Both have their role. Walking is appropriate for local short trips, while bicycles allow you to cover more distance, and is in turn superseded by transit in potential distance covered, while still being a low emissions mode of transportation.
Fewer CO2 emissions is a good goal if you are going to buy a car. Keeping it as long as possible is a better goal.
If the infrastructure allows for it where you live, going car-free is an even better goal for reducing CO2-emissions, and is only one of a long list of benefits of not traveling by car.
Barring that, voting and influencing politicians that can build infrastructure enabling more car-free lives is a good step in the right direction.
Because individuals buy and use cars, and the original comment I replied to implored commuters not to use evs and adopt a public transit /bike only lifestyle.
My comment discussed the pressures of life on the individual.
Because individuals buy and use cars, and the original comment I replied to implored commuters not to use evs and adopt a public transit /bike only lifestyle.
Yeah if you really want to interpret it that way, it’s just a slogan man
What they were implying with their statement was that your life was made to be this way by the decisions of dead capitalists who caused infrastructure and the way we live our lives to be this way so that they could make money
Housing laws caused suburban sprawl which has been worsened, at least in the US, by utterly foolish parking minimum laws. Thats why you have a commute like this, because cars were forced on us instead of trains, biking, and walking.
The point above stands. EVs do little for the environment. Compared to sensible options like transit and biking and walking they are marginally better, but hm hardly at all.
You’re just reiterating my points. Yes they are better. And for people without a choice living in car dependent he’ll holes - an improvement.
But the fact that you live in a car dependent he’ll hole is another failure of our society - and prevents you from using much better options.
We should be addressing the root cause. Not the symptom.
In functional societies, EVs are a small improvement. The noise and carcinogen pollution, land use impact and simple danger to soft street users are key damages ALL cars make to spaces occupied by people.
Finally - I am tired of “we need cars for those with impairments / to reliever things / other bullshit.” We do not. It’s just the completely broken car-dependent American perspective.
Lol, we agree more than you think, but your despising incremental progress gets you nowhere. “But it isn’t progress! It’s not going the way I want it to go!” Sorry but you’re looking down the barrel of decades worth of small changes to get to any American future you’re seeking.
America is a big place, with many differing environments, governments, and needs. They aren’t all going to “get there” in unison, or in a hurry.
In the mean time, quit shaming people trying to benefit their local system, and trying to conduct their lives in the way they see best, while keeping their gone and feeding their family.
When I see a Prius driving around I know that could have been a misused ferd f-teen thousand truck, which lives it’s life commuting and getting groceries. I’ll take the Prius.
Seems to me like having to drive many miles to maintain a job that can pay enough to maintain your fairly far afield home (assuming the home costs less because it’s not in the same geography as the office) is a failure of the system as a whole and the company for not making their office work better for their workers.
I mean, unless you have a storefront or regularly have to go to specific places as part of your job, like lawyers going to the court house, then why tf does the company pay for very expensive offices in the middle of a metro area? Put the offices where the workers can actually live near it.
I work in IT, I go to the office to stare at a PC for 8 hours. Something I can literally do anywhere, but instead of IDK, working from home or having distributed offices spaces so people don’t have to drive as far, my companies only office is in the middle of a major Metro’s downtown in a high rise office for a massive amount of money. So now I have to pay, out of my pocket and time, to drive through downtown traffic, to a parking spot that costs me far too much monthly, so I can simply be physically there to do a job that only requires a PC and an internet connection.
It’s all fucking stupid… And every company seems to do this. Nobody ever comes to our offices and there’s literally no reason for them to be where they are, or for me to be there.
Hard to carry a TV on a bicycle, or transport loads to the recycling centre, or drop my kids off at school or any one of a thousand things that occur day to day.
Our world redesigned itself with the invention of cars. Trying to exist without them is very hard for your average family, especially those who live outside cities.
Great, well I have a six year old that needs to get to his school which is about a mile and a half away and I need to get to work 20 mins after which is about three miles in the other direction.
I then also need to do his pickup during my lunch break.
Most people’s lives don’t work without a car because that’s not the society that car ownership created.
