Just how old this meme is: OSX 10.9 mavericks was the first free mac update, it was released in 2013. The meme should be created before that. Iirc Windows 7 was the first win with forced and annoying updates, it was released in 2009. So this meme should be from that era, 11-15 years old.
Use debian oldstable, usually 1-2 security updates each months, nothing else. If you need a newer app, install it as flatpak, they can’t bork your system.
I tried to install Win 10 in a VM recently and it spend hours updating after installing from the ISO. Also you have to turn off the internet to not create a Microsoft account? What a pain it is now.
There are newer releases, obviously if you download an older build of windows, you have to download and install each updates manually. It’s not a win only thing, it’s the same with every os, e.g. download Ubuntu 16.10, it will take a while to upgrade to the current version. Windows 10 was released in 2015, I don’t know which release you downloaded.
Well, now they just make you throw out the old Mac hardware and buy new for $1299 (8gb RAM lol) because it’s now out of support for the latest MacOS and the newest versions of Adobe Suite/MS Office/insert productivity work related proprietary software suite here is on board with Apple’s bullshit and won’t run on older MacOS versions.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I know a large js obferscator has auto detection code, try loading dev tools in first then loading the site on the tab so it doesn’t detect the sudden viewport change
Or when objectivity is not called for. All those fallacies and "unfair strategies" are described as they are in order to keep objective discussions at said objective level. Yet, when the discussion by it's nature cannot be objective, none of those "fallacies" apply as fallacies.
Besides: An appeal is not a bad tactic in any way, shape or form.
This is the only time so far I’ve seen “fallacy fallacy” used correctly and not being used, ironically fallaciously, as if it automatically cancels out every fallacy in a person’s argument automatically making it valid.
If the experience that a paying customer gets is worse than the experience they get from pirating, then that’s the fault of the company selling that enshitified experience.
It’s wild how modern businesses are trying to kill themselves with every terrible idea they have to make more money.
As shitty as Amazon is, I will say that the books I’ve gotten through Audible are all still there and I can listen to them whenever I want even though I don’t have a subscription or anything anymore.
Audible replaced a version of a book my boyfriend bought with a completely different version of the same book. I mean a different narrator and everything. He had purchased the book a few years earlier but he didn’t manage to get a refund from them.
The Martian by Andy weir was my first experience of this. They re-recorded it with will wheaton and I “lost” my original with RC Bray. Though I will admit my version was part of the plus catalog, I still didn’t get a choice.
I’ve been enjoying LibroFM instead of Audible. Same subscription/credits per month model, but a portion goes to support a local bookstore of your choice. Feels way better to do that than give any extra money to Amazon.
I bought a few books off audible, and while I can still access them even without a subscription, I still have them converted to mp3 on my NAS, in case I ever lose access to audible for some reason.
Have you found a way to split those mp3s into several files by chapter etc.? All converters that I have tried so far just yield a single, several hours long mp3…
I use Voice audiobook player, that can do that, too. But when I switch devices, … it’s easier to pick up where I left, if it’s at least separated by chapters (or as some MP3 CDs do every 3-5 minutes a new track).
Also I do sometimes buy mp3 audiobooks for a blind friend who prefers to listen to them on a CD player (buttons can be felt and its easier to use than a touch screen). But a single, several hours long mp3 is bad in this scenario. And as i didnt find a tool to split them easily, Audible exclusives were out of the question…
Not sure how badly you want it back, but it is possible to restore. Non-sugically. Basically skin under tension causes Mitosis (skin cells dividing to make more skin) - think putting on weight, gaining muscle, getting pregnant, or ear gauges. You tug the skin long enough and eventually have your hoodie back. The results are surprisingly impressive. r/restoring_foreskin has a bunch of info
bruh. I don’t necessarily want it back and was just angry about the fact that it was taken from without my consent in the first place. But thanks for the info anyway, tho not sure what I’m gonna do with it.
New nerves do grow. Muscly/fat/pregnant people have the same skin senstitivity. But there are special function bits that are lost. The Rigid Band has special nerve endings, gone forever. Frenellum too
Oh, I’ve seen that. It’s fascinating. There’s a ball with outer clamps and varying degrees of weights you can add on a dangly bit. You attach the contraption for some number of increasing minutes per day, and it stretches the skin surrounding the glans until it’s long enough to encompass the glans. After a while, the little ball will be encompassed by the new foreskin.
He says it’s not painful and I believe him, but not being the owner of a penis, it looks at least uncomfortable to me. Then again, I’ve never used gauges, either, and as you said, it’s pretty similar to that.
I don’t want much just want my foreskin back again
No it’s not TMI I shared it 'cause we’re friends
My parents chose this road but I’ll choose where it ends
Don’t I deserve it all? Gonna grow it back again
Oh yeah I remember this guy. He has a good cause (anti circumcision) but had to ruin it with Bill Gates conspiracy theory nonsense. Also I love How to with John Wilson
edit: hmm actually there is some stuff about bill gates and circumcision so I should probably fact check myself here
No one’s laughing at trump’s shit anymore. Anyone with at least a lukewarm iq and even a cursory knowledge of history can see his fascism. It’s just the system is rigged to give regressive areas more voting power
Eh, that’s not what he said. Sure, yes, he said those words, but if you watch the whole thing it’s clear he just can’t talk like a normal person. He uses words that cause outrage because they get people riled up, and then he goes on to say what he really means. Although who knows man, he’s a total liar, and nothing he says has any value anyways.
What got me about that video was the end. He said “We were doing so well. And we were coming together, and coming together, and it was a beautiful thing. And we’re going to do that again.”. So he personally acknowledged that we were doing well as a country, and more united, and then he came along and started tearing all that down. We’ve been going downhill ever since. His entire motto “make America great again” is built on a lie that he just acknowledged right here at the end of the clip. It was already great. It stopped being great when he wouldn’t shut his fat fucking anus mouth.
But I can’t even really evaluate the things he says without sounding like I’m contradicting myself, because the things he says are contradictory from one statement to another. Idk why I even bothered.
They don’t say shit in good faith my friend. His whole thing is to say stuff that makes his followers react and exhausts anyone trying to pin him down on anything. Contrary to what anyone thinks he isn’t fooling anyone. His rube followers are just happy he’s upsetting everyone and wont hold him to a single thing. Everyone else is just tired of his shtick.
The GOP is done veiling their ideas and power plays but it’s not like they are being honest. The political equivalent of yelling jibberish at the top of your lungs when someone asks you a simple question. Sad part is the media feeds on it somehow.
Boy, if there is a predetermined level of intelligence, you sure fucking pulled the short straw on that to take a simple turn of phrase and read that entire fucking reach into it.
But then again you’re a tankie so that’s not surprising.
Yup, not to say that my country is doing much better or anything, but looking over at the USA it’s almost comical how extremely clear their decline into fascism and decay is. It’d almost be funny if it weren’t so serious.
