Houston and NY are both large american cities and are complete opposites when it comes to planning. Thing is, most American cities are closer to Houston on the spectrum than to New York, for every Philly theres 2 Kansas Cities if you get what I mean
You can bet he spent time practicing that pose in front of a mirror at Mar-a-Lago beforehand. That’s supposed to be his ‘If you fuck with me, I’ll fuck with you ‘ look, but it’s more like ‘mommy, I think I did doo doos’.
If I have a question that I’d usually search on reddit for, i just make a post here instead and drum up content for the future, plus I usually get way more than I asked for from people as almost everyone here is a damn genius and usually very polite and understanding.
Go to your instance homepage, lemmy.ml then in the sidebar there should be a create community button, or if on mobile it may be hidden in the … menu button
edit: accidentally deleted this comment so just reposting.
Yeah, I like to watch anime, and most of it (if not all, I’m not sure) is only available on 1080p and it doesn’t look nearly as bad as Netflix want us to think lol.
I also watch Netflix with my Nvidia Shield TV which has a pretty neat AI upscaler, but honestly any good upscaler nowadays would do, I mean lots of content is available in 1080p and that doesn’t looks like changing for the foreseeable future.
I’ve got a 1080p TV. I have had it for 10+ years and I will continue to have it until it craps out.
I’ve seen 4k. Yes it’s better. Is it better enough? Not for me, and my eyes aren’t getting any younger.
I also save money, since gaming at 1080 with great framerates is much easier too. And storing 1080 media etc (hell, even 720 with upscaling isn’t too bad).
I guess my point is: come at me Netflix; keep annoying me with your ads. They literally have 0% chance of success.
I’ve literally had this argument on lemmy multiple times. It always goes like this:
Me: [some comment to the effect of “the planet is dying”]
Them: the planet will be fine. Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.
Me: . . .
Them: What. It’s just the fact. Don’t worry about the planet.
Sometimes they quote Carlin without realizing it and without context so to them it’s not a joke about how fucked up we are, it’s a simple truth without any additional layers. It’s a little boggling.
Climate change isn’t going to be an existential threat for a very long time. Realistically we’re making life incredibly difficult and expensive for ourselves. Population numbers will drop markedly over time. But people don’t see that this is still something to take urgent action on.
Depends on if you work outside for a living or live near a coastline or a forested area. It won’t be like a Star Trek: The Original Series where everyone’s in a big room and a red glow starts pulsating and we all groan and crumple to the floor. No, it won’t be like that.
It’ll be like heat exhaustion exacerbated a hitherto unknown heart condition that deaded you. Or a Cat 6 hurricane rolled a tree over you. Or failing crops mean you couldn’t fight off COVID-26 or whatever.
No, we’re not going to all die at once, as such. Depending on your timeframe for “at once”.
I dunno, maybe. I mean, technically they were right but even when I agreed, and explained how while that’s correct it’s also beside the point, they didn’t like that either.
It’s like talking about powers and saying “The square of 4 is 16” and they’ll bleat “Actually, a square is a shape” and you’re trying to find a way to tell them that their contribution is absolutely worthless and irrelevant to the topic.
No, it’s not the “best kind of correct”, it’s being an asshole.
That’s the joke, though.
The character being quoted, from Futurama, is usually insufferable and often miserable.
Edit: Interestingly, the character is also relatively well liked and generally appreciated by the rest of the Planet Express crew. It’s a pretty nuanced quote, in context. It kind of says “You’re not wrong, and your correction is arguably unnecessary and objectively objectionable, but we love you, anyway.”
not even all life. i’m sure some microbe or spore will survive long enough past human extenction and life will flourish once again. there are some very robust little lifeforms out there, living in boiling volcanic water or surviving frozen in permafrost. i’m sure some can manage in high CO2 levels and hot climate.
Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that’s reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won’t die out.
Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.
Why would all life perish? From what I’ve heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won’t care about anything for the next few million years.
Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don’t think it’s easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn’t bet against a semi “post apocalyptic” future.
Basically it’s due to the heat, acidification of the ocean, and the massive drop in oxygen production as the ocean acidifies.