It’s a town of 90k people. The kind of town that the vast majority of people in the UK live in.
Just out of curiosity how can you transport something large and bulky, that isn’t allowed on public transport, let’s say furniture, or the remains of a shed you dismantled or any one of a hundred inconvenient loads that occur during your life without a car?
And that someone can’t be available every day when I need to do two school runs and an office trip.
That someone can’t always be available when the sink springs a leak and I need to go buy some new washers and plumber’s mait.
I really question your life experience at this point. If you’re single, childless and living in a big city, sure, cars are very unnecessary. For most people this isn’t the case
Electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the environment.
The most environmentally friendly car is the car you already have, and the most environmentally friendly (also safest, healthiest, quietest, just in general the most considerate) way to get from point A to point B is by walking, biking, bus, or train.
The only time EV saves the environment is when all of the following are met:
your old car is completely gone,
there is zero way to get to where you need to be without a car,
and you have been fighting for good transport and safe bike lane all along.
I bought an electric car because it was a better car for my needs. I got a good deal on it. Electric cars have fewer, simpler moving parts. They require fewer oil changes and don’t have to deal with heat dissipation. I can also have it plugged into my house each night, which means I always have a “full tank” every morning. I can set the heat or air conditioning to come on on a schedule because it doesn’t produce carbon monoxide. The car is much quieter and drives a lot smoother.
They have a lot of benefits, but they don’t exactly save the environment. Lithium mining is very destructive to the local environment and it’s done in countries with questionable ethics around worker health and safety. Most experts agree that over the lifespan of a car, electric cars are better for the world environment than gas vehicles, but if you really want to make an impact on the environment, taking public transit or biking or walking or other forms of micro-mobility would actually make a way bigger impact. And if those kinds of things are difficult where you live, you should really be supporting public policy to make that better.
The thing it’s missing the most is better multi device support and an updated desktop client.
For me, I think Matrix is more complete (specially since it backs-up your chats and media encrypted). The only thing it’s lacking (at least Element specific) is encrypted chat search support on mobile.
I use it for linux. Recently there was a bug where if you had a chat opened, it would pin one core to 100% usage. It also lacks feature parity with the mobile client (ex: gif search and send).
I use it on windows. The client is totally fine for the most part.
Though for some reason it regularly screws up the device-connection, forcing me to reconnect the device, loosing access to every old message. Seems to be a rare bug though, as my family also uses the windows client and theirs never has this problem (out of 8 device 1 has this problem)
Yeah, it sucks that if I were using Signal only on my phone and eventually decide to start using it on desktop, it doesn’t sync any conversation history, resulting in the desktop client showing nothing from before you set it up. It should have older devices send history to new ones. If you’re permanently switching devices, are you losing that history for good?
It has bridges for most messaging services so you could use a matrix frontend for most of your messaging needs without having people on matrix so long as the server admin has set up those extensions
iMessage can’t be “the mainstream” app by locking out most of the world tho. Plus it is definitely the ugliest thing Apple has ever made in its lifetime that I know of.
All Google needs to do is make a public RCS API. Then we will have all the important features iMessage has on Android via regular texting. I have no fucking clue why they are making RCS exclusive to their messaging app.
I don’t think it’s really a chat app. Isn’t it just a text replacement? Or does it just use that number as your ID to use it? I have it, but only ever used it with one guy.
It has lots of nice features over SMS: read/typing notifications, image/video support, proper groups, message expiration. I think that makes it a chat app
Don’t you know about the evil immigrants, ethnic minorities, and gay/lesbian-transgenders that are… checks notes just living their lives and not bothering anyone else.
Is this a serious question? People aren’t really angry at other people, they are scared and angry about the situation their world is in. There’s a few really bad apples, but most people are just scared they won’t be able to pay their rent 2 years from now.
It’s because the left has failed to improve people’s lives and over the last decade has alienated much of the population with identity politics and virtue signalling.
If you want the left to stop the right turn things are taking, you gotta drop the communism, the identity politics and the virtue signalling and ficus entirely on workers unions and environmentalism. Those are the past 2 areas where the left can not only hold full sway but has a lot of public support from those who are put off by the earlier mentioned things.
