Satire is no excuse for landphobia, you’re still putting out problematic content that could be taken out of context and weaponized to trigger Persons of Land. Delete this
Preach, brother! I hammered in five crooked nails, slapped primerless paint on a whole door, and only jacked the rent $250 this week. The plebs don’t know how good they have it.
With rent spikes that low, you’re basically running a charity, and I bet you didn’t even hear a peep of gratitude from your ungrateful tenants. Raise those rents even higher bro, at least $100 for each nail you hammered. You deserve it for all that thankless toil.
I just searched for some of the bigger servers, opened the communities tab and subbed every community I found remotely interesting. Was about 2-3h of work.
Quick side note: you are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation full stop – it’s not protected under the equal protections clause.
That being said, the issue is not about denying service full-stop, but the right to refuse expression of values you find to be wrong. Believe it or not, these cases are important for everyone and guarantees that the state can’t force you to create messaging in support of (i.e. endorse, which is a form of speech) something you disagree with.
It’s not granting the right to discriminate. It’s protecting your first amendment right to not be compelled to engage in speech you disagree with.
For example, say I go to a bakery run by devout Muslims and request a cake that depicts a cross with the phrase “only through Jesus may you find eternal life” underneath. That baker may be uncomfortable with the idea of creating that design as it not only goes against their own sincerely held beliefs, but may conflict with some negative views they may hold of Christians or Jesus (or even the particular denomination of the customer).
That Muslim baker has every right to refuse the design of the cake on free speech grounds. Religion is a protected class in the equal protections clause, so the Christian may feel like they’re being discriminated against, but it’s the message (which is considered to be speech) and not the individual being a Christian causing the issue.
That Muslim baker cannot blanket-refuse any Christians from buying any cakes. If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause. In that case, service is being refused based on the traits of the customer rather than on the particular message being expressed on the cake.
It’s silly and I think people would be better off just accepting the work and taking the money. If I was aware of a business that made cakes, websites, whatever – but refused certain designs based on their personal views, I would simply discontinue any further support of them. I’d prefer a business who puts their own shit aside and serves whomever wants to pay them… but to compel them to suck it up and either compromise on their views or close up shop is directly contradictory to one of the most important rights we recognize here – to speak freely and without cohersion from the state.
The business owner isn’t doing anything wrong with their signs, but they’re completely missing the point of the decision and comes off as a bit silly.
This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.
Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?
You reached for a completely non sequitur analogy.
compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake
It’s not at all like that. If you’re in the business of making cakes, and if you make cakes that have people’s names on them for their weddings, and then you refuse a cake that looks like all the other cakes to a couple because you don’t approve of which two consenting adults want their names on the goddamn cake because you just think exactly only one peen should be named in their relationship, that is just bigoted bullshit, and yes, this free country should stamp that shit out and not apologize for it, and we should all burn sparklers and celebrate that this free country offers us all the same freedom to buy a cake from the already-putting-peoples-names-on-wedding-cakes baker. There is no analog there for hateful messages on cakes whatsoever.
Edit: And if I missed your point entirely, I apologize. I’m not trying to be combative with anyone, but I am trying to stop what seems like people rationalizing this situation as having anything to do with free speech. I emphatically believe that it is a shitty excuse to apologize for a clearly biased agenda from the people who wormed their way into the US Supreme Court.
Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.
If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.
Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.
Is it ok to refuse service to a mixed race couple getting married?
Is it ok to refuse service to a couple, both of whom are black who are getting married?
I think these examples are much closer to the analogies people are coming up with in this thread. Or do you think being gay is an ideology? Is being gay a religion? Is being gay like being a racist?
Or is being gay something that a person is born as? If so isn’t this a lot like being refused service because of race?
The question THIS LAW interacts with is the CONTENT of the message. If you’re providing tables for a wedding this law wouldn’t protect you. If you were asked to write something specific for the wedding and the content of the request is antithetical to your beliefs, this law would protect you, if you could show that. Not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.
Now. Is it “right” to do so? I would say in absolutely no universe. It’s morally wrong, it undermines our liberal society, and I have no tolerance for it. My point is that this particular law isn’t about whether someone is a Christian, their race, or sexuality. This decision wouldn’t protect me from writing some basic software for a nazi (others might) but it DOES protect me from building a website supporting them, or writing prose related to nazism, or anything else which would be CLEARLY against what I believe. Please DON’T read that I’m saying that being a nazi is the same as being homosexual, it isn’t, I’m not, fuck nazis.