Most of the oxygen we breathe is produced by microorganisms in the ocean and as the ocean gets more acidic (from absorbing CO2 from the air) and hotter (from greenhouse effects) it makes it harder for those little fellas to survive. And when they die their impact on our breathable air goes away. And if course the stuff that’s eats those organisms no longer have food and due off.
That’s not even mentioning just the heating from greenhouse effects making unlivable temperature conditions (humidity + heat = unable to cool down and overheat) more likely to occur.
All life wouldn’t perish per se but the current complex animals we have (and us humans) would be greatly impacted to say the least.
Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can’t really believe that this wouldn’t open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I’m certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.
I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to “ending all life”. That’s reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.
There’s a chance that the aluminum residue from hundreds of annual rocket launches will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.
*the aluminum is from all of our satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense.
The aluminum and other metals in the space crafts bond with the ozone, which could fuck with our magnetosphere. It turns out it’s mostly from satellites burning up on reentry, which makes way more sense though.
If the ozone layer fills with metallic alloys, it fucks with the magnetosphere, potentially to the point that the magnetosphere no longer protects us from solar winds, and that would lose us the atmosphere.
It also might not be that serious, but there’s no way to know until there’s a problem. Companies are rapidly increasing the number of artificial satellites in our orbit without any consideration to the potential consequences though.
Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?
To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere “very quickly” hadn’t caused panic back then, it was only things like “stay inside so you don’t get sunburns”. Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.
It’s different because these are now metallic compounds, which can become magnetically charged and may be able to affect the magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere is basically the ball of magnetic force around the earth that insulated us from solar winds.
Solar winds can destroy planetary atmospheres, when the planet isn’t otherwise protected.
The hole in the ozone layer was also a problem, but it’s more because the ozone layer protects us from a lot of ultraviolet light. The hole (which was not exactly a hole, but that works better for marketing) would have caused a bunch of cancer and exposed us to higher levels of toxic ozone on the ground, which are both big problems, but not for all life on earth
I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans
It absolutely is. There are microbes that thrive at the bottom of the ocean in the boiling acidic conditions of hydrothermal vents. There is absolutely no way anything humans can do at this point would kill ALL life on the planet. There will absolutely be some specialist microbe somewhere that looks at whatever we did to the planet and says ‘yup, now is my time to shine!’.
Just a heads up, you quoted me writing “kill all complex life (…) is exaggerating”. Then as far as I understand you wrote “it absolutely is [an exaggeration]”. Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?
I wasn’t trying to prove what would survive, merely show how resilient life can be. If a simple microbe is guaranteed to survive in hell, something more complex able to behaviourally adapt/relocate is likely to as well. The greatest danger to complex life is having nothing to feed on.
Tropical fish might have to survive in the Arctic Ocean, or grasses in the northern prairies, insects of a zillion different types and sizes. Life, uh, finds a way.
We won’t kill everything. No matter what we do. Life will continue and more of it than anyone thinks will, even of the plants and animals. It is humans and most of the large animals and intolerant plants that need fear the impending Climate catastrophe.
I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.
For example ocean acidification is tempered by reacting with build ups of calcium which is the building blocks of many things in the ocean. Shelled critters and corals immediately come to mind as examples of directly impacted complex life.
As the corals die and can no longer form due to acidification that whole ecosystem collapses.
The stuff that eats the phytoplankton (sensitive to ocean acidification and heat) no longer can eat it due to it dying along with the other little micro organisms, also suffers from ecological collapse.
A big issue that impacts complex life is how quickly it can adapt to the changes in their ecosystem and if they can find new places to go or new things to eat.
For example E. Coli: it has quick generations so it can adapt really quickly. This experiment has been going since the late 80s and the E. Coli has gone through over 70,000 generations and they’ve seen a lot of changes. If you went back that many human generations it would take you back before modern homo sapiens.
I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.
True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn’t aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.
Because the threat is not a nuclear winter. It’s the disruption of all environmental systems that regulate the planet that is the threat in question. Which, in turn, disrupts the food chain, which starves whatever requires that food, which is for all intents and purposes, all life.
I don’t understand how this is such a conversation with so many people here.
Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can’t imagine life is as fragile as you make it.