Unfortunately it’s not hard to see a future where the rest of the world have to fight a war against some future form of christiofascist white supremacist USA.
Not next year or the year after of course, but within my lifetime for sure. People forget how quickly some nations go from progressive and democratic to straight up Third Reich.
It takes a shockingly short amount of time once the slow burn has laid the ground work over the initial decades. The slow burn we’re watching now.
Yeah but this slow burn is already like ten years old. The fascists demand retribution for us daring to elect Obama. As soon as they saw the light at the end of that tunnel, they said never again.
If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy. (David Frum)
Against Christofascists sure. I don’t see any actual white supremacy coming out of the USA. It is far too blended of a country now. Everyone knows someone, is related to someone, or involved with someone of varying races. Our friends, our families, and our lovers are all races. Sure, there will be little hate groups still, but white people are quickly losing ground to non-whites, and the government is very inter-racial. Whites are already a minority in California, and set to become minorities nationwide by 2045.
But the Christofacism is a very real threat, and the US military is a monumental behemoth of monstrous proportions. Woe to all if the Christofascists gain unchecked power.
It does happen in slow motion, and every single time, some people see it happening. They march and wave their arms shouting FASCISM! whilst their neighbours call them hyperbolic.
If you read contemporaneous accounts, you can feel the frustration.
Or… I thought I could feel the frustration, until recently (eta: if you haven’t read They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer, please do as soon as possible). Now it’s doubly frustrating. I keep wracking my brain, wondering what I can do that they didn’t. I can’t stop this, so I keep saying ‘if you were a German in the 1930s, knowing what you know now, what would you do?’
I don’t know the answer to that. I know many Germans saw it coming and couldn’t stop it.
What the fuck can we do? Because it is absolutely coming.
e: oh, and worse, trump isn’t actually the problem. He’ll likely lose, then everyone will high five that we’ve defeated The Problem, but Trump is just their carnival barker. He could die tomorrow and the threat wouldn’t change. There’s a solid fascist movement in the US and elsewhere that will not stop with trump’s defeat. There are thousands of them in high levels of the US government , and they’ll barely miss a beat without trump. He barely matters, and I’m afraid when he loses, the fascist movement behind this will find a wide opening.
I keep wracking my brain, wondering what I can do that they didn’t
These internal questions are what led to me finally realizing how powerless I really am. I can’t even convince my close personal friends to re-evaluate the batshit crazy things they learn online, let alone change the trajectory of a nation.
What’s frustrating is that anyone can find a piece of evidence for their argument, and there are propagandists everywhere offering up grand narratives full of such evidence. So when someone is extremely concerned about children getting sex changes, and you say something to the effect of “that’s not really happening” they’ll just come back at you with a few examples and you’re like “yeah but a few examples isn’t a statistical trend and you’re blowing this way out of proportion” and then they call you a groomer. Like, I’m not okay with it, but also it’s not something that we need to be specifically worried about and build an entire political movement around. Like children get attacked by sharks occasionally (probably more often than they get sex changes), but there’s no mass political movement to shame parents who encourage their kids to swim in known shark habitats.
Unfortunately this is the state of discourse online these days. You can see it all over this and every site. Any time someone says something that someone else disagrees with, it’s only one or two steps before the baseless accusations begin. Just this morning someone called me a Nazi. No discussion or anything, just accused me of being a Nazi because of a position I took on a complex and layered situation. I couldn’t be further from a Nazi. But you know… Once they put you on the defensive, then you’re not discussing the issue anymore, which is what they want.
They’re not even bothering with destroying things behind the scenes. They’re doing it right out in the open, because nobody has the teeth and cajones to stop them.
Fascism isn’t something on the horizon. Look at what is happening in Idaho. Within a year or two half of the US states will have criminalized abortion, and all you hear from federal legislators is how important it is that we shovel more money we don’t have into other countries’ wars.
It’s over.
The only power you or I have left is in our immediate local communities, where you can still accomplish the general good.
TIL fascism is when abortion is banned, and not when systems are put in place to enforce single party rule and violent suppression of political dissent.
Nazi Germany actually had a more liberal view of abortion than the laws that a lot of Republican states are now passing (for reasons that you can probably imagine, but still)
Nazi Germany isn’t the only form of fascism, and had other individual freedoms even more restricted. Nazi Germany was a far-right, reactionary state that violently suppressed Workers and stripped their freedoms, just like American conservatives are attempting to do and are working towards.
The Nazi stance on abortion wasn’t “liberal”, that’s ludicrous. It ranged from being forbidden for parents of German blood to encouraged or even forced in other cases, it was all about their ideas of racial hygiene. Not even the GOP is that racist, or can you imagine them mandating abortions for mixed-race couples?
The only case where this might be true is even the ban on abortion for German couples did not mean a ban on abortions in medical cases. German (not just Nazi) law generally considers it, as is proper, self-defence. Honestly I don’t think a legal system which doesn’t consider it such can consider itself a legal system at all, Radbruch and everything.
It can be, but fascism is extremely malleable as a template and can absolutely not give a shit about abortion (or even actively encourage/enforce it like china during the one child policy) or any other specific individual freedom.
The ones it really cares about are the ones that allow you to dissent and work against the government, so speech and association.
Fascism is fundamentally authoritarian first; specific social and economic prescriptions are tuned as the party/dictator deem necessary.
That’s how you can have red fascism like China and Stalinist Russia, and capitalist fascism like Pinochet’s Chile.
The US is never going to properly address its issues until it properly identifies them.
What you’re dealing with is not fascism imposed from the top down, it’s puritanism endorsed at all strata of society by a significant amount of people who genuinely co-sign it, either because they don’t understand the repercussions or because they genuinely don’t care.
If you’re incapable of understanding that people in those states genuinely support banning abortion, for example, and are not actually being oppressed by a minority of powerful people who are denying them their rights, but are instead actively signing away those rights for the minority who want to keep them, you’re never going to be able to effectively change this state of affairs.
My surviving jewish family were freed from a nazi death camp by the people you call fascists. Equating the two is holocaust trivialization and antisemitic. I literally link you to a well known mainstream Jewish historian and activist about this issue. Do you think David Katz is a “tankie”?
You call me scum equivalent to a nazi in response. Have words lost all meaning to you?
Oh my god there was antisemitism in the USSR, even among some leadership! Several doctors got killed!
You’re right, a few incidences of antisemitism are the same as the holocaust, or the pogroms that the pre-soviet monarchy backed by western liberal democracies engaged in. Or the antisemitism in the post soviet union liberal democracies. /s
You are a deeply unserious person. And a holocaust trivializer if it “owns the tankies” apparently. Great priorities.
Can you point me to the exact sentence where I trivialised the holocaust? Hint: I didn’t say anything about the holocaust. All I gave you is a link, the rest is your imagination.