To get back to your question: as I read this decision, a cake maker could potentially be compelled to make a cake for an interracial couple, but they might not be compelled to make a cake with something like “interracial is the only way to go”
This all sounds like the staff using religion as an excuse to discriminate against gay people. Doesn’t seem all that Christian to me, and in fact it seems like they’re taking Our Lord’s Name in vain by using it to justify their hateful actions.
But maybe they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and don’t follow the Commandments. Even if that’s the case, the business is responsible for ensuring that customers aren’t discriminated against by staff. If the business owners aren’t up to meeting that standard, then they shouldn’t be trying to run a business.
You’re right, and it doesn’t to me either, and I feel that it’s wrong, and I wouldn’t go and get a cake made with someone I know does this. I also think that you and I would agree on more than not. I’ll also add that I don’t have a dog in the religion debate here. But I still feel very strongly that in a free society it is their right not not be compelled to write something which directly contradicts their belief. I’ll need to think about this more in general, I might end up changing my mind on it, but at least for right now the right to not have to say something you don’t believe feels important to me. Let me ask you this, if an atheist baker were asked to write “Jesus is Lord” on a cake and said no, would you take issue with that? I wouldn’t; I’d argue that is a very clean first amendment right, and an important part of living in a liberal society. I also would go as far as to say that isn’t even intolerance from the atheist, it’s simply them believing something.
To your second point, while I agree that a business owner should not discriminate against a particular demographic, I’m not sure I’d go all out on any time someone says this they’re discriminating. Every religion and value system has prohibitions, and few of them are aligned. It’s possible to respectfully decline to do something as it directly contradicts your beliefs. Now if your beliefs are discriminatory, that’s a different and more complex question entirely. I’m not sure what to think about that case.
To me there needs to be a distinction between a business and a person. Sure maybe a person can’t be compelled to do something against their beliefs, but a business can’t claim to have beliefs and therefore can be compelled to do whatever the law requires.
And claiming religious beliefs isn’t a card you can lay down anytime you want to get out of your responsibilities. I mean if I claim that paying taxes is against my religious beliefs do you think the government shouldn’t be able to compel me to pay taxes simply because it’s against my religious beliefs?
There’s always an element of common sense judgement needed in the law which is why the people that do that are called Judges. So if in our best judgement these people simply don’t like gay people and in our judgement they’re just using religion as a way to trick people into thinking they’re motives are based in religion and not based off on their prejudice, then what is the decision? To go along with their trickery that’s using religion as an excuse? Or just tell them their arguments about religion is bullshitt and they have to get over their dislike of gay people and follow the law?
The problem here is members of Supreme court are willing to abdicate their responsibility to use judgement and go along with the obvious trickery because they share the baker’s dislike for gay people.
I think that I agree with you in general on your first point. A business isn’t a person, it doesn’t have a religion, it can’t have an opinion on people. But we’re talking about a small business. If someone is running a web design company, they don’t have a huge staff, they’re just one person, so their individual convictions are at play, don’t you think?
The example you give in your second point isn’t quite congruent with this case, taxes are not speech. We’re talking about speech. Now I have a personal conviction that the USA shouldn’t be spending nearly so much on the military, but unfortunately for me, my taxes, and many people around the world, I don’t have a say in the matter. If someone said something like “I don’t want to pay this tax because it’s being spent on something antithetical to my religious belief” even there, it’s not speech.
In theory yes, but what’s going to happen now, is 2 obviously gay men will go to that Muslim baker and ask for blank cake they will decorate themselves and Muslim will ask them to leave.
I definitely agree that stupid people are stupid, and they will either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand the ruling and skew it to their messed up views. It doesn’t make SCOTUS wrong in this case though.
So can the wedding website designer be sued for not selling them a generic wedding website with no mention of them being gay, that they could fill in themselves?
“If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause.”
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don’t want to.
That’s not what equal protections meant though. It just meant you can’t refuse to serve a customer based on their protected statuses like religion or sexual orientation.
If a church calls you to order a cake but you were planning to take time off work for a while, you could still say no. It was only a problem if you say “no, I don’t bake cakes for Christians”. That’s not slavery. You can stop working, nobody was forcing you. Just that when you do work, you can’t discriminate.
“If that Christian customer instead asks for a blank cake that they’ll decorate themselves, the baker must sell it to them or else they are violating the equal protections clause.”
