Facebook level post. If I start seeing photos of Tom Hardy or Cillian Murphy with quotes about loyalty or some other bullshit, Wayne Brady will have to choke a bitch.
If you scroll down, you’ll find the comments to match “doesn’t apply if you’re married or a parent amirite” fuck me what the fuck is happening on Lemmy
Good point. Bots? There is a lot more fb low quality reposts. This might as well be called “bumper sticker” or “t-shirt” content. Still better than reddit.
my first acid trip was at a haunted house, now you would think that would be “scary” but the goddamn line was so long the entire peak of my trip was standing in line
And then the theater majors try to scare you in line but it’s mostly concerning because a theater major is waving a tool at you and you don’t trust their physical coordination.
But the situational absurdity, the unbelievability, is what makes it funny. Like me moderating an Android community on a niche tech forum. It’s hilarious.
What do you mean, this bad boy is probably powering a semi-critical government system somewhere, definitely not obsolete.
Edit: not even joking or shitting on it, there’s probably a proprietary software system out there somewhere that a contractor was paid to build ages ago. The contractor is out of business or doesn’t support it anymore, but it works perfectly in its one little spot. Also an update is gonna cost a quarter of a million dollars.
I’ve seen disk chart meters at facilities that are 40+ years old and need a new disk chart every so often. You could replace it with a digital meter, but that won’t integrate with the rest of the control panel and a third party took over production of the disks 15 years ago. The system works great and it’s unlikely to be updated unless they stop making the disk charts.
Edit 2: the correct term is circular chart recorder
I don’t know if it’s still there but I once did some work getting a plasma cutter back to operational. OS/2. Not even warp!
Oh it’s a pretty solid OS but i mean, damn.
Parallel port hardware key and everything. I do believe in keeping what works working but at some point you gotta let go because you run out of people that can solve problems with it.
Seems like this issue is across a few different industries. I had two CnC machine running software on old PC’s with special cards to interface with the drives. One was running in a Dos box while the other was running windows XP. We could never afford any down time so it was fine some old PC’s that can still run this stuff.
There are some data recording systems on planes designed in the 90s that still use the original designs. Memory cards that are as big as your hand and only hold megabytes worth of data.
Upgrading would be fairly simple in theory, but getting anything approved to be used on an aircraft is an expensive pain in the ass so they don’t want to go through that. They don’t need any more storage capacity either.
So somewhere out there some companies are making these now ancient parts for now ancient systems, and probably making a killing because nobody else makes them.
I made so much money on this kinda stuff. And even after all updated they still kept those damn chart recorders. Luckily they were standalone and I guess easier than hitting print.
And most of you would be terrified if you knew what they were manufacturing. Ignorance is bliss, trust.
There are components of various flying machines that are critical and must be made at certain temp and humidity. Else they are out of spec. That’s pretty much it. The people in charge of this are less thorough than you’d like.
I’m actually in complete agreement with you. Yes there are safeties and whatever, I was just saying those safeties aren’t exactly monitored as you would expect. Don’t worry, I’m sure it won’t affect you. Wasn’t this just about chart recorders?
As for the personal stuff, sorry you took it that way. You want to argue about something we agree on and I know exactly how that goes. As such, i suggest we just skip to the part where we chill and do something fun. No you aren’t my child but picking apart my simple comment is sorta… well you know. It’s all good, you might be one in 8 billion but I’m still your friend. Take care.
I know for a fact that many hospitals are still running 1970s COBOL on beige servers in the corners of basements that have been taken over by ICU wards. Because I has to maintain that shit amongst the dying. Weird job.
This is super true. I occasionally visit a TRIGA reactor that was built decades ago, and a good chunk of the computers critical in infrastructure run comically old versions of windows since software used to operate the faculty was a custom job.
Weirdo psycho failed League of Legends bullshit crypto CEO or being a raving mad millionaire but with my name attached to McAffee anti-virus… difficult choice.
The credit scores aren't even government scores, just private companies that decided to collect everyone's information and the government won't do anything about it 'because of the economy'.