You, OTOH, are severely trivialising antisemitism within the USSR. Stop fucking fanboying.
pre-soviet monarchy backed by western liberal democracies
Please fucking what liberal democracies during Tsarist times? England, France, possibly, am I missing one? And none of that antisemitism was home-grown, it was all the fault of those evil foreigners making poor Russian nobles and priests do stuff? The country most busy with fucking with Tsarist Russia, specifically sending Lenin over mind you, was Germany, very much not a liberal democracy. The age of liberal democracies started after WWI.
Can you point me to the exact sentence where I trivialised the holocaust? Hint: I didn’t say anything about the holocaust. All I gave you is a link, the rest is your imagination.
Oh, so to clarify, you don’t think that the USSR could be described as morally equivalent to fascism?
You, OTOH, are severely trivialising antisemitism within the USSR. Stop fucking fanboying.
Only in the sense that it is trivial in scale compared to the alternative socioeconomic systems of the time.
Also a woman, stop being sexist by assuming a male default.
And none of that antisemitism was home-grown, it was all the fault of those evil foreigners making poor Russian nobles and priests do stuff?
During the Russian Civil War the US, Britain and France sure militarily and financially supported those nobles and priests who did pogroms regaining power. They went so far as to invade the USSR. They had previous working relationships with them and wanted them back in power. The nobles and priests were antisemitic, as were there western partners.
Oh, so to clarify, you don’t think that the USSR could be described as morally equivalent to fascism?
Morally? I’m not talking about morally I’m talking objectively and no of course it was objectively fascist. So was Italy and they didn’t do the Holocaust. So is Scientology, in case you’re looking for an example of non-racist fascists. So are Kahanites and they definitely aren’t antisemitic, being Jews and all that. Your point?
Morally? I’m not talking about morally I’m talking objectively and no of course it was objectively fascist.
Okay, define fascism in a way that excludes liberal democracies and their colonies or neocolonies but includes the USSR. I dont think you know what fascism is.
So was Italy and they didn’t do the Holocaust.
They literally committed a genocide in Africa as part of their political project, they wanted to basically manifest destiny the Mediterranean, did you not hear about it because the victims weren’t (conditionally) white? Do you think they didn’t help the Germans do the Holocaust?
is Scientology, in case you’re looking for an example of non-racist fascists. So are Kahanites
Okay this shows me you can’t give a coherent definition of fascism. Also imagine not thinking scientology is racist. Lol.
Kahanites and they definitely aren’t antisemitic, being Jews and all that.
Lolol are you seriously going to make that argument? Do I need to pull up photos of Jewish people who collaborated with the nazis?
Okay, define fascism in a way that excludes liberal democracies and their colonies or neocolonies but includes the USSR. I dont think you know what fascism is.
My definition of fascism is the usual one you’ll hear from any anarchist: People who send me to bed. But feel free to read Umberto Eco and observe how the USSR gets a score of 10 out of 14, where of course one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce. Also how you were all too happy to display rejection of modernism by your implicit dissing of liberal democracies. Please, go ahead, tell me about the grand colonial empire of Estonia! Of Greenland! Of Samoa!
Disagreement is treason (elementary school dismissal without argumentative engagement), reference to your precious cult of tradition (Nazism is also modernist you muppet) which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak your “Marxist democracy” is neither of the two, lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four, obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism.
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
By that logic basically all ideology(including yours) is fascism, and to not be a fascist we cannot learn literally anything ever about politics.
(Nazism is also modernist you muppet)
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak
How about another strike for literally knowing what words mean and using them properly? You did not say modern, you said modernism. If you didn’t want to be misinterpreted, do not use language that conveys an entirely different meaning.
lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four
I wish I had the confidence to make such bold claims with so little knowledge. Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”? Do you even know what that term means? How about you explain it in your own words for me.
obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism
Loling at popular elitism.
Also I will never claim that the current state of capitalism is weak.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
I never said that. I said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao. At least one of which you misread but that’s another topic.
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I’m rejecting modernism when I’m rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.
Have you even ever read about “dictatorship of capital”?
How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
What is the proper application in your mind then, pray tell? Can you explain it?
There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”. Otherwise post-modernism would be fascist which makes no sense. At the very least you need an ideological group which corrals around a specific instantiation of those points, a particular way to gloss over the inherent contradictions, really, and engages in political action.
Me. And Eco. You just can’t let it go, can you, that someone disagrees with your precious ideology.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
said that you think that all truth has already been revealed by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and possibly Mao.
Bwahahahahaha this is really funny, literally reading a book on expanding marxist concepts into the sphere of transness
Marxism is a living intellectual tradition about ruthless critique, which includes of past leaders and thinkers.
You are rejecting the rational development that started with the Enlightenment, aka modernism. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are both part of that and reject it in their own ways, in a sense anticipating post-modernism. Neither are theologies or whatever, both reject democracy, both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism. Something something complexity theory I’ll let you do your own research can’t be arsed to feed that to a tankie.
Lol, sure, you can define words to mean whatever you want.
On democracy- literally every socialist state has more democracy than bourgeois democracies, because the people are (imperfectly) represented by politicians, the politicians are not there to serve capital.
both reject actually scientific socialism, the proper rational strain to follow, aka Anarchism.
Tell me how your anarchist projects in Catalonia and Ukraine were actually based anti-authoritarians when they did labor and concentration camps. Or when Ukraine was basically a military dictatorship, and enabled kulaks to massacre Jewish people.
Oh, or tell me about your more modern projects (the ones that actually claim to be anarchists, not indigenous resistors in Central America who don’t claim to be socialist or anarchist)
"Anarchism is a coat that only leaks when it is wet. "
How’s the GINI coefficient where you’re from? Maybe that’s the reason. Over where I am, struggle-wise, the labour aristocracy is actually kinda more of a headache than capital because capital is so easy to see.
Wait, so your argument is that the labor aristocracy actually controls your country? You are responding to me asking you if you could define dictatorship of capital.
There’s a reason I said “one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce around”, not “one is sufficient for fascism”.
Then what youre saying holds no water? Sufficient to coalesce around isn’t the same as a definition of.
Also Marxism doesn’t really fit any single point in the definition.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
I don’t even. He wrote about fascism in general, not about specific regimes short of Italy which he uses for some anecdotes, unsurprising given that he’s Italian.
The rest of what you wrote makes just as little sense, so goodbye. Talk to me when you’re grown up.
She asked you to give a definition of fascism that doesn’t include the liberal democracies, and you went with "meets some (but not all) of the list from Ur-fascism), a standard that would absolutely include all of the liberal democracies.
If your liberal democracy puts you into a mental health ward or gulag for your opinion about the system it’s not a liberal democracy. ML states OTOH really like to do that. There’s an inherent totalitarianism to them, they demand that everyone thinks precisely like some centralised decision organ decides, and you tankies will even defend that. Note here totalitarian vs. authoritarian: Thought itself is controlled, not just outward behaviour. That is a practical sign of fascism, once it is coalesced. The Ur-fascism points are merely crystallisation points.