This is an issue too though. The only person who can enforce the requirement that the Muslim Baker sell the cake is the government and the only way the government can force someone to work is through force. What you end up with is the government using threat of force to require someone to work. Which is slavery at its core. Anyone should have the right to refuse work if they don’t want to.
Nope, because then you have people saying “I won’t sell to blacks, if you force me sell them things I made it’s slavery”. And they aren’t being forced to work, they are being forced to operate under the parameters our society agreed to (via lawmaking). The baker can quit, he’s not forced to work there. The shop owner can close up shop, he’s not forced to run that business. But if the owner wants to run that business they have to follow the laws of the land which say you will serve the public, and that means all of the public.
A Baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake he doesn’t want to make. He shouldn’t even have to give a reason. Anything less than that is by definition forced labor.
What you described was not the actual outcome of the ruling.
The wedding website designer did not give them a website with no mention of being gay, that they could fill in themselves. The website designer was allowed to fully refuse them any kind of website at all. Just like refusing a blank wedding cake because the couple is gay.
The justification of the decision was not in good faith. It stepped away over the bounds of protecting against compelled speech. And they deserve to feel the consequences.
If the wedding designer has a “blank wedding site” package premade and refused to sell it to them then I don’t think that’s right. But if all of the websites are bespoke designs where the designer must create something for the couple, it’s fuzzy.
Personally, I don’t know. There is, and should be, a line between personal life and work life. But depending on what you do for a living, the line can be a thin one or a thick one.
For example, if I churn out hundreds of identical 3D printed characters and sell them at an open-air market, I shouldn’t be allowed to single out a customer and refuse business just because I don’t like the look of them. But if I’m a graphic artist, I shouldn’t be compelled to draw something that I find objectionable. Eg: I might be a woman who has been sexually abused in the past, and someone wants a sexually graphic depictions of a sexual assault (like the Guns ‘N’ Roses “Appetite for Destruction” cover).
Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes. The difficulty in interpreting the outcome of the case is trying to bring the examples closer to the center.
Can you refuse to sell handpainted greetings to someone you don’t like? No. It doesn’t matter that it’s a creative endeavour. If you created the product without coercion, and are now selling them at a stall in your local town, it’s not ok to refuse a simple transaction because you don’t like the buyer. What if you also offer a service of writing a message in fancy calligraphy on the inside? Can you refuse to write something you find objectionable? I think so.
I don’t think it comes down to who your customer is. I think it comes down to what you’re being asked to do.
WAT. I was giving extreme examples to illustrate that personal opinions sometimes have zero effect on your work, and sometimes they really really affect your work. And I specifically called out the fact that they were extreme examples:
Those examples are easy to comprehend because they’re extremes.
How the hell was that comparing being gay to sexual assault? How come you didn’t use the other example and accuse me of comparing being gay to 3d printing?
Only state actors can violate the equal protection clause of the us constitution. The Muslim bakery example doesn’t implicate the federal equal protection clause.
Metal head here who idolizes Dolly. She’s a national treasure the likes of Mister Rogers. Who has also been attacked by the right.
For those interested she’s in a couple of VERY trans positive episodes of The Orville (one just her song 9-5 and the other in a long scene as herself).
Anyone bashing Dolly hates freedom is no good. A full on poophead.
She’s also in the movie 9 to 5, which was what the song was written for, which is about three women who have had enough of their misogynist boss and get revenge on him. On top of that, she starred in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, which is one of the few films which doesn’t denigrate sex workers and actually shows them as normal people.
I was only 3 when it came out, but it was definitely a regular staple of the cable movie channels when I got older. My dad was a film historian, so we had all the movie channels so he could tape movies to show them in class. 9 to 5 would show up on occasion.
As you suggested, what an amazing cast!
Edit: Just read this on the IMDB-
This was Dolly Parton’s theatrical film debut. In preparation for her role as Doralee Rhodes, she not only committed to memory her own part, but the parts of every other role in the film. Apparently, the two experienced starring actresses, Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda, burst out laughing when Parton let on that she believed that pictures were filmed in the chronological order of a film’s script.
One of the many things I love about The Orville is that the song 9-5 became a revolutionary feminist anthem to the Moclans. And that she was sweet enough to make a cameo.
She’s all around awesome. Always helped people, always gives back. Always been kind. And a certified rock star! I have no tattoos, never seen the allure. But if I woke up with Dolly’s face tattooed I wouldn’t even be angry.