You would think if something was owned by a private individual or a private organization, we could point to one person or entity that owns and controls it. But, if you look at the ownership of any major American credit card corporation, you will see that the ownership is held by a collective of entities. You might say that ownership is far more held in common than privately:
American Express Company: “Largest shareholders include Berkshire Hathaway Inc, Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp, Wellington Management Group Llp, Jpmorgan Chase & Co, VTSMX - Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, VFINX - Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares, Morgan Stanley, and Bank Of America Corp…”
Bank of America: “Bank Of America Corp’s top holdings are Microsoft Corporation (US:MSFT) , Invesco Capital Management LLC - Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1 (US:QQQ) , Apple Inc (US:AAPL) , SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY) , and SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY)…”
Capital One: “Capital One Financial Corps top holdings are BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (US:USMV) , Goldman Sachs ETF Trust - Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta International Equity ETF (US:GSIE) , BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (US:QUAL) , Vanguard Group, Inc. - Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (US:VTEB) , and BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A.”
You called them private companies, and I’m disputing that.
This distinction is important, because the properties that make it non-private (being owned by a public collective) also happen to make people particularly vulnerable to spyware and data collection. That which is owned by a public corporation is owned by its shareholders collectively. Major shareholders can therefor lobby corporations to divulge data that is technically legally theirs. When you consider how many corporations Black Rock and Vanguard are invested in, there isn’t much that you can touch without generating some meta-data level evidence of what you’re doing, where, and when that they won’t have access to.
If things were truly privately controlled, nobody would be able to lobby a bank to divulge information about its clients.
You’re disputing something other than what they said, bro. “It sounded like you said this” is different from “you said this”. Now talk about what they did say. Are they part of the government? No? Then you don’t disagree and there’s nothing to dispute. Could they have phrased it better? Of course.
just private companies that decided to collect everyone’s information
This is what he said. He called them private. No, it didn’t sound like he called them private, he did call them private. It’s a distinction I consider important, so I outlined why. You’re just wrong in your characterization of what happened, straight up.
Don’t pretend he didn’t call them private. And don’t pretend it isn’t super common to think of corporations as private entities. They’re not, and this mischaracterization affects how people think. It’s not good to base your worldview on lies.
You’re the one muddying the waters, intent is not the only thing that matters. He directly said private, and that has implications that make his comment come off as frankly detached from reality.
His comment directly suggests that the government is not involved with these credit scores, which is incorrect since the white house did an executive order enforcing DEI in the federal workforce.
His comment suggests that these companies are free from the influence of the state, which is wrong because the government has full authority to and actively incentivizes ESG credit scores.
His comment suggests that independent private industry is strong-arming the government, when the reality is these very same scores they blame on private business are actively snuffing out non-corporate business, which will only make the problem worse
The only point I’m trying to make is that asserting these entities are private is false and leads to false conclusions. This is true.
The reason I didn’t address the government issue first is because the relationship between government and corporate is a lot more complicated than that, and the conversation almost always gets cut short by the assumption that corporations are private.
I also just finished explaining how the government does influence credit scores. If you’re so focused on this point, why did you ignore that?
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
The opposite of private ownership is not publicly traded companies, it’s state owned companies, or government organisations.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people. The most vulnerable of which never would even own stock in any of those companies, and even if they did, not enough to ever be able to influence their practices.
Hi, Lemmy is giving me the infinite spinning wheel when I try to reply, so I’m gonna try to send it in two. Hope you don’t mind that I have a lot to say in response to your comment haha
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
That has not been overlooked at all. It’s because they are publicly traded that they are publicly owned. It would be strange to conclude publicly traded -> privately owned without expanding on it at all. I will elaborate on this.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people.
At no point did I say this was okay. My comment was entirely descriptive and made no prescription for scoring citizens. I actually later said that the corporate structure was vulnerable to these scores, which would imply that I think it’s a problem.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
To which I would say they already are regulated and this is the result.
I’ll explain everything in more detail…
Private Ownership:
the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled “define private ownership”)
A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company’s assets and profits. (Same source)
ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled “define public ownership”)
So, private ownership is opposed to both the state and public bodies, implying that a public body isn’t necessarily a state (according to google). This complicates things once you get into the nature of corporations and their relationship with the government (I’ll expand on this), so a better operating definition is probably the second one, which means: it is private if the general public can’t by shares.
Countless definitions refer to public ownership both as government ownership, or publicly traded. Choosing one definition does not contradict the other. Let me repeat : saying public ownership refers to government ownership does not contradict that it also refers to publicly traded ownership. This is why it’s wrong to conclude that these corporations are private. They are public traded, and are therefor public. This shouldn’t be surprising, it’s in the word. That which is public is not private, and that which is private is not public.
People get caught up on the fact that private citizens can own shares. It’s often used to conclude that the corporation they hold shares in a therefor privately owned. This is flawed logic, because private units can be a part of a public collective. When referencing a public corporation’s ownership, we are not referencing any single individual, but a collective, in the exact same way that “the public” refers to a collective of private citizens of a state. It’s also directly contradicted in the definition: “… owned by a private individual or organization.” A. Singular.