The very point that you can type all that in (presumably) a liberal democracy without getting disappeared means that you’re not living under fascism.
It’s really something, MLs having so shit takes that you make me defend liberal democracies.
or the pogroms that the pre-soviet monarchy backed by western liberal democracies
You gotta be fucking trolling, what fucking western liberal democracies? France?
Western Europe was almost all constitutional monarchies until the end of WW2 and even then what fucking backing of Tsarist Russia? Napoleon trying to conquer it centuries before and then Austria Hungary and Prussia trading with it?
Also who the fuck is trivialising the holocaust now by mentioning it in the same breath as pogroms, as if the scale and systematic nature of the former don’t make them completely disanalogous?
I reiterate my former point: Fuck off tankie scum.
You gotta be fucking trolling, what fucking western liberal democracies? France?
The US, Britain. France.
Western Europe was almost all constitutional monarchies until the end of WW2 and even then what fucking backing of Tsarist Russia?
The US, France, Britain, and other countries literally invaded the USSR to try to restore the monarchy.
Also who the fuck is trivialising the holocaust now by mentioning it in the same breath as pogroms, as if the scale and systematic nature of the former don’t make them completely disanalogous?
My point is that the amount of antisemitism in the soviet union wasn’t even approaching the level of pogroms, which was much smaller scale than the holocaust.
I reiterate my former point: Fuck off tankie scum.
My point is that the amount of antisemitism in the soviet union wasn’t even approaching the level of pogroms, which was much smaller scale than the holocaust.
Right so quantitative arguments are fine when they support your point. Gotcha.
Why don’t you call me woke next, CHUD.
Cause you aren’t fucking woke. You fucking wish you were woke.
For one, woke people have at least some good points, unlike you; and for two, woke people don’t look for arguments as to why “slightly less deliberately genocidal” is actually not so bad when you think about it.
Love them or hate them, progressives are pretty swift to condemn systematic imperialist genocide in all forms, but for you that would require not being a fucking dictatorship apologist.
Ok, fuck me, you got me mad enough to answer, gr8 b8 m8.
I want this on record that the only reason I am wasting my time replying to your tankie ass (and yes, I checked your post history, you’re a tankie, surprising absolutely nobody) is so that if someone runs into this pathetic excuse for a rebuttal they don’t believe for a second that I bought this as an actually valid response.
My surviving jewish family were freed from a nazi death camp by the people you call fascists.
Who asked?
Who the fuck cares, and for that matter who the fuck believes a rando on the internet just happens to have the right personal anecdote to pull rank in an online conversation? Fuck off with that shit. If I told you my wife is jewish and her grandfather died in Auschwitz would you believe me? Would it make you reconsider the validity of my argument? Of course it fucking wouldn’t.
What does conquering and breaking up an enemy installation have to do with what form of governance is running a country? The soviets broke up auschwitz because they broke up every installation they ran across, as you do when conquering enemy land. That has nothing to do with whether stalinist Russia was or wasn’t a fascist shithole.
Not all fascist regimes committed the holocaust. Most of them have committed genocides, and yes that very much includes the soviets, but talking about Fascism at large is not an invitation to barge in, well-achshually-ing as if the only fascist regimes to ever exist were the fucking Axis in WW2, no matter how much your obvious commie ass would like to believe that.
Hell the Axis didn’t even include all the explicitly fascist countries of the time, (since Franco’s Spain wasn’t in it) let alone all of the ones that came and went since.
I literally link you to a well known mainstream Jewish historian and activist about this issue.
Sure, and? Neither being well known, mainstream, nor an activist are indicators of your understanding of political theory and the specific meanings and ideologies behind currents.
Technically speaking fucking Alex Jones is a well known mainstream activist if you go by raw numbers and popularity, and i doubt his opinion is worth listening to.
But even then, you absolutely shat the bed on linking the guy because, spoilers: I never even brought up the holocaust until this point, nor have I compared it to the holodomor and other genocides.
Nor would I, because I am not a fucking idiot.
No part of any definition of fascist requires the genocidal zeal the nazis exhibited, and if it makes you feel better I will fucking happily concede that Hitler’s bloodlust is still undefeated in both unyieldingness and devotion.
Doesn’t change jack shit about the definition of fascism or whether the soviets and maoists fit it, unfortunately for you.
Do you think David Katz is a “tankie”?
I have no idea who that is, nor do I care.
Ok, I lied, you got me curious, and you conveniently misspelled his name.
Because when looking up David Katz you find a highly distinguished history professor at Brandeis, but actually you linked one Dovid Katz whose academic background has fuckall to do with history since he’s a fucking philologist.
So, do I think he’s a tankie?
No, I don’t think so.
Is his arguing against comparing the holocaust and other genocides at all relevant to this discussion?
Absolutely fucking not.
You call me scum equivalent to a nazi in response. Have words lost all meaning to you?
Let’s see. You’re arguing that the only aspect of fascism, an entire political movement whose impact is so strong and so damaging we are still feeling its effects a century later, that is worth addressing is the holocaust, instead of its far more consistently present, pervasive, and insidious characteristics of inevitably building a liberticidal, autocratic, centralist dictatorship whose morals change at the drop of a hat based entirely on the convenience of the political leadership of the regime.
You know, like every fascist regime, self-proclaimed or de-facto, other than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy which also did the holocaust.
Plus you bring this up as if not committing the most deliberate and industrialised genocide in recorded history makes stalinists or maoists not genocidal. A silver medal is as good as sitting on the couch to you, isn’t it?
Furthermore, I would argue you are doing so because you are trying to protect your sacred cows of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao from being rightfully identified as just another flavour of fascist, and not out of genuine interest in highlighting how bad the holocaust truly was.
If you cared about that you wouldn’t need to downplay how horrendous other genocides are to single out the nazis, you can roundly condemn them and the soviets as genocidal without making an equivalence.
Being genocidal and being exceptionally genocidal both earn you a one way ticket to “shoot on sight” land in my book, debating which one is worse is thoroughly pointless from a moral standpoint and a red herring from a political science standpoint as being a fascist does not require a kill count (though it usually predicts a pretty fucking high one.)
So yeah words have meanings, and tankie means fascist scum dressed in red, as opposed to dressed in black or dressed in brown.
Being genocidal and being exceptionally genocidal both earn you a one way ticket to “shoot on sight” land in my book, debating which one is worse is thoroughly pointless from a moral standpoint and a red herring from a political science standpoint as being a fascist does not require a kill count (though it usually predicts a pretty fucking high one.)
Okay, so people who support liberal “democracies” like the US currently backing genocide should be shot on sight then? Or just the governments responsible?
The problem with “those genocidal communists” is that liberal democracies are significantly more genocidal. You want to go with the least bad system.