I was talking with a coworker the other day and they were talking about how raising minimum wage causes inflation because businesses will raise prices to offset to rise in labor costs. I asked if he thought inflation had gotten bad in the past 5ish years in particular. He said of course. I said well federal minimum wage hasn’t risen since 2009, which was 15 years ago, so it sounds like inflation is gonna happen regardless of wages and is based on the capitalistic goal of infinite growth, so maybe we should raise minimum wage so lower income people have a shot at affording basic necessities.
He just said no, then inflation just would’ve been worse. It’s maddening.
The response to this is that inflation is a market force working against the downward pressure of demand. There is a limit to the amount prices can go up before people stop buying altogether.
Another inflationary force is greed, funneling additional profits into the pockets of the 0.1%.
Let the inflation due to minimum wage be X, and the inflation due to greed be Y, and the maximum total inflation be Z. X+Y=Z
Of course there are other variables, but in a general sense, if X goes up, Y must go down. If X does not go up, Y does.
So yes there will be inflation, but increasing wages takes more money from the ownership and puts it into the pockets of the bottom 99.9% where it will do far more good.
And in case it wasn’t clear, this is precisely why the oligarchy opposes increasing the minimum wage. It has nothing to do with inflation, and everything to do with they make less money.
McDonald’s is not a necessity. The price went up for one reason only: people will pay it. Is it that hard to make a hamburger or go to a basic deli? You can get a better sandwich and drink at the supermarket.
They will charge what people are willing to pay, and not a dollar more. That number changes based on a wide variety of factors, but you’re right that there is a baseline necessity to eat. The thing is, food and shelter are the last lines, and we’re already seeing the strain on those.
People aren’t going to the movies, they’re not buying cars, they’re not going on vacations, and small businesses everywhere are suffering. So now, finally, the grocers and restaurants are coming under fire because they have hit the upper limit of what people will accept.
Watch as they all “find ways” to cut costs and improve their value proposition. They will try to convince you that they are in this with us, but there will be a trade off. Buy in bulk, offering the same prices that you used to get buying normal quantities. Join our discount club, with recurring fees and personalized advertising using your spending habits. Get the store brand, which is expected to be of lower quality so you can’t complain when your breakfast cereal is mostly pulped cellulose.
I have whatever the opposite of a green thumb is. We do a fair bit of cooking but rent a pretty small apartment. We started growing our herbs. The basil isn’t doing so hot (I think some asshole bugs were eating it while it was outside so we brought it in) but the rosemary is doing great! I also have a peace lily that I nursed back to health somewhat.
If I were in the position to start a garden, I would pick some pretty easy stuff to start with. A lot of vegetables are pretty set and forget so long as you defend them from critters at the start and keep bugs away. The most important factor is to grow stuff you actually want to cook and eat. Maybe make your very own vegetable tier list and then find out the difficulty level of everything that’s in your S, A, and B tiers. Then just make a solid attempt at one or two as a practice run (or proof of concept) before investing next year in what you wish you’d had this year. If dipshits could figure it out 300 years ago, then I’m sure you could do a passable job learning it and executing it in your spare time with the power of virtually all human knowledge in your pocket.
Except that they have studies that prove that they make more money when they increase wages. Tons of em since the '70s have shown that putting more money in the hands of the poor just means that the rich get to skim off even more money. They oppose thriving wages because they want suffering.
It really is absurd… It’s like basic fucking logic… You have more money, so you have more money to SPEND. Who benefits from more spending? Those that own the things we’re buying!
But no… I need more more more more and fuck you for wanting a normal life. Daddy needs another private island. Git Gud suckers, just be a CEO!
You’re confusing a rising tide with a water hose. We absolutely know that increasing wages is good for the economy, but that helps everyone. Oligarchs benefit financially from poverty, even if the economy suffers. As you said, they want suffering, because it allows them to exploit people. Capitalism is the idea that one with means can leverage their position to capture disproportionate value from effort of others. Don’t confuse capitalism with the economy. Capitalists always make money, and they don’t necessarily make more money when the economy is thriving.
Honestly, I think there’s 2 ways to think through this. Way 1: Magically the minimum wage is increased, and everything about the legislators stays the same.
This would increase inflation, as what’s causing inflation is the lack of legislation and enforcement. Thus allowing companies to raise prices and profits unchecked.
Way 2: The legislators change in such a way that it’s logical and possible to raise the minimum wage. Also logically other legislation would be passed to reduce the unchecked greed.