Having the ability to kill all complex life sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they’re the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.
Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.
The reason I use the term “human” is because this phenomenon seems to exist throughout all of history, it wasn’t limited to one specific person or culture or era. This is also why I gave so many examples. If you think there’s a better way to convey the point without using this term, let me know.
All life wouldn’t perish, the only things that will be left will be certain bacteria, phagocytes and viruses that can tolerate and indeed will likely proliferate in extreme environments. Everything larger then that will die of starvation due to a cascade of failing systems, likely starting with the death of the marine biosphere when the temperature rises to unsustainable levels and/or the pH lowers too much for the same effect. Though of course no one really knows what will actually happen because there are too many unknown variables.
There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.
The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.
But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.
If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.
Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.
Even life will never perish. We’re certainly going to cause an apocalyptic level extinction event, taking many species with us, but life will always find a way.
There is one single planet we know of that hosts complex organisms. Dont go claiming extraordinary things like that, when all evidence points to the opposite. Life is extremely fragile, and only comes about in very specific conditions. New data models show we may be the only creatures capable of communicating vast distances in the entire galaxy. We should be treating this with the severity it actually has, potential universal blackout. What is the universe if there is nothing there to experience it?
That’s very lovely, but ultimately egotistical. I mean, I romanticise about it too, but the universe ultimately just… is. The only severity is for us humans. No other species has a sense of “species” as a community AFAIK. Heck, even humans have a terrible track record. We can’t even seem to sterilise machines we sent to space no matter how hard we try, even after being exposed to outer space. That’s the evidence we have.
From our perspective, only human eyes record history. Without us around to experience and document the universe, is it any different from not existing at all? It doesn’t matter that the universe is. What is is if there is nothing around to define it?
I just don’t really understand the point of the question. I care about “the planet” because I feel empathy for my fellow humans and would like to leave a healthy environment for the future generations to come. I won’t leave any offspring. So when I die, my linage ends. After I die I will stop experiencing anything. And yet I still care. But I only care because my brain is wired to feel empathy.
I don’t care at all that the universe might have no one to experience it when our sun blows up. As statistically unlikely as that might be.
I mean you dont have to care. I do. I care that this vast universe might never been seen by human eyes. Because I feel like it is our duty to experience and record as much of this as possible. I truly believe we are the universe experiencing itself, and dammit we better experience it all.
Ok, let the downvotes come but I’m one of those people. And the point I’m trying to make is that the planet and life itself will survive and probably even be better off without humans.
Just look at what happened after the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs. Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.
So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.
. . . the planet and life itself will survive . . .
How are you defining “life itself”?
. . . and probably even be better off without humans.
I’d say that goes without saying.
Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.
Start “fresh”? Like with single-celled organisms? Maybe a billion years later we’ll be back eating sandwiches? Okay, so what process created sustainable environments again? Humans left some sort-of-permanent damage. Nuclear waste, PFAS, etc. Sure a good ol’ pole shift and a few asteroid impacts and we’re back in business.
So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.
God this is fucking exhausting. The prevention of unmitigated and prolonged suffering by all sentient life is the goal, YES. Kudos to the possibly viable future space rock and the wisdom to acknowledge our utter inability to protect one single planet from ourselves is laughably inadequate and - CLEARLY - irrelevant.
IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile. The universe is not anthropocentric. It doesn’t give two shits about humanity (it’s not, to our knowledge even sentient). Humanity is completely insignificant to nearly anything but humans. To me, it puts into perspective that noone and nothing in this indifferent universe is coming to save us from ourselves. It’s up to us.
Life will continue without us, just like it did before us. If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive to evolve into new forms of complex life. The human species is far more fragile than the planet.
What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?
The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:
there’s plenty of nature
we can’t live like savages, we must pollute to make money
what if we add lead to it and spray it all over everything and everyone? No knocks! Profit!
What the heck is an ozone layer
oh you’re a tree hugger huh
there’s no proof its caused by humans
there are always periods of heating and cooling
this is a Chinese hoax
well you drink water so you’re part of the problem
i’ll never give up eating meat, what are you, gay?