Take the notion that man-made famine counts as genocide. 8 million people starve under the capitalist world order every year.
whose academic background has fuckall to do with history since he’s a fucking philologist.
Dude, don’t do philology dirty like that. They’re reading dusty old tomes all day long and you need a lot of historical knowledge to make proper sense of them. We couldn’t read hieroglyphics without their work, and their extrapolations have been proven by Hittite (which was discovered after the reconstruction of proto-Indo-European and looks exactly as expected). The two disciplines feed into each other. Dr. Daniel Jackson is a philologist and at least as cool as Indiana Jones and do I need to mention J.R.R. Tolkien.
Dude, believe it or not my own mother is a philologist, so I know that damn well.
I know that the discipline is important but I’d be a bit gunshy to look at a random philologist for earthshattering insight on the nature of a political movement whose impact clearly touches the man on a very personal level.
The best part is that I don’t even have to, Katz is not even wrong, it’s just that this tankie fucker is instrumentalising an argument against minimising one side to minimise the other and frankly I hope he catches the bus the wrong way for that one.
Transcription for the blind: Storefront with two paper signs taped to the window. Left sign says "Since the supreme court had ruled that businesses can discriminate…NO SALES TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Right sign says “We only sell to churches that fly the pride flag” and has an illustrated image of a pride flag and a church.
-Transcription done by a human volunteer. Let me know how I can do better.
But in iOS , addons (ublock origin) are not available at least outside EU, so brave is the better choice as it got brave shield . everywhere else I use Firefox.
So you’re gonna want do a space+command and type extensions, that should open the App Store to where you want to be, unlock is one of the top extensions.
There is one issues though… Firefox is extremely slow and clunky. I hate to say it, but on mobile it is hard to use all the time for me. On desktop I’m Firefox 95% of the time but some sites don’t work very well with the much slower JavaScript engine. This isn’t to defend Brave or any chromium browser but we gotta get Firefox up to speed.
I feel like Firefox has made some really great strides on the performance front. Especially considering how bloated chrome has gotten as a comparison. But… Yeah that’s valid. I love Firefox like 99% of the time but sometimes I’m almost forced to swap to Chrome to get a site to work correctly or reliably.
Site devs need to see the threat from browser engine monopolies too. Valve literally started pouring resources into Linux gaming just because Microsoft looked like they were trying to dominate game stores on Windows. Chromium actually dominates the web. I guess at least base chromium is open source. Still though, one of those markets is way bigger than the other and it definitely isn’t Linux gaming. (God I love Proton/WINE and how far we’ve come!)
Firefox and chromium both outperform Safari in performance tests, or roughly the same depending on the setup.
It’s Safari that’s the third rate browser. No one would use that shit if it hadn’t been forced on them and if the other vendors weren’t restricted by Apple.
There’s a reason Apple stopped making Safari for other platforms. It never caught on, 'cause it sucks. Safari can’t compete without Apple kneecapping the competition. They’re like a sports team that can’t win without playing on their home turf at 10000 ft altitude where they pump in crowd noise and drug the other team’s gatorade
Wow safari is shit. I didn’t know it was that far behind. Damn. Well, to be fair my problem is my Pixel 6 is a slow ass buggy Google nightmare product. Firefox probably works fine on a Samsung phone but then I can’t install GrapheneOS. Yet I have never bothered so… Samsung and their locked bootloader may be preferable just so Firefox has more hardware to run on lol.
At least the Android version, even on my 5 year old Exynos phone it does what I need / want from a browser. Allows (some) extensions, lets me zoom wherever I want to on any page, has a reader mode and is snappy enough on old hardware.
Chrome tries to be / do far too much for me, just fuck off and let me browse the web. I do like the dynamic colours that Chrome on mobile uses on different webpages, is hot.
However Chrome gives me dirty Microsoft vibes, and it’s pretty hard to shake that stank.
If your on iOS welcome to the walled garden. Hope you live in the EU.
Currently trying out Floorp as a Firefox fork for the possibility that Google’s disabling of adblockers in the manifest will make it impossible to use chromium browsers which is kind of good, too
But Vivaldi rules as long as chromium is an option!
Mozilla was doing poorly when he was CEO as well. Google has been doing everything they can to force Chrome.
He was CEO for 11 days and in that time all he did was cause a bunch of websites to show a banner requesting that users install a different browser in order to not support a homophobe.
There was also a boatload of articles about his homophobia that brought Mozilla into disrepute.
And secondly, this isn’t entirely about purity - even if you personally (and I’m not saying this is your view, btw) don’t give the slightest fuck about gay people and you’re fine with them having fewer rights/fine with others actively trying to strip their rights away - others aren’t, and it’s harmful to the business.
Eich was CEO for 11 days and achieved nothing other than a Firefox boycott, dozens of negative Firefox headlines, and Firefox being known as the homophobic browser.
Even from a cold-hearted “fuck human rights, I care only about market share” POV, Eich was still an awful CEO decision.
Remember, streaming only has a business model as long as it has a better user experience than piracy. That’s why iTunes took off in the era of Napster. When a streaming service’s user experience drops below that of digging up pirate treasure off a shitty ad-ridden torrent site, that service is not long for the world.
I bought a raspberry pi, a SATA SSD and usb adaptor, and installed Plex now I’m the new netflix for my family, they send me movies and shows they want to watch and I put them on there, then they connect to my server and watch
We used to rent movies every weekend when I was a kid, and we supported our local video rental store instead of Blockbuster. It was so much fun to decide what to rent! The staff there always knew so much about movies too, and we'd follow their recs often. We watched a bunch of classics and silent films that there's no way would get visibility on streaming libraries today. I wish I'd kept a journal of all the movies we watched, I remember almost no titles now.
You can also buy used DVDs. Just got a stack of studio Gibili movies for a fraction of the price they cost when they were new. Still haven’t watched all of them, but some I have watched more than once.
It was nice when you could actually watch almost everything on it. Once everyone else started taking peices of the pie it just feels like cable with more hoops now
Every time I open a streaming service now, the things I want to watch are locked into an extra subscription. I generally end up just walking away rather than watching anything, and when I do dig around and find some thing else that is available on “my tier,” it absolutely wasn’t worth it.
Forget even piracy, I’m just not watching anything anymore. When streaming makes my chore list look more attractive, they’ve definitely fucked up.
We’re about to cancel Netflix despite my kids’ protests and start rotating. My husband just wanted to watch the new Castlevania and then we’re cutting and running — for a while at least. It’ll end up on the rotation again at some point.
If streaming services ever make us sign up for more than a month at a time, we’ll be hard-pressed to keep doing it the “right” way.
This is a great time to teach your kids Internet piracy and internet safety at the same time! Don’t click the pictures of the nice lady and you get to watch your show lol
“These hot babes are most certainly NOT in your area.”