And you believe that the right will change everything to the better? By doing what? Continue the same exact course but with a now clearly visible brown coat?.
Beginning on 1 April, they carried out England-wide blockades of ten critical oil facilities, intending to cut off the supply of petrol to South East England.[33][34][35]
On 26 August, the group blocked seven petrol stations in Central London and vandalised fuel pumps. Forty-three people around London were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage.
On 20 June, the protestors spray painted private jets at a private airfield at Stansted Airport. The group had been targeting a jet belonging to singer Taylor Swift, but could not locate it.[140]
Yes, a lot of their protests are “awareness” stuff (basically none of which do actual damage. Unlike oil, actually!). No, it’s not just that. The UK isn’t an active warzone so bombing stuff is slightly more difficult to justify.
They did say what works and what doesn’t. Attack private jets and block oil refineries, don’t spray paint Stonehenge or paintings. It’s not hard to figure out what’s going to be popular and what isn’t.
Yeah, people don’t care that it washes off easily, they don’t hear about that part, the point is that those actions aren’t popular, painting/blocking private jets is, so just do more of that instead?
Nobody hears about them shutting down oil factories, attention getting stuff is why those are talked about.
They never do any actual harm either, like Stonehenge was cornstarch, it’ll all be gone the next time it rains. They paint the glass in front of paintings, not the paintings themselves.
My better idea is to not do dumb shit that actively turns people (voters) against the cause. Egg some politicians, paint some private jets, people love that shit.
Besides just saying “AwArEnEsS”, what does JSO actually achieve?
Every single person on the planet is aware of climate change, what we actually need to do is convince people to take action. JSO actively convinces people to vote against action on climate change.
The point I’m trying to make is that despite the good stuff they may do, it’s overshadowed by the dumb shit that’s turning people against the cause.
Those actions didn’t achieve much, and I’d say anything they did achieve has been undone by their other antics.
Do you know anyone who has been convinced by JSO to take more action against climate change? It’s only people who are already onboard cheering them on.
I know a few people who have become more anti green because of JSO, and general consensus among anyone I know is that JSO is doing more harm than good.
Every single person on the planet is aware of climate change
I’m still trying to get my husband’s uncle to get off his easy out of “well I guess it’s happening, but humans didn’t cause it.” He, along with a lot of other people, are in an echo chamber. Obviously plopping pigment on monuments isn’t going to do shit to convince them, but I don’t know what will.
The reason they stopped directly targeting oil infrastructure in the UK is because the oil/gas giants bought injunctions (private laws) banning protest near them, leading to people going to prison for holding signs on a grass verge outside an oil refinery.
Considering that Ethnic Palestinians are the original Semites, and most of the Zionist are “repatriated” jewish people from all around the world, I find it ironic that they claim any sleight against them to be antisemitic.
Full disclosure, I am Jewish myself, and sorry for the book… try not to knee-jerk react to it.
I hate to partake in this genetic essentialism garbage, but Ashkenazis by and large share their paternal heritage with Sephardic Jews and other Semites, although that Semitic heritage has become somewhat diluted over time by converts in the maternal line and their descendants. My point in saying that is not to say that Zionists have any legitimate claim to Palestine - they absolutely don’t. It’s just “Ashkenazi Jews aren’t Semites” is a highly debatable and fraught claim that has the potential to lead one down a rabbit hole into actual racism, and incidentally has absolutely nothing to do with the crimes of Zionism. When I hear that implication, my mind is drawn to the adoption by antisemites (most recently Black Hebrew Israelites) of the now disproven myth that the original Semitic Jews died out and were replaced by Khazars.
I’m stopping short of calling what you said, specifically, antisemitism, but in another context a similar statement might be called a dog whistle. People can say these things unintentionally when they just don’t understand the implications. This kind of reckless use of language and ideas is at least part of why we have Jewish students on college campuses claiming they don’t feel safe. We Jews have grown up being implicitly taught to keep our ear to the ground when it comes to rising intolerance, and yes in a lot of cases that has resulted in a massive blind spot for our own intolerance, but it doesn’t mean we should ignore warning signs. Of course, as a Jew, and like you, I often scoff when I hear claims of antisemitism, and in fact I get angry about them when they conflate Jewishness with Israel & Zionism, which ironically IS antisemitism.