This would not increase inflation on it’s own, and likely would keep it to a healthy minimum.
I think most who complain about the minimum wage talks can only imagine the first way.
I’m not entirely sure why minimum wage hasn’t been anchored to inflation, but I’m sure there must be a good reason because I’m not exactly an economist and there’s no way that smarter people than me haven’t thought of that.
That’s true, but the baseline should be able to afford food and housing somewhere. Currently it affords that precisely nowhere. As a result, multigenerational homes are becoming more prevalent, children are working to help support households more, and single income families are nigh extinct. My wife and I are DINKs in a 2 bedroom apartment because the cost of houses is absolutely insane here. It’s hard find even a fucking townhouse for less than $500k lol. Most single family homes are at least $700k. At this rate, we’ll see polyamory and polygamy become more accepted because it’s gonna get to a point where only working throuples can afford shit anymore.
This is something that I actually interesting culturally. Here in the US multi generational family homes are essentially considered a bad thing, but down in Costa Rica where my family is Multi generational homes are maybe not a goal per se, but something expected as your parents age, or as your kids grow up. You’ll grow up, move out for school, to get a job, and as you get older you’ll try to stick next to your family, and eventually your parents move back in so you can take care of them.
Obviously doing this out of necessity is bad, but a fun culture difference to observe.
This companies are able to generate billions in profit every quarter, let alone every year. They have also been reporting record breaking profits quarter after quarter for the past several years. I’m pretty sure the 17 y/o Burger flippers aren’t the problem here.
I wonder how da fuq did McDonalds think that this is okay?
Setting aside all considerations of ethics or morality, from a pure greed standpoint even a very naive person could realize that if you squeeze the sheeple too much they may choose to go elsewhere rather than continue to rely on you for easy comfort food.
Do they think they have a monopoly on the market? Even just from the fast-food burger places that were included in this graphic, there are multiple cheaper options - Burger King and Wendy’s - plus Arby’s & Taco Bell and Chick-fil-a are somewhat similar.
Do they think that people will suddenly not care about where their money is going? That strategy tends to work when you squeeze (bleed) them slowly, but this kind of a sudden spike carries the risk of waking them up to how much eating there is costing them - and once they are gone, it would be very hard to attract them back.
So this strategy even looks to be detrimental to the company of McDonalds, even if good for the short-term stockholders & CEO before they jump elsewhere.
If I had to guess it would be for 2 reasons, humans don’t like change so people that frequently go to McD will still go, and that all humans need food and a bonus of less people know how to cook
It’s a scary thing to think these companies can just get away with shit like this but at the end of the day until we as a society boycott them - and I mean a legit boycott, not some 3 day reddit boycott - they’ll find any excuse to fuck us for profit
We’re also in a society now where 2 people or 2+jobs are REQUIRED for a “normal life” unless you’re a tech or finance bro. People just don’t have the energy or time to cook, fast food is often “on the way home” and saves well over an hour and effort.
I’m “lucky” that I’m single, in that I can cook a weeks worth of food in one day and there’s no one to complain about “this again?” In literally every other respect being single in this society for over a decade sucks.
People are resistant to change - like inertia - but if pushed enough, they will. Burger King & Wendy’s only went up 55% whereas McD went up twice that at +100%. McD could have kept their prices flat and gained business from them, remaining within their brand as the “cheap fast-food” option, but instead they seem poised to lose it? Well, I guess we will see.
Yeah, it is scary to see just how evil they - b/c with profits like you showed, they did not have to increase them all, so the fact that they not only did but did by that much is somewhat shocking.
When I first started in electrical work, we’d take turns with a sledge hammer. Then we bought one of these, and it cut the time in half. Now, I use a driver bit for my demolition hammer and it’s done in about 30 seconds. The driver bit also works well for fence posts, just sleeve a 24" section of EMT over it.
Man, I hate driving rods with anything other than a hammer driver. I live in the Appalachians and every damn time I hit some gigantic river rock or some shit, its never just 8’ of clay. That post-driver is a step up from a sledge like you said for sure, but imma just hop on an excavator and shove the bitch in if I can these days. Too old for the dumb shit ;)
We didn’t have one of these. Instead, I got to crouch on the ground and hold the post with my hands while my father brought the front-end loader bucket down on it. Good times.
Web in the search, AI in the search, personal assistant in your files, things in your things that you don’t want, didn’t ask for and are struggling to extract.