It’s too expensive to not destroy the environment
oil prices are the key to liberty and freedom
the future of clean energy is a nightmare because we’ll have to enslave humanity to extract rare minerals from protected wildlife areas to build large batteries
it’s fine, the earth will survive. Sure we’ll die and everything we commonly consider animal life will be killed but - ya gotta go sometime
Now you’re just lobbing together people who want to distinguish what exactly it is that needs saving with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Seems to me you just like boxes, really big boxes, in which to put in all the thing you dislike/disagree with or whatever.
You don’t care that I disagree with almost everything on your list except for 2 things that I think are really important to be specific about.
“Saving the planet”, which I’ve explained
”You drink water, so you’re part of the problem”, which is kind of true if you extrapolate and include it in your decision on if to have children.
Be my guest, I don’t care enough to continue this conversation beyond this point with a hammer that’s just looking for nails.
My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.
By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.
The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?
It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.
“actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”
If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.
Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.
Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.
Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.
Nowhere do I suggest any of those things. In fact, opting out of anthropocentricism is breaking with views held throughout much of human history and used as an excuse to do nothing.
If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive into new forms of complex life.
Y’all acting like this happening isn’t a literal catastrophe. You guys are all insane.
Nah mate. It would absolutely catastrophic. But the scope of who it would be catastrophic for is limited to the minority of known life. Humanity is insignificant to the universe but significant to us.
It’s also true. It’s a great way to bring home the reality to people who still think climate science is about preserving some wetlands while we continue as normal.
I don’t know, whenever I hear such arguing it makes me feel like it emphasises the issues we as humanity have gotten into, not belittles.
I mean, hearing “everything is doomed” is kind of epic and has it’s charm. Hearing “only the humanity is doomed” makes me feel shitty and want to do something about that.
tangentially related, CW: suicideProbably the same way one of the suicide prevention methods is de-romanticization of death, a lot of people expect death to be pretty, and it’s not
I mean it does, god wanted him to get shot twice and survive and then build a bulletproof popemobile to not get shot a third time.
God’s will is a pretty ironclad argument as long as you don’t really believe in free will, or at least believe that God is powerful enough to know how every decision will be made in spite of free will.
Did you hear the story of the man on the roof of his house when it was flooding? I think that was a west wing bit… God wants you to have a bulletproof vest.
ahem The deity he follows says that he should turn the other cheek and not only allow it to happen again, but to happily and freely provide the opportunity. You can still call him hypocritical.
To be fair, that was advice for nonviolent resistance against the state, in a context where slapping someone’s other cheek presented social difficulties to the oppressor. In order to slap someone’s other cheek you had to use your unclean left hand, disgracing yourself by vulgar behaviour, or use a forehand slap with your right hand, which implicitly acknowledges the victim as your social equal. Turning the other cheek is a great way to fuck with the Romans.
The New Testament is full of practical advice for anarchist Jews to use against the state.
Walk in freezers are usually aimed at -18C, but that isn’t the main problem with trying to get a WiFi camera to work behind several inches of insulation.
They might be cheaper, but then you have to either have a cable coming in the door of the freezer, or drill a hole in your $10k freezer’s wall.
In my country you’d definitely need to have video footage to accuse someone of abusing aerosols at work, but yes in some less civilised places a general pattern might be enough to accuse someone and hope they weren’t just going in there to do their job.
These people are presumably paid to go into the freezer. If they weren’t going into the freezer that would be a problem. It’s going into the freezer and doing whip-its is the problem.
I was going to say then that you’d need to prove the person was actually doing whip-its and not their job, but I’m guessing this is America and it’s not actually required to have a reason to euthanise underperforming employees.
At a minimum you also need something to open the canister, and IME the small devices they sell for that are pieces of shit that are hard to use and break easily. Anyone who’s seriously into it uses a whipped cream maker. And if they were doing just one or two canisters, the manager wouldn’t have seen any evidence of it.
The reality is that they aren’t held in check. Rural crime is widely underreported because cops in the boonies won’t take a report about domestic violence unless it involves a trip to the hospital
unfortunately, this is often true in big cities as well.
things are a lot better in that regard than they used to be. dv is no longer by default regarded as a “private matter,” laws and resources have improved.
on the flip side, dv can be hard to prove, especially to a busy cop or judge. and policing is also not a profession averse to abusers.