Now I mentioned the Khazar myth and Jewish students who don’t feel safe. The issue here is that they lack the self awareness to say, “maybe my hangups about certain things people say are a product of my own upbringing and sensitivities, rather than any intentional antisemitism on their part.” On the other hand, when people talk about Jews or Jew-adjacent issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they should also have the self awareness to ask themselves “am I contributing to a climate that lets actual antisemitism fly under the radar and should I be more careful about the things I say?”
In any case, flinging accusations back and forth is unproductive. If my fellow Jews feel threatened by protestors and their words, I would recommend they approach those protestors with humility, and listen to their grievances before making assumptions about their intentions. Which is funny, because here I am Jew-splaining in response to a flippant remark in an internet comment section, but the reason is I just desperately want people to understand each other (and themselves) better.
I think most of it is just confusion inherent in the term “antisemitism”, which TBH is a bad term because it singles out a single Semitic people among many as the oppressed ones. That false focus then in turn causes a knee-jerk pendulum swing towards another extreme.
And who’s to blame? Again, Germans: The term was introduced to replace “Judenhass” (jew hatred) with something “more scientific sounding”, as recently as 1879. Damn that’s a lot of citations there. Maybe we should switch to “Jewphobia” or something.
To be sure. This sort of argument is as productive as saying the Palestinians don’t belong there because they’re actually Arabs. Neither is true. Palestinians are about as much genetically Arab as maghrebis are Arab. Both groups experienced massive culture shifts, but there was little change in actual population.
Yeah I can definitely see how the argument about “original semites” is coming very close to outright hatred and antisemitism. We have to be more conscious of the language we use than that. We shouldn’t be making arguments in this vein but instead focusing on anti-colonial arguments. When discussing the colonialism of relocating European Jewish communities to Palestine there’s no reason to be using this kind of “race politics” language.
The relationship between Ashkenazi jews and the communities that were already present in Palestine is not something I understand very well, and more broadly the history of Ashkenazi jews as a whole is something I’m only familiar with as it relates to early 20th century European politics. It’s something I’d like to do my own research on from reliable sources to better understand how these kinds of arguments feed into genuine hatred of Jewish people.
I’m not as educated on the broader nature of antisemitic arguments as I should be. I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment. Anti-Zionist action has an obligation to protect Jewish people as much as it has an obligation to protect Muslim people and ethnic Palestinians. Our goals ought to be to separate ourselves from race hierarchy and protect human rights for all. It’s critically important that in advocating against the Israeli government and the IDF that we do not tolerate anti-semitism in any form and that we reject the support of ant-semitic people wherever it appears.
I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment.
I feel like a dick talking about it with what’s going on, but it’s still important. And to be clear, we Jews who are inculcated with Zionism and the generational trauma of the Holocaust from a young age have to zealously interrogate our unconscious fears and biases. The protests provide the perfect opportunity to confront it head on if you can swallow your pride and just listen. My Arab & Muslim friends are some of the most thoughtful people I know, with strong opinions and moral convictions that come right from the deepest parts of their being. I feel as at home with them as I did in the Synagogue growing up, and I have no doubt if I were to attend a peace protest that I would find many more like them. They’re an absolute gift; I was never a supporter of Israel, but their friendship has thrown the whole thing into even sharper focus since October 7th. I hope one day the Zionists can be defeated, and from the river to the sea, all good people will finally be free.
The issue here is that they lack the self awareness to say, “maybe my hangups about certain things people say are a product of my own upbringing and sensitivities, rather than any intentional antisemitism on their part.”
Ah, yes. The suggestion that racial minorities just get over it. Don’t we determine racism based on the experiences and opinions of the victims?
I don’t think that’s true at all. Collectively determining racism is a complex process that involves interrogating social structures and power imbalances as a whole. Minority opinions are an important part of that, perhaps the most important part, but not the only part. Intersectionality taught us how flawed that was. That’s how we got the TERFs
In this case he’s talking specifically about an intersectional issue.