I think this is an excellent notion and allows you to better shape their foray into the subject matter. They will be the cool kids, but you’d have to instill the “no talking about Usenet” type of rule. No boasting.
I have a mini-pc running a plex vm. And all the TVs are Rokus. So can watch anything, including live broadcast tv. And the roku is so simple kids can operate it, and do.
I have a Roku too, which I mainly use for work trips.
What I did at home was get one of those cheap rechargeable wireless keyboards with trackpad for like $10 so that we can browse for what we want to watch from the sofa.
Use yts.mx, if you use any other site, try checking comments first if they have them, if not you can use torrent file viewer to check the download is actually a video file before downloading
Lastly you could try anti virus, but don’t rely on it to do your job for you, they can catch most but not always all viruses
Being able to easily purchase a single song from a reputable source in the comfort of your home instead of going out to physically buy an entire album and then rip it to your computer was a better user experience, yes. Most users are technologically illiterate, and trying to pirate stuff just lead to them getting viruses.
Because you were guaranteed that what you were downloading was what it said it was, and was high quality, and would have the correct tagging and album art and all of that.
It’s been shown repeatedly that a large part of piracy isn’t about cost, it’s about convenience. It was easier to pay $0.99 and get what you wanted when you wanted it, than download 8 files off of Napster and hope that one of them was actually a decent bitrate and was the song the title said it was.
Back when eMule was a thing, it was super common to spend an entire day downloading a 700MB video file at 5kb/s, only for it to be Fight Club instead of whatever you thought you were downloading. It’s the same thing with music.
It’s been shown repeatedly that a large part of piracy isn’t about cost, it’s about convenience. It was easier to pay $0.99 and get what you wanted when you wanted it, than download 8 files off of Napster and hope that one of them was actually a decent bitrate and was the song the title said it was.
“We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.”
Kazaa/Gnutella era: it says porn on the filename, but there’s no previews and it turns out to be CSAM. Thanks for the trauma, now I’m gonna run shred …
Music piracy was big till spotify apprared. iTunes had a limited selection, music remixes, small band stuff were not available. iTunes only had what Sony and some other music distributors supplied. I understand what you are saying but still, piracy was there and iTunes was not primary source. Spotify came and now music piracy is basically limited to high quality audio albums which is a niche market.
On top of what’s already been said about technological literacy and security, I’d like to add that I WANT to support the artists who make things I like but the companies selling their works tend to ruin the experience by trying to squeeze every dime out of you.
For the last decade or so, digital storefronts have provided a pretty good experience, but it’s starting to get a lot worse as the old companies go public and become beholden to shareholders, or as new companies enter the arena and split up what was once available all in one place.
If you have the local MP3 file you can do just about anything you want with it. Use it in just about any device. Transfer it anywhere. And never lose it.
I have Mp3s that are over 20-30 years old and have never needed to get them again.
And yes I go to piracy almost immediately if I can't get a local file. Just because of how many different ways i've used them over the years.
A seedbox is access to a server that someone else runs, and they typically have a policy of not asking too many questions, not keeping too many logs, and offer assistance in keeping things secure. It can be used for any number of things. I use mine to host bit torrent files and to run applications such as Sonarr & Radarr. These are open source apps that manage TV shows and movies.
I don't even have to torrent, I have like 3 sites I can just go to, search for content on, and stream video from like a shittier netflix. Adblock keeps them relatively sane, and I sometimes have to try different server sources, but otherwise it works fine.
Been on chrome for like 12 years. Syncs across my phone, everything. I will make the switch. I have been wondering when google was going to go evil. Why not 2023 like everything else on the internet?
Dodge v. Ford is arguably the court case that proves all capitalist owned companies are legally required to not do the right thing. If Google was worker owned they would be a lot better.
Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that Henry Ford had to operate the company in the best interests of its shareholders, not his employees. It’s an awful ruling by the Supreme Court that has never been revisited.
It’s one of a sequence of Supreme Court decisions (starting with Dartmouth College v Woodward and culminating most recently with Citizens United) that have led us down this path of corporate dystopia. For the full background, read this:
2 years from now Firefox will have blocked adblockers, and there will be chromium based browsers (not Chrome) that won’t have them blocked.
I don’t see why people seem to be thinking a large company in a capitalistic landscape isn’t going to side with profits. Firefox will oppose it openly right now and take the new users and then move to the same without lube and without apologies.
Small browsers that still have some morals before going public will build browers off chromium because of its ease, and they will be able to exclude those blocks. Likely means we will be using different browsers every few years until something else changes.
Maybe I’m pessimistic here, but anyone who just moved from Reddit to Lemmy should know that Firefox isn’t the answer, it is another greed driven overlord.
Mimicking the tokens on the otherhand… those sites we will need to boycott if possible.
Firefox is built by open source developers who overwhelmingly have those same values. They have also been at this for many years now and have given us no real reason to doubt this commitment.
“The majority of Mozilla’s revenue is generated from search functionality included in our Firefox product through all major search partners including Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, Ebay and others.”
Everything you just said was optimistic as fuck.
750 employees, 826 million dollars in revenue a year.
So what do they choose. Fire 700 employees and go down to 26 mill revenue?
Edit: when the hivemind disperses and sees Firefox follow Google in using tokens and blocking ad blockers, you may not see it as one of the dumbest thing you’ve read before.
Makes no sense. Mozilla has no horse in the advertising race. But Google does. Almost all of Google’s profits are from ads. Ads keep the entire Alphabet house of cards afloat.
But not Mozilla. The largest connection there is them being paid for default lt search engine.
I love this quote, it exactly sums up my sentiments.
I’m actually looking forward to it, because it will finally force me to go cold turkey on so many bullshit websites I don’t need in my life anyway, which I was never able to do on my own, because the addiction simply is there. But not as strong ans my hatred of fingerprinting and advertisements.
same, I think I might start reading more books again, I wanted to do that for a long time now but I never head “enough” time as I always spent so much time on the internet
It’s far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn’t even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.
There’s a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn’t require much of a change from their current business model.
Agreed, building a nuclear facility takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. However… This doesn’t need to be the case at all.
A lot of the costs go into design, planning and legal work. The amount of red tape to build a nuclear plant is huge. Plus all of the parties that fight any plans to build, with a heavy not in my backyard component.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly. Back in the day we could build them faster and cheaper. And these days we build far more complex installations quicker and cheaper than nuclear power plants.
The anti-nuclear movement has done so much to hold humanity back on this front. And the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost.
You can’t cut the red tape. The red tape is why we’re able to say nuclear is safe.
the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost
Huh? Nuclear fusion doesn’t have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesn’t exist. We’ve never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as ‘input’ a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)
Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables weren’t cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. It’s the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.
I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.
I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed
I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.
Very well, let’s agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.
The people I’ve spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can’t we?
I’m all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I’m not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that’s more expensive than other sources (within reason) I’m all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn’t included.
We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can’t we?