As an atheist I can’t tell you how many Christians have asked me why I don’t just rape and murder people if I don’t believe in hell. Tells me everything I need to know about that POS.
For me I’d say its a mix of legal repercussions AND knowing that murder is wrong and that a society that allows it isnt really a safe society to be a part of, so while someone might be being awful enough to me that the thought crossed my mind, maybe I should go find somewhere to cool down. But, like you said, god had nothing to do with any of that
True, and since probably neither of us are in the heat of murderous anger right now, let’s think back to that time we HAVE been in the heat of murderous anger, And I’m telling you, that sonofabitch DESERVES it, right?! He COMPLETELY DESTROYED my life and he KNOWS it, and he will never even acknowledge it or apologize. Even now the only reason I’d regret following through with this ideation is the dread of prison and losing all my freedoms forever. But yeah, these guys are safe, at least from MY wrath. I moved 2000 miles away. But surely they fuck up a lot of things and a LOT of people are equally angry at them, so hopefully karma does its thing with them.
LOL thank you, I was just venting. I don’t get any opportunities whatsoever to vent about that particular issue that’s always quite a bit of PTSD. Thank you for the hugs. I’m a good person that did not deserve to be wronged by those two people.
The legal repercussions would be a secondary thing to me. I have no problem breaking an unjust law if I think I can do so. I do not feel the slightest bit of guilt violating drug laws.
If I murdered someone? I wouldn’t be able to live with the guilt.
Both points, being A: Controlling the population when they are already adult and B: Controlling the population by raising them “correct”, are equally valid, though. Imo
As ever, the owner class that hoards and wages economic war on you though automation for their exclusive benefit at their society’s expense are your enemy, whether you would fight them or not.
Arguing that we should “save” back breaking, repetitive unnatural movement, manual labor jobs that break human bodies by the time they’re 40 is the WRONG hill to die on. Fight for the citizenry to reap the benefits of automation through taxation, not to keep shitty jobs robots can do faster and better. Fight to change the economy so that everyone doesn’t need meaningless jobs machines can do better so we can have actual time to live our lives.
Taxing the fuck out of automation would let everyone win, because a heavily taxed robot is still far cheaper for the company than a human or possibly several humans for that one robot would be, so automation is here either way. We can riot to change our economy to benefit from this technology as we should, or we can be steamrolled yet again by the dictates of the affluent who will demand and get all the benefits and none of the responsibility if not confronted and countered on revolutionary terms.
Please pick the former. There’s no dignity or meaning to be had shuffling boxes around in an Amazon warehouse. Begging the owners to let us try to continue to compete with literal purpose built repetitive labor machines is not the way.
It’s too bad that the first things to be automated are the tasks that people don’t mind doing, leaving the real shitty tasks to be done by people. Riding around on a lawnmower has to be one of the most enjoyable forms of manual labour. Now the robots get the good jobs and we’re left with the backbreaking monotonous bullshit.
Good points, but I have one thing to add. You shouldn’t tax automation. You should increase corporate taxes for all companies. If you funded a UBI with that, it would solve lots of unemployment related problems: crime, poverty, etc. But it’s hard, simple but hard.
Put the corporate tax rate back up to 40% or more and implement a 10% robot tax on top of that. Then after that, implement a UBI starting at $1000 a month for US citizens with no strings attached, increasing with inflation over time. Solved for the next decade.
Fun fact: The Luddites weren’t opposed to technology. In many cases, they built the machines they would later destroy.
What they opposed was the ownership structure. The fact that they could be 30x more productive, yet be paid less than before because the required skill level was lower, and the working conditions were now dangerous and demeaning.
Yet when someone says “luddite” now, what do you think? A dummy who’s afraid of having cool stuff?
Unix is for commies. We’ll run our clocks the way Britain ran its coinage! 32 shillings to the third hour, four hours in a pound, 4.3 in a guinea. And of course 10 shekels in a pound, 7 to the guinea. To account for relativity of course.
Because the world is seen and directed by layers upon layers of abstractions that get divorced from reality but do give monetary benefits when manipulated in some way.