Also from Britannica: “As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation.”
The definitions themselves begin to show why the relationship between corporations and the government is a lot more complicated than private companies. Corporations have to be recognized by law, and law is enforced by the state, therefor corporations only exists at the whim of the state. What’s more, is the means of trade for these stocks is also controlled by the state.
The first stock exchange to exist in the world was the Dutch East India Company. It was founded by the States General of the Netherlands, which consisted of the Dutch senate and the House of Representatives. The New York Stock exchange was founded in part by Alexander Hamilton, a statesman, founding father, and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. In the United States, securities exchanges like the NYSE are primarily regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the key federal law that governs securities exchanges, including the NYSE.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that both of these entities enjoyed quite a bit of independence from their governments, but that independence is not complete, was granted in its establishment by the state, and has been gradually lessened with time.
That said, it would also be prudent for me to point out that corporations tend to govern themselves. NYSE is subject to its own set of rules and regulations. The exchange has its own regulatory body, the NYSE Regulation, Inc., which is responsible for overseeing compliance with the NYSE’s rules and federal securities laws. Many decisions are put to a vote by the shareholders. So, it contains a governing body and engages in internal politics? That’s a state!
Corporations are a state in and of themselves
Yes, that conclusion was properly derived just from the definitions of state, government, and corporation, however I’m not the only one to describe them as such. German sociologist Max Weber used the term “state within a state” to describe modern bureaucracy in general. One prominent thinker who discussed the concept of a corporation as a “state within a state” was R.H. Tawney, a British economic historian and social critic. In his influential work “The Acquisitive Society” (1920), Tawney critiqued the influence of large corporations and argued that they operated as powerful entities with their own interests, often independent of the interests of the broader society.
Why does this matter for credit scores?
Well, credit scores are already implemented by federal agencies:
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD oversees the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders. Lenders use credit scores, among other factors, to determine eligibility for FHA loans. So, the fed can reference your credit score to deny housing loans.
Department of Defense (DoD): The DoD uses credit history as one of the factors in determining security clearances for military personnel and civilian employees. This means your fiscal credit score has influence in whether the fed considers you a security risk.
There are more but I actually don’t feel like listing them, they mostly all boil down to security clearance or financial restriction.
Here’s an important distinction: credit scores are restrictive on the individual. In other words, credit scores regulate what you’re able to do with your finances.
The American government also has a history of implementing other scores that more closely resemble a social credit score. These include but are not limited to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). These metrics are used by the American government to impose regulations and taxation on corporations for better or for worse. You can tell it works too, because companies often increase their DEI score through their marketing, which is why you see so many corporations pushing a moral agenda rather than advertising their products.
So, the American fed uses various scoring systems to regulate both individuals and corporations.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
Just to quickly get this out of the way, my comment that you’re responding to already directly refuted the second half of this statement when I said “all BLK shares have voting rights, meaning that shareholders of BlackRock have a say in the company’s affairs in line with the proportion of ownership they hold in the firm.” The fact that this has not led to the results you desire doesn’t mean they aren’t democratic, they demonstrably are. It means that the democratic method was insufficient in this case.
The more important point here, is that to ask the government to regulate corporations in order to get rid of credit scores will lead to the exact opposite conclusion you want. The government already uses credit scores, and they use it to control people. Giving them the avenue to implement corporate social credit scores would be an extremely bad idea.
Also, top down regulation over a corporate body will directly result in greater control over that corporate body (regulation is control). We don’t want the government to have too much control over corporate bodies that already have control over us. We don’t want to put ourselves closer to being a nation controlled by corporations that are controlled by the state. That is called fascism.
This one is great because those are literally the characters for “7” and “ring” but if you put them next to each other they mean “portable charcoal grill”. Luckily it was an easy fix. An additional character was added and it now reads “7 rings” as intended.
It’s kinda still messed up, even with the additional characters because you read right to left with vertical writing, and technically it should have a つ after the 7.
As an early person I think night owls have it better in some ways, yeah work can start early but if you want to do anything “cool” it’s always late at night. Wish they’d do more daytime concerts and stuff
One of the best shows I have seen was Sun Ra and his Arkestra opening for Sonic Youth in Central Park July 4th 1992. The show started in the afternoon.
It was and I went in knowing nothing about Sun Ra. My hippie buddy was less than impressed with Sonic Youth so we dipped halfway through. SY isn’t that great outside and Sun Ra was remarkable.