I wouldn’t mind that as an optional function, having a single global search field that brings up whatever you are looking for seems really convenient on paper.
Of course not the way msoft does it, where you never get the thing you want unless you are being really precise (like searching for appdata only yielding web results until you specifically type %APPDATA%).
Its even worse than that. It is completely unpredictable and just does what it want. When I type in “Vi”, the first choice is Visual Studio. It will stay on Visual Studio until I have typed in “Visual Studi”. But if I’m a fast typer, and I type in the entirety of “Visual Studio”, it opens Visual Studio Code.
So the fastest way to open up Code is to type “VSC”. This doesn’t work with “VS” for Visual Studio.
I have to type out “Spot” specifically to open Spotify. Typing out Spotify opens edge.
There are also files and programs it cannot find despite having been installed for years, even though I’ve MANUALLY added the paths to the searched directories.
If anyone of you is on Windows for whatever reason and want your mind blown, try downloading a little program called Everything. It can literally find every single program on your computer as fast as you can type. And it looks up exactly what you type in. It also supports wildcard characters etc. This is the kind of behavior I expect from my computer. Sure, make a shiny frontend for casual users who don’t need to see every single file on their system, but please, why do I have to go through third parties to get this experience on an OS that my company paid for, when I can get the same experience out of the box on any free Linux distro?
Powertoys Run is really good as well, and developed by MS which is just en extra layer of absurdism considering how bad the start menu search is. I mapped powertoys Run to the windows key and have not looked at the start menu since, literally.
I honestly thought I was the only one that has those problems. I think the thing that gets me is when you install a program, the installer closes, you don’t know where in gods name it just installed to, so you type the name of the program and windows is like “sorry never heard of it”, so you go to the programs list and it’s right there.
What you mentioned is particularly frustrating because I too will type full program names and it often switches on the very last letter. It’s even more frustrating that the user can’t manipulate the search by typing a few letters, realizing those letters are shared by two programs, and then typing a few more letters to lead it to your program without moving to the mouse. Instead it acts like you’ve added no info and recommends the same thing.
Also if you go to uninstall a program by right clicking it in start or search and instead of uninstalling it presents you with a list of programs which you then have to go find the program again in and then hit uninstall again. Been that way for 8 years now.
For about a year or two, windows had an amazing search from the menu that used a blazing fast index search to search files, directories, and file contents locally and almost instantaneously. It was a glorious thing.
I cannot think of a case in which a user would not need to distinguish between web search and file search (other than the convenience of a single click). I do use a unified search on my phone that includes files, apps, and contacts, and if it’s not in any of those, it will launch a web search using the query. That is more than adequate. If it were performing the web search in real time, I wouldn’t be able to easily access apps and contacts, and the results would slow and change while typing.
I remember that, pretty sure it was in win7 or early win10, before they crammed cortana in there and you had to start jumping through hoops to disable all the garbage they added.
As for the search results, I’m not saying the user shouldn’t be able to distinguish them; in fact the way I imagine it is that the results are grouped by category and in a user determined order of priority.
For the loading times I have nothing, that isnt really avoidable with my idea.
Perhaps with some visual trickery that fades or slides the results in over a second or two, ending on the web results. It would give the web search part time to run behind the scenes, seemingly appearing as quickly as the others.
Part of the issue with web results is that it would generally update as you type which is just a bad fit for a general menu search. I personally don’t see a place for it. If you are searching the web, you’re going to open the browser anyway. Maybe some users would use it to navigate directly to common websites, sort of like bookmarks? I don’t know.
That’s why KDE Plasma just makes the searches shortcuts in a similar manner to the !bang feature of duckduckgo. Though it’d be nice if the used ! in the shortcuts alies by default. !ddg is just more reliable than ddg.
They would exchange the currency, steal it, gamble with it, purchase with it, and even do some prostitution for it.
Edit: To people responding that this isnt capitalism, it actually is, in this case the privatized controller of wealth were the researchers distributing “payment” to the monkeys at a fixed rate, as well as having experiments where the monkeys had to pull levers before they would receive rewards either to themselves or later, altruistically to other monkeys.
You would know that if you took the time to read up on the study before responding…
I vaguely remember reading about monkeys teaming up and beating others to death if they hoard too much ‘wealth’. If that’s actually true the meme is still kind of true.
There’s no real way to hoard “wealth” as a monkey. Fruit rots. There’s no way to invest in such a society, since they don’t understand the concept of growing food. That’s why they live in family groups to control territory.