It’s because we stopped building them. We have academic knowledge on how to do it but not the practical/technical know-how. A few countries do it because they’re doing a ton of reactors, but those don’t come cheap either.
Atkeast in my country, the only two pro-nuclear parties are fsr-right climate change deniers and the same old fucks who’re only pro-nuclear because the green party isnt.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.
That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.
Blah blah blah nobody wants to hear actual evidence and suggestions that solar and wind might be better. We’re on a mission for Nuclear power damn the Fukushima refugees and who cares if we store the waste encased in concrete at the bottom of the ocean which we know will eventually leak into the food stream
Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That’s new.
First, no, that’s not what I said. If you’re only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.
Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn’t scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can’t just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don’t want to be generating more than is used.
Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload “until we have adequate storage”, the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don’t already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.
I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I’d have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I’ve looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I’ve had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn’t be building nuclear; it’s just an inferior option to renewables.
Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?
Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.
False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.
All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it’s own ecological problems associated with it.
Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.
The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these “100% renewable” countries.
Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…
Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.
Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.
Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.
100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.
Sorry to report, hydrogen is also hopeless. It’s cool tech, but making it work in practice is hopeless because it diffuses straight through every container you try and keep it in, and achieving reasonable energy densities requires cryogenic storage.
Also, developments have been stalling out relative to electrical solutions because of this and because of the heavy investment in electrics.
I can only see it really working in practice in niche applications where you will be close to cryogenic facilities.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
Also, look up the 7 Hydrogen Hubs in the US as an example of this market getting started. There are no downsides to developing a hydrogen market if we’re going to have oodles of excess renewable energy.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
I believe we’re still using more hydrogen to make industrial ammonia than that we produce from green sources, so I guess even if we only switch over ammonia production without worrying about fuel cells or hydrogen vehicles or power generation, we still come out ahead.
Then there’s the hydrogen used in oil refining that, iirc, is still mostly sourced from methane, but I’m hesitant to suggest we replace that with green hydrogen since if you want to be carbon-negative the oil refining will have to go down A LOT anyway.
Anyway, I guess my point is that hydrogen is an important commodity for all sorts of things. Before we start burning it for energy it’s easier to use it as is in industrial processes. The methane we save that way (that would be used to produce industrial hydrogen) we can burn as is in existing gas power plants.
But this is the kind of pragmatic common sense thing that gets no one excited.
I mean, if anything, the fact that the Oil & Gas industry uses hydrogen for refining means that there is a possible, robust market for green hydrogen to get into (don’t like this because it means oil is still the focus, when we need to consider green chemistry and stop with oil).
The O&G industry also helped usher in solar PV at an early stage because of the needs of remote power in hazardous environments such as offshore rigs and near potential sources of release like oil tanks (I used to work as an engineer in O&G myself).
There’s actually a lot of work by GE and Mitsubishi to start shipping new gas turbines to be capable of firing a non-zero amount of hydrogen in addition to natural gas. I think some plants are even capable of doing 50/50 hydrogen/natural gas, with that former number increasing year over year.
Hydrogen could outstrip conventional fuels someday. The bottleneck has always been supply though.
If renewables are so abundant and cheap, then we’ll finally have a reason to deploy hydrogen infrastructure on a massive scale (at least in the US). Hell, you look at the major inverter manufacturers for utility PV like Sungrow, and they have containerized electrolyzers ready for implementation. I haven’t done a market survey, but if they’re in the game, then so are other players.
If you want to be convinced of the progress of hydrogen, I would look into the project that Sargent & Lundy is working on in Utah. They’re planning on using a salt cavern for hydrogen storage, and I believe there is a CCGT onsite as well to make use of the generation.
Hydrogen is even on the minds of offshore wind developers like Siemens.
The substance isn’t doomed like others in this thread make it out. There is active interest in the market to develop a supply chain and economy.
Edit: The one thing I don’t see a lot of people talk about though is where the raw materials for this hydrogen will come from… Likely groundwater unfortunately. Since groundwater is already a highly sought after resource for consumption and agriculture, I’m not sure if hydrogen in this way will take off. This is why offshore hydrogen seems to be more promising, but as we see with wave and tidal power, the ocean environment just sucks for any commercialization.
It’s an uphill battle, but the same can be said for the climate crisis in general. Hope we make enough progress before it’s too late.
There are a bunch. But solar panels have gotten a lot better in the last decades, whereas thermodynamics has remained the same. They are not worth the investment anymore.
Australian politicians have been arguing about nuclear energy for decades, and with whats going on now, petty distracting squabbling while state governments are gutting public infrastructure
The most frustrating thing is the antinuclear party is obviously fine with nuclear power, and nuclear armaments, just look at the aukus submarines
labors cries about the dangers to our communities and the environment are obviously disingenuous, or they wouldnt be setting a green light for the billionaire robber barons to continue tearing oil and minerals out of the ground (they promise to restore the land for real-sies this time)
Anyway, a nuclear power plant runs a steam turbine and will never be more than what, 30% efficient?
Photovoltaic cells are even less efficient, I think they’re somewhere between 10-20% efficient. I think the way to go would be a solar collector, like the Archimedes death ray, but much much bigger.
That is already a thing and it’s called concentrated solar power. Basically aim a shit load of mirrors at a target to heat it, run some working fluid through the target and use that to make steam to turn a turbine. There are a few power plants that use it but in general it has been more finicky and disruptive to the local environment than traditional PV panels would be.
There are designs for a giant glass cone put in the middle of the desert. Air under the cone gets warmed and it rises up through a couple turbines on its way out of the device.
The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not‽ Rooftop solar on people’s houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!
Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city aren’t handled by other means. It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach.
This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven’t yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They’re one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.
I would remind you that Aukus is a mess of the Coalition’s making - after they made a mess of the original submarine replacement project under Abbott and Turnbull, insisting on Diesel.
But for Labor to withdraw from Aukus would cause a shitstorm of unseen proportions.
No, you’re right. It’s not an option for everyone. Which is why I mentioned that there are many other solutions which are similar and over production which is simpler and cheaper
What? You don’t have Google? Options I know of (other than batteries and pumped hydro) : Compressed Air Energy Storage, Thermal Energy Storage, Fly wheels, Hydrogen, Supercapacitors, Gravitational Storage
Nobody wants energy stored for months. Whatever storage is used needs to get through temporary decreases in efficiency. In places that use solar, that means from one afternoon to the next morning. In places that use wind, it means until the wind picks up. We’re talking storage on the order of tens of hours at the most.
The fact that you descend into complete science fiction should give you pause for thought. I doubt it will, but please think about how fantastical your proposed solutions are - “a massive lake of molten salt under every city” (I actually like that one!)…
Given you’re making up things I never said I can only imagine what you’re respinding to? Where did a massive lake of molten salt under every city come from?