The only other time I saw parts of the Arkestra was when Trey Anastasio closed the Academy and some of the band playing that night were in the Arkestra.
When I get off work, I have a good 7 hours of daylight, all the stores are still open, I can take a nap without ruining my sleep, I have plenty of time to play with my kid. I’m very cool with going to bed at 9-10 if that’s the tradeoff.
If you like loud, raw techno music and darkness, you could go for a morning party at Tresor in Berlin when the tourists are gone (and only the most dedicated heads are still there). I went there recently from ~6AM till 12 noon, and had a really great time. However, I’m no early bird myself; I had been awake in the streets through the night, but didn’t go to Tresor until the afterhours. I believe less than 30 people were there along with me, everybody respecting each other doing their thing and enjoying the experience. No idea if that’s a good way to start your day though?
Am I the only one that assumes the wife was driving? OP was asleep on the passenger seat, was woken by their wife for the milestone and took the picture?
For the sake of symmetry, I would’ve liked to see her step it up by 10 or 15 MPH, get in another 85. It is a good, crisp photo though. Can’t fault that.
It’s a pointless phrase that is most often used on the internet.
It is used to whore for attention, because if someone is asking whether or not they are the only one, they should already know that the answer is “no,” yet proceeds to ask anyway. Thus, “am I the only one” disguises a statement of opinion as a question.
Yeah I was going to say it’s because neither the A/C nor the soda fountain have ever had their filters changed (which makes sense cause a dirty filter is going to allow for all sorts of nasty things to grow).
All I can say is when I was working in a restaurant in high school the owners were bribing the health inspector and Tennessee government sucks ass in general.
I worked there. The problem is that they do clean their nozzles and machines and tanks but what they don’t clean are the actual lines running the soda syrup from the storage tanks to the fountain. There’s just no viable way to do it. Sure, you can run sanitizer and soap through it but that doesn’t scrub off the black mold and it’s not exactly financially feasible to rip out all the piping from the walls and ceiling and replace it every 2 weeks.
I’m not honestly sure what a solution would be other than not using soda fountains.
doctors dismiss womens pain so often and with such regularity that I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often. Almost all of medical research is done in regards to how it affects a white male, neglecting to take into account differences between that of a white man and literally everyone else.
additionally this is another symptom of Americas sexism, which is just as prevalent than its racism. the fact that black men got the vote before white women did should tell you how little conservative republicans think of their “better halves.”
TBF this doesn’t have anything to do with sexism, it’s just general incompetence. Listening to the lungs with a stethoscope would have been enough to notice that something was very wrong.
Extra absurd since not even a stethoscope seems to be used, but I think we can’t rule out misogyny as a big cause of this GP not even using a basic medical instrument.
I didn’t realize it this was bad for women. I listenened to the horror stories my gf told me about her experiences at doctor offices and im shocked how awful it is compared me to.
What I think is more serious and affects all sexes and races equally is doctors dismissing all medical complaints if you are overweight. It’s like it’s the only thing they can focus on and their only thing they will talk about until you lose the weight
it’s because obesity is a comorbidity that causes a LOT of problems. it’s adding chronic stress to your metabolic system, your skeletal system, just… everything.
however, what a lot of doctors fail to realize, is that obesity can also be an addiction to sugar. Eating disorders are common, and it’s one of the hardest things to correct, because with most every other addiction, you can stop and avoid it. Can’t do that with eating, you HAVE to eat. the amount of sugar in American foodstuffs is criminal.
I have to fight every time I am suffering. It’s ridiculous.
Bad cramps; must be normal period pain… Nope! Severe Endometriosis that required surgery.
Exhausted all the time; must need to exercise more… Nope! Narcolepsy!
Joint pain and weakness; you could afford to lose 10lbs… Nope! Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
Passing out going from heat and movement; change your diet and drink more water… Nope! Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome
My feet are always freezing; wear more clothes… Nope! My veins are literally leaking (found this out on the 30th)
Headaches where I blackout and slur words; must be hormones or poor nutrition… Nope! Hemiplegic Migraine Disorder and TIA(mini strokes)
Getting spacey, dropping things, memory issues; must be a hypochondriac… Nope! Seizures.
I fought for 7 years to get sterilized because my health problems are genetic and was told I was too young to make that decision (at 24) and that my ex husband might change HIS mind about wanting kids so they wouldn’t do it.
I’m so sick of doctors not listening to me because I’m a woman who is not even remotely fat, but has a pronounced hourglass figure. (Size H chest)
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.