It is for sure phishing. Discover isn’t going to send you an email like that. Even loading the graphics was a bad idea.
Edit: apparently I stand corrected. I’ve gotten security alerts from my credit card companies before, but never with a link like that, and never saying something like “dark web.” Sorry to hear it
Discover offers monitoring. How are you so sure it’s phishing? An abundance of caution and logging in directly is certainly a safe route to verify, but convincing OP this is phishing and that the graphics are risky is unnecessarily alarming
See my edit - apparently I was wrong. My credit card companies never put a link on security alerts, and they’ve said they never will, so that customers know alerts with links are bogus. They always say to call the number on the card or login to your account, without providing a number or link. Discover must work differently.
Are you sure? Discover does have free identity monitoring and I get emails every month saying whether they found anything or not. I have never gotten an email saying they found my ssn though so can’t say for sure if this is legit. Either way I would still check through the app or their website without opening the link.
It’s not “for sure phishing” Discover does send emails like that. They have a service where they scan the internet for your personal information, and they sell you credit monitoring, and other stuff to reduce the impact.
Here’s a screenshot of part of their website for this monitoring.
Of course it’s ALWAYS a good idea to go to the website, and never click a link on an email from your financial institution, but I’m like 80% sure that this is a legit email.
Also, your SSN and other financial details have likely been compromised dozens of times, so just having your SSN floating around out there isn’t surprising. It’s a fault in the system for using an unsecured SSN as an identify instead of what it was initially used for.
It’s a fault in the system for using an unsecured SSN as an identify instead of what it was initially used for.
It is alao the fault of the government for not putting a halt to and punishing those corporations who decided to hijack SSNs and treat them as some kind of secret code.
They’d have to start with the army. We used our social on everything as an identifier while I was in. I’d honestly be more surprised if my SSN wasn’t compromised.
I cannot imagine the shit fit that people would throw if we tried to implement a secure national identity number. Even the SSN got a lot of backlash for being “the mark of the beast”, and that was introduced a little under a hundred years ago.
Okay, I made an edit. Like I said there, the alerts I’ve gotten have never had links for the reasons you mentioned - they say things like “call the number on the back of your card.”
I think I was with their service once a long time ago and I did an application to see if I could get a phone plus service package. This probably got my social in the process for credit score reasons.
They’ll give you a $1000 phone under the guarantee of a 2-year contract. That can be considered a type of loan and they can repo the phone if you stop paying.
If you stop paying monthly bills, they can only really force you to pay the balance if they have your SSN and can affect your credit score.
I’m not endorsing the practice of ruining people’s chances of buying a home over unpaid phone bills, but it’s a pretty good deal from AT&T’s perspective.
They absolutely do send emails like this. They’ve got a monitoring service if you have a credit card with them to check for data breaches, and most credit cards and even banks I’ve seen do the same. I just got my monthly monitoring update email this morning from Discover, thankfully telling me they didn’t find anything.
There are other pictures of her showing that despite the cluster of no fucks given by the scammy organiser, she did try her best making a good times for the kids that were there. Still am hilarious pict.
OP has misunderstood the joke being made (“haha this is an unfortunate picture”) and is using it to be cruel to a stranger (“bUt ShE PrObAbLy WoN’t mAkE bEtTeR cHoIcEs”) .
Go fuck yourself, OP. You’re the one that needs to make better choices.
My only reference for Glasgow is a Yahtzee quote that is something about how while you may get your eyes gouged out with glass while there, it’s not what you go there for; you go to Glasgow to purchase heroin
I saw an article asking people to stop bullying her. Like who is bullying her? I see people posting her photo as a meme, and I mean it’s perfect meme material, but nobody is making fun of her, they’re making fun of the experience. Even us laughing about the meme aren’t laughing at her even a little bit, just at how funny the pic is
I’m probably in danger of over explaining the joke, but this actually does happen. The best part about this is people will actually contact support for online stores and just say that they found an item. No concern, no questions, just hi I found this. There are people that will do this every week, for years.
New customer service agents will go through the steps, how can I help you with it? Were you looking for a different item? Etc etc. And the conversation will go absolutely nowhere because no one knows why the hell people like this do these things and the customer will never provide any information. Eventually you give up and just say that’s great! You can go ahead and buy it!