Humans lived similarly for hundreds of thousands of years. Calling the basic exchange of tokens “capitalism” isn’t accurate. It’s like calling a tribal society “communism” because people take care of their relatives for free. It’s not accurate.
It’s only capitalism when one monkey owns the means of production and starts paying another money a wage while taking the wealth they produce.
It would be really interesting if the scientists gave all of the monkeys a huge supply of walnuts, and one of the monkeys a tool to open walnuts. Would the monkey share the tool when it was finished opening walnuts? Charge the other monkeys to use the tool? Would the other monkeys beat the shit out of them and share it?
I always thought capitalism was defined by the existence of stock markets, but I could easily be mistaken! So, everything you said, plus the ability to gamble on three performance of businesses.
The stock market is one of the hallmarks, but the one thing capitalism can’t do without, is the capitalist class, because it wouldn’t be capitalism any more. The private people who own the things and earn the profits by sheer virtue of having a lot already.
Capitalism is just the idea that capital is privately owned and the economy is loosely organized around that concept.
From the IMF
In a capitalist economy, capital assets—such as factories, mines, and railroads—can be privately owned and controlled, labor is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners, and prices allocate capital and labor between competing uses
If you compare this to something like socialism which says that capital assets should be held by the society at large. There is no one guy that can own a mine but the mine is owned by society at large.
Capitalism often likes to wear the clothes of “free markets” because most people like the idea of freedom. Not a lot of people are super keen on the idea that “some rich guy should be allowed to own all the railroads if he wants” (unless you are a rich guy that owns a bunch of railroads) so capitalists like to conflate capitalism and the free market as though they are one inseparable idea.
Other economic systems can also have free markets with collective ownership. Worker cooperatives, for example, exist within capitalist economies.
The existence of a stock market is not actually needed for capitalism. The people that own the means of production don’t necessarily need to set up a system where people can purchase a share of their companies. It might be an emergent property of capitalism, if people don’t want to start their own profit generating enterprises but want to share in the gains of a profit generating enterprise they would be willing buyers. People with profit generating enterprises might be willing sellers if they think they could over time generate more profit by raising capital from the stock buyers. But if you didn’t have a stock market and private individuals controlled the capital assets of your society, by definition you’d still be capitalist since that’s the defining characteristic.
As an example you could outlaw all financial instruments in America and as long as I can still own a factory and sell my goods for a profit, it would still be capitalism.
I think economic systems are fascinating. We often colloquially conflate various things that tend to happen together but really aren’t related at all. Of course if I hold the capital assets I would want you to associate capitalism with the positive aspects of a free market and sorta ignore the part where I get to own the capital asset and charge everyone else to have access to it.
It’s interesting that capital assets are only defined through example in the IMF definition and when you use it later. I know what they mean intuitively but it’s interesting that it doesn’t seem like there’s any hard line for what counts. Even when I look it up the definition is pretty loose.
Yea a lot of economic thinkers have tried to define capital.
I tend to think of capital mostly in the terms of means of production. Capital comprises the things that make things. But different economic thinkers draw different boundaries.
I think regardless of where you draw the boundaries the sea of capitalism is an interesting one, one where you let private individuals own those things. There are definitely parts that become almost philosophical. Take for instance mining rights. The mountain sits there for millennia, completely unowned. Then one day some people show up. No one owns that mountain, if people need rocks from the mountain anyone can walk up there and take them. Then you get enough people together and they say “together we are a nation, our nation owns that mountain.” Then capitalism does this neat magic trick where the nation can sell the mountain to one of the people in the nation and then he owns the mountain. You need a rock from the mountain, too damn bad, Greg bought the mountain and now you have to buy your rocks from him.
When you strip away all the abstractions we put up, it’s kinda wild. I find capitalism’s frequent marriage to democracy to be kinda fascinating too because the systems are sorta in opposition. When no one owned the mountain, all were free to take rocks, one could argue they vote with their rock collecting hands, that’s quite democratic. Once the nation claims the mountain, if that nation were democratic, the people could vote on the best way to use the rocks and that’s quite democratic too. But once the nation sells it to Greg, the fate of the mountain is in Greg’s hands. The people have no further say in the mountain or how much rocks cost or anything really, it is the least democratic outcome.
Still not capitalism. Capitalism would be one Orang owning the bed factory (capital) and allowing other Orang to get some fruit for making beds while the capitalist Orang would get fruit by virtue of letting other Orangs work in his bed factory.