Sorry this is a late reply. I can see that mentioning molten salt was a bit left-field, However, it is one of the more realistic ways to store the huge amounts of power needed to fuel an economy for a couple of weeks (which you need in northern europe/US if you want to use solar/wind). Here’s a link about it:
I am pro nuclear, but if we are going to descend into this renewable hell, then we need to actually think about how you store terawatt-hours of power. I really think that this kind of storage might be the nearest we have to a solution. we’ll only need it once we try to turn off the gas turbines, of course. It is fascinating that so many smart people don’t see that the whole jigsaw is missing vital pieces.
Oil & Gas companies didn’t want Solar, Wind, and Storage to proliferate, yet they did because of cost savings.
I think we could start to see that for these alternative-ion batteries if lithium supply ever becomes an issue. There will always be a niche that has the opportunity to grow in the economy. Just takes the right circumstances and preparation
Price driven consumption has been done by industrial users for decades. And countries like UK has been storing energy in storage heaters at home for decades as well. EVs can do wonders here.
Fuck I wish the politicians would give this to us straight like that.
Why is Albo’s party spreading memes about three eyed fish instead of saying “yeah Dutton’s nuclear plan is safe, but it maximises fossil fuel use in the short term and we’d prefer to focus on renewables”
This shows the power of steam reviews with it being driven by the actual community. People tried to downplay and belittle its effectiveness, but it being front and center on the store page does have more impact than there would be without steam reviews. If there were no steam reviews the PSN requirement would have been pushed through with it being easier to ignore some random internet comments on social media than a store page.
I suspect someone in accounting ran the numbers and decided they stand to lose more to reduced microtransaction sales than they would have gained via selling scraped data.
Though I agreed with you. It’s still a win, but we have to be careful not to conflate this with Sony “caring”.
I still think the biggest reason why they wanted to push their shitty platform is to artificially push player numbers. "Look how many people use our scam network, see?"
Now the hilarious part is that hopefully someone has to explain why people go these lengths, just to not join their shitty service.
That isn’t why. PlayStation doesn’t view this as a problem and in fairness, I don’t either. If the game had shipped with this requirement, it would’ve been fine. Many people put up with Ubisoft and they have a whole separate account plus launcher.
What Sony actually wanted was to make it easier on their server side to authenticate purchases and then to use the same PSN account systems to matchmaker for easier cross-play.
Would they collect data? I guess. They can already do that if they want as a publisher. So yeah it’s purely just to use their ecosystem, which makes sense.
Insane take imo. How does purchase authentication or cross play suddenly become “easier” with this change? Either it works or it doesn’t; having PC players connected to a PSN account doesn’t alleviate server load.
Did I mention server load? What I mean is that having a PSN account means that whatever game is processing your account details doesn’t have to deal with Steam accounts, it just deals with a PSN account the same as it would if you were on PS5.
What I’m saying is it streamlines the code on the developers side of the games they’re publishing and again if Sony is using systems already to authenticate purchases or whatever that can be collected in systems they already have.
This isn’t rocket science, PSN may just be a translation layer.
Correct, I never said it wasn’t buggy either. I’m just pointing out that if you have cross play and you already have console support with console user IDs then it makes sense to just convert PC players into that same console user system.
This is what Xbox used to do when publishing games on Steam and still do with their GamePass stuff. And very similarly, that system also broke things and still breaks things for people.
It absolutely has to deal with a Steam account every single time I log in to confirm ownership of the title. And then again every time I make a purchase from my Steam wallet. And again every time I connect to a friend through my Steam friends list.
It’s literally adding another potential point of failure and removes none of the necessities of dealing with the other service. I only suggested the server load bit because I can’t for the life of me understand how you can think it’s “easier” to insist that these two systems interact in a new way when they’re already up and functioning, and the original reason account linking was disabled was to make the game more stable.
Because those systems already exist for the console players. All they’re doing is switching it over to steam but they likely had a translation layer there before to do all the things you’re saying but through PSN instead. Why? Because that system already exists for consoles.
So their options here are that they can take the netcode for consoles and modify it to utilize SteamIDs and fetch data from Steam or they can just turn your Steam ID into a console ID and treat all of the inputs to their systems exactly like they would on the PS5 while fetching them from Steam.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying you’d think that just trying to match the console and the way it handles players would be simpler. Especially when you’re trying to make cross play work. Clearly it wasn’t so they temporarily ditched it. Maybe Sony does just want your data but if that’s true, why would the telemetry gathering be such a big deal? And they also could just use your SteamID for that data gathering. So clearly PSN used to be more integrated than people here are suggesting
I mean yeah this is especially true for online games as this is a form of DRM for Sony and it gives them control to easily reject or accept keys and ban users using their pre-existing systems.
Same thing with cross-play, it’s possible that some of these games were designed to use PSN systems and so that makes integration easy. No clue, but if true it makes sense from Sonys perspective on both of those fronts.
Sure, and I’m not suggesting said bean counter was responsible for the decision. What I am suggesting is that the only thing that influenced the decision was bottom line finances. Someone ran the numbers, and when the suits discovered that they stand to lose more money than they’d gain, they reversed the decision. Never mistake this as Sony “listening” to anything more than their investors and their bottom line.
It's probably a bit of this and a bit of that. I mean the game went from one of the best revied games to one of the worst in a day. There were refunds and a drop in players all at the same time.
My prediction is that the game will rebound, certainly, but will not reach back to the levels it had before. A percentage of people who refunded won’t be buying again and another section probably will quit the game altogether, now or as soon as something newer and shinier shows up. Lots will forget to change their review.
Sony actively hurt their own game and probably made irreparable damage.
Many countries actually have such systems in place today, even Russia (lol) - not that they work too well.
Normally, there are two sources of issues here: petitions can in fact be declined, and, in cases where the signature count depends on scale of the petition they can be intentionally escalated as to make it impossible to gain enough signatures. Besides, in many cases petitions can be left unanswered for longer than promised.
Long story short, the system is open to shenanigans and doesn’t make the government truly accountable.
We need the system that would actually make politicians rapidly lose their jobs when they ignore public opinion.
If slaves would have a vote, they’d certainly strongly choose one option :D
Same for the discriminated groups.
If they don’t have a vote, this depends on the rest of society in the short run, but can cause violent rebellions in the long one. Democratic system does not eliminate possibility of revolt.
The sony communities I saw poopooing the whole thing flipped immediately into “WE DID IT” mode, pretending they actually cared about the people that were going to lose access.
This is why Steam reviews should be taken much more seriously. This was impossible to avoid due to the enormous amount of bad press and devs themselves jumping on the hate train, but I’m betting that a lot of review bombing attempts have been quietly offset by the company just paying people for fake reviews. It’s especially obvious when the game has relatively low reviews for months and months, then suddenly bad stuff happens and along with the justified dump of negative reviews, positive ones also skyrocket (99% of which composed of “good game”, random memes or ascii art).
lemmy.world
Top