And the customer will say “ok thx” and disappear until next time. Most of the time these people never even place any orders.
Usually when a customer talks to a customer service agent, that’s the only customer service agent they’re going to interact with that week. So they treat the customer service agent as though the converse is true, that they are the only customer the customer service agent will interact with that week, forgetting that they are actually the 10,000th.
I don’t know whether that would help as much as you think it will. I just got out of the military, and there are definitely certain people who started out taking a lot of shit from people just like you did at that rank, but their motivation to rank up was because they couldn’t wait to become the people giving people shit.
I’ve been working in customer support for three years and I absolutely despise people in that job that don’t try their best to help. This is their job, and if it’s so bad they can’t be assed to do it right they should work at another place. Sure, many customers are clueless assholes. But if I come up to them with all the respect and try to lay down my issue I don’t want to get treated like shit, no matter how hard their day was.
If anything, my experience in this job made me less tolerant towards incompetent or disrespectful people.
We’d put them into cust-supp after they’ve done their mandatory gap-year service. Waiting tables or trying to hear bubba over the dimestore drive-thru[sic] gear and his argl-bargle diesel F350 garage queen will DEFINITELY work the stick out from where it got lodged.
I never worked in one of these positions, but I respect the hell out of people who do. I did do a house cleaning job for a bit that was pretty bad and maybe that’s where it’s from, but I think I’ve always had that. I just respect people who do things for others, no matter what it is. I don’t think it needs to be required, but maybe have a system to report people and enough reports forces you to do “community service” in one of these positions.
I used to try to be empathetic, but then I realized I’m just taking up even more of their time. The best strategy imo is to just get to the point as quickly as possible so both you and the rep can get on with things.
However, if the call is going to be long regardless, I do banter a bit.
The closest I had to that job was as an IT help desk person at a university working with faculty. I only had to actually interact with 3-4 people in a given day, so I don’t know if it really counts.
I sometimes get IT support calls where people will just saying something is asking for a password or giving them a notification. I usually just tell them to login and everything is ok, or just to read it back to me. Its never anything unusual that would throw up red flags security wise that I would think would sketch out a user. Its like there just surprised by the popup. More often than not, they didn't need any help. I still can't figure this one out, but I still "fix" it I guess.
I had a seller on Amazon give my info to another party who then mailed me unrelated erotic marketing materials with my name and info on it, weeks after my order. I told customer support, and they instantly went “we’ll handle it, have a nice day” before I could even tell them who the seller was. I knew who the seller was because despite my info being in the digital order form on the website, they somehow managed multiple typos and mistakes, which the unsolicited mail also had.
It’s all pre-scripted bullshit to prevent customers from doing anything about legitimate issues.
I used to work in a Walmart deli and multiple people would come in every week asking for corn beef or swagger and when we tell them no we don’t have that, they will say they were here last week and bought it
Like no you weren’t chief we haven’t had that in years
Sometimes people are just lonely, I got this too in helpdesk. A little old lady kept calling in with problems in her emails, there were no problems she just wanted to talk for a while.
Oh definitely, I’ve had a few like that. Those are kinda nice, you relax for a minute and they’re usually fine when you let them know you have other people.
And you get to make one of those cute “Resolved; for record keeping” tickets to fill out your day :) This is why I actually give out my direct line. If anyone gets upset at not being able to reach me, I can just say tons of people have that same number and are trying to reach me, and I’m never bored from 8-5
The best bit of is I don’t think he even said anything? He said he didn’t play GTA because it got to the bit where you have to shoot cops and he couldn’t morally do it, that’s super dumb but I haven’t seen anything he said about the characters and no one in here is talking about it.
I think people have imagined how he probably feels and now we have to hear about that too!
he didn’t play GTA because it got to the bit where you have to shoot cops and he couldn’t morally do it
How you play a video game is as much a moral choice as writing/reading about the same.
I’ve found it’s a huge red flag when someone’s opinions are always hardline and binary like this. It’s literally choosing to be unreasonable when you never consider nuance, context, etc. I would agree that some issues are black and white, but most things in the world are shades of grey…
lemmy.world
Top