Since the researchers owned and distributed the capital, this was not a capitalist market invented by the monkeys, but one enforced on them by the researchers.
So you can call it capitalism, but it doesn’t disprove the OP tweet like you suggested.
I read the study (not everyone has academic access, FYI, so here’s a link) and it’s not capitalism. Even your edit, where you explain how “it’s capitalism for real guys”, is just an example of voluntary exchange, a feature that is neither exclusive to capitalism nor its defining feature.
Maybe before criticizing others, first take a few minutes to even just read the Wikipedia article on capitalism and make sure you know what you’re talking about.
i never preorder, and i don’t think i could justify jt even if i did. buying a game for 70 bucks when you don’t even know if it’s any good just sounds stupid to me.
Preordering made sense when games came in nice boxes, and you wanted to be sure to play it on the day of release instead of waiting for restocking. With digital downloads now which are not limited in quantity it is just stupid.
This, 100%. The only value of preordering is guaranteeing stock of a physical item that threatens to be out of stock if you were to buy it walk-in. In the modern digital age where downloading tens of gigabytes that take up no space, ship near-instantly on demand, and have theoretically infinite supply, preordering is pointless if the actual game itself is all you care about.
Early Access is a problem when big publishers try to do it. It makes sense that indies do it so they have cash flow at all. Big outlets have funding on hand, but are trying to leverage it, anyway.
Yeah they evolved to keep much more baby-like features into adulthood with a big head and huge eyes because that’s cute to us and triggers strong instincts of protection and love. I forget the exact name for it. And my cats do be looking extremely cute all the time so it was very successful.
I’ve long had a theory that cats have evolved to be just cute enough that we don’t murder them. Cats are evil, so it’s understandable that humans would want to kill them, and I think we probably did early on, but some of them were so cute that we didn’t. Those surviving cute cats reproduced and made more cute cats, but they also became more evil. Over generations, we have created beings that are supremely evil, but they’re just so gosh darned cute that we let them get away with it.
alright, never heard of him. everyone on this thread seems to love his channel. Blindly subscribed so I’ll watch the dishwasher video later, I’m intrigued now.
That was good, not in the US and my bosch dishwasher only has one dispenser I already moved from tablets to powder a while ago, now I’m going to experiment with a sprinkle of powder in the main compartment, to help with the pre wash.
Had a lamp in the garage I was planning to donate when I could. It had been sitting there for 4 years unused because it was incompatible with a lamp shade and too damn bright no matter what bulb I used.
Saw the technology conextras (his second channel) video on DIY milk glass, now that lamp is the only light I use in the office, I love it!
to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:
yes it is, if you just look at direct expenses of running it. but you’re overlooking the fact that it has enabled google to amass so much data(we’re taking about 500 hours worth of videos being uploaded per minute) that they can train anything with it.
it’s a service that’s too big to fail. even whole governments, courts, and other institutions depend on it. so, I refuse to believe that YouTube will be non-existant because a sliver of users refuse to be profiled by invasive advertisements.
This is where I am a bit curious. In a world where we didn’t have user tracking and just did ads the old fashioned way like television via over the air signals and used content as proxy for viewer interest, would folks still use ad blockers or accept having ads as part of the viewing experience?
I don’t mind ads if they’re solely keyword-based, and one per 30 mins or so. but I do mind the tracking by ad companies(most notably google and meta).
but nowadays I’m so deep into privacy hole that I steer clear of anything that’s not FOSS, unless it’s absolutely necessary(e.g.: degoogled android). So naturally, ublock origin stays on all the time.
We just muted the TV during the ads and did something else until the show came back on. Ad breaks for regular shows like dramas were a predictable length of time, so you could time your bathroom or fridge run pretty well.
for sure. I listen to a number of podcasts that instead of having dynamically inserted ads, still have the hosts do an ad read. I don’t mind that at all
A new charity that takes your failing social media company off your hands (and your ledger!) and donates it to the United States Postal Service to administer and, after government streamlining, channel all profits into funding summer camp and spring break for our underprivilaged senators, congresspeople, and justices of federal rank or higher.
Fair play though lol I hadn’t quite realised how long it had been.
Also I wouldn’t take the losses up until 2014 to mean anything except that the 2015 financials hadn’t been published at that time the WSJ article (which both links source) had been written.
The data has so many more uses than just ads. They sell the data, use it to train AI, etc. The data itself is more valuable than their entire ad network.
lemmy.world
Top