort to preventing skipping video while ads are playing.
At not poing will it occur to them all of that is a waste of time and that there are smarter ways to earn money without gouging people’s eyes out. At the moment this is not happening because it’s too CPU intensive.
They could also disable viewing while not logged in, they count the minutes you’ve watched content vs the minutes of commercials that content was supposed to have and block your account.
I think there’s an addon for Twitch that died exactly that. It switches to a different feed when Twitch tries to play an ad, then switches back after it’s done.
I think there’s no tenable solution unfortunately, but for me personally, as a viewer, I’d be happy to watch a single start video ad if I knew a half decent proportion went to the creator.
But with the way YouTube is to the creators, how unfair and unbalanced they are with copyright, the clear vision that they’re not doing things for the people but for corporate (removal of dislike count), I have no guilt continuing to block ads and essentially give the finger to the platform.
Once all the major creators I watch move to a better platform, I’d be rid of YouTube entirely in my life and I hope that’s what happens on a major scale.
Plenty of ways. Targeting your most intensive tech crowd is not the way to do it. You want the masses that don’t actively try and block their stupid ads. This will eventually bite them in the ass harder then it’s currently doing.
Just like GMail is bringing them money. Initially it’s not obvious but then you realize because of it they dominate the search market and have a service which most people use to lock themselves in. That then extends to Android, etc.
That’s my point, GMail made no sense initially. All the other email services had free tiers with bunch of ads or you could get GMail for free. Everyone wondered how this pays off for Google, but in enough time it becomes obvious.
Google is no stranger to killing their own services. The fact they are not killing YouTube means it holds value even if it’s losing money.
Gmail made sense for Google when it was released. No one questioned it as there were already several other players in the market. The only real selling point at that time was Google offering 1 GB of storage for free with ads while other services were offering less. That other services switched to meet Google’s number rather quickly was more a sign that Google priced storage per user better at the time while other services had kept their legacy storage allowances.
This patent is borderline “there are 4 lights” shit. What’s to stop the ‘passcode’ from being “I sure am hungry, let’s get mcdonald’s” and pavloving the general population?
That's absolutely the point. The goal of most marketing is to worm into everyone's brains so when they think of a need, the product is their default. This doubles down on that by trying to generate a need through action.
They wont. But if they did, it would be an interesting political move. It would demonstrate unambiguously that:
they have nukes (everybody sorta knows, but its never been confirmed)
they are willing to use them in anger against their enemies (only the second country to use them agains enemies)
they are willing to engage in a first strike (many countries are cimitted to not being the first to send the spicy boi)
they are willing to use them against a non-existential threat (many countries intend only to use them only when faced with, or after experiencing annihilation)
they are willing to use them on their own doorstep, to the peril of hostages, enemy civilians, and their own citizens/fisheries/farmland in the region
This would be such a radical nuclear doctrine that it would genuinely give all arab countries, and Iran, pause to consider their own safety.
If Israel used nukes on Gaza it would mean that the gloves are off and there’s nothing stopping Russia from deploying nuclear munitions in Ukraine or other nuclear backed states to use it in conflict areas.
A change in nuclear doctrine of one state doesn’t necessarily mean another will change their doctrine too. For example, Russia and India have a No-first-use policy, but the US and Pakistan do not; they reserve the right, in their doctrine, to use nukes whenever they see fit. The UK has a doctrine of first strike ambiguity, meaning that their adversary wont know whether or not they are willing to strike first until it starts raining MIRVs - or not.
Those yachts provide jobs for the yacht builders and yacht operators of the world. Society needs these things far more than other things like basic human rights and dignity
Gotcha. I’ve always seen myself as a centrist, not particularly anti capitalist, just into safety nets and less car centric infrastructure.
Nowadays I get called a commie for talking about public transit, I’m a commie for the work comment, list goes on. I don’t buy into your red scare bs guys, if that stuff makes me a commie then I’m a commie les fuckin gooooooo
Ah, yeah, I used to be a social democrat too, but I did a lot of reading and I came to the conclusion that social democracy isn’t really politically sustainable without the threat of communism, and it really isn’t economically stable in the same way capitalism isn’t as laid out in capital (which is a good read btw, very dense but worth reading for the economic analysis)
We do want adress systematic issues, just in the right communities. When i visis memes i wanna see funny memes. In dankmemes i wanna see dank memes. In NCD i wanna see non credible military stuff.
Although it sucked so much if you were downloading something like a large (for the time) game and had call waiting or someone picked up a phone in another part of the house. 3 hours down the drain.
Definitely, but there was a time before them. A dark and evil time when your world could be destroyed by a guy calling to sell gutter cleaning services.
I had one, I forget its name, but it was a firewall AND download manager. Bizarre combo if you ask me but it was pretty cool. Its logo was a lightning bolt I think.
I came here to say that. They start in September, so we’ve got a little less than a year. Though, I do wonder how a true first contact would affect us.
I do wonder how a true first contact would affect us.
A good chunk of the population would not believe it was true (the gov conspiracy crew), while another section would not believe it was just happening now ( the Roswell crowd)
Another section would believe it was the bible end of days and the aliens are Satan and his demons.
Well, I was thinking about Trump's plan to make homelessness illegal and offer "offenders" the option of moving to a rehabilitation "tent city". It seems like an eerily similar plan.
What’s weird is that I’m pretty sure I’m not from the mirror universe, but sometime right around the time they had that supermassive hadron collider accident, the world started getting bizarro. I think either our universes fused, or I got caught in a temporal anomaly and ended up here.
Yeah Gene Roddenberry could see the direction capitalism was taking humanity, his optimism was that enough of us would be able to survive the collapse and we would rebuild better in its aftermath. That part remains to be seen, but Star Trek has always been collapse aware.
I think anyone who grew up heavily using the internet in the 90s/00s is inoculated against ads as a survival mechanism. Back in those days, clicking ANY sort of ad was a good way to get a virus or spyware. I learned to avoid ads at all cost and, to this day, I’m distrustful of any ad I see.
This is true even today. Ads are shady af and even the top link on Google is often a literal scam/virus. Ie for years if you looked up the most popular game client for runescape - runelite - the very first link was a fake version that stole your login info. They paid Google and Google said ‘not my problem’. Not to even mention ads on other sites like Facebook. Even in the cases where an ad isnt a blatant scam or virus, ads are inherently dishonest by design and there is no consequence for using them to lie about your product.
lemmy.world
Top