Well, yes, I suppose, and that’s why I said all the stuff I imagine you must have read before you got to that part, and the thing I said right after that, too.
II) During the time of Moses, the Semites lived partly in India, towards the Ganges, partly on the coasts of the South Sea to the Persian Gulf, in Elymais, Assyria, Chaldea, and in southern Mesopotamia, and with further expansion in some areas of Palestine, in the north and south of Arabia, finally too, but maybe not yet in Moses’s time, in Abyssinia or Ethiopia.
Which isn’t totally off compared to our modern understanding of who spoke proto-Semitic. “Semitic” as a descriptor of languages is unchallenged in linguistics because, well, symbols are arbitrary anyway and “Descendants of Shem”, as in Noah’s son, ancestor of Abraham, is not exactly a contentious thing among a group of related cultures having birthed no less than three Abrahamic religions.
I think you a both right. Historically, Semites referred to a large cultural group.
Over time, it has become a nonsense word because those cultural groups have become so dilute and diverse that you can’t point at someone and say they are part of that group.
More recently, the label has become misappropriated by some sort of whacky religious nutbaggery so they can oppress other people.
Doesn’t the fediverse userbase trend towards being made up of millennials? I’m on the older end of gen Z myself and grew up with CDs and DVDs, so I imagine most people here are familiar with the technology.
I’m on the younger end of gen z and still know what the are, never actually use them but we have lots. I feel most of us know what old stuff like CDs are because of the Internet tho.
I’m of the age where I can remember having a load of rewritable cds and DVDs plus those things that supposedly cleared up scratches now those were a scam too.
Usually the home versions were scams, but there were better quality ones out there that would remove just a little bit of the top layer, making a smooth finish again. Although deep scratches obviously couldn’t be repaired in this case.
Sometimes it did! I tried it on a disc that was so messed up, I figured out couldn’t make it work any less, and wouldn’t you know, it worked for the first time in a long time. Other times, not so lucky.
Most toothpaste is slightly abrasive so depending on the scratches it can definitely work as a polish. I’d always steal my dad’s special glass polish and it was basically like toothpaste
I had one that was a hand crank thing. It actually worked pretty well. Whenever I thought that was it for my Diablo II CD, I would run it though there and Presto: good as new.
My Xbox 1 also had this weird thing where it sounded like it was fucking eating the CD too. If it got too grumpy we would use the crank and boom: back to teabagging people in Halo.
Well, yeah, but it’s not supposed to happen to them. They’re the ones who are supposed to be in charge, not just morally and ethically, but also economically. If they can get called out for their bullshit it’s a warning sign to them. Their massive privileges are being eroded and it scares the shit out of them.
How much have you read about the history of religion?
If they’re not doing it to others, they’re doing it to themselves. The last time there wasn’t a Christian church leader ranting about an evil person was around year 0.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith. They are antipodal way of thinking.
One thing you could do is reduce the two to their consequences for society and pick which one is wrong using your moral instinct or personal philosophy.
(You can even do like some people and choose when to apply each one…)
But you sure won’t make people shut up about their own morals and vision for society. It’s too involving, we’re bound to be obnoxious.
You can’t really debate on whether to trust science or have faith.
They really aren’t. Science is about understanding how things work, and religion is about pondering our place in the universe, and morals. It’s really only fundamentalists that take scriptures literally and the fundamentalist atheists that believe all religious people are fundamentalists.
The only thing worse than being cornered by someone saying “have you been saved by Jesus Christ our lord and saviour” is being stuck talking to an atheist that’ll go on for much longer about their belief that religion caused all the world’s problems. At least a religious person is capable of saying something positive now and then.
God is the creator of the universe science describe. God itself, if he existed, would be a topic of science.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
Separating them is part of the compartmentalization we do to avoid conflict or our self contradictions.
Fundamentalists in both religion and atheism think the other view is wrong and should not exist. That’s very different from just recognizing we have different point of views.
And atheists aren’t all such morons to think religion is such a problem. Most atheist can respect religious people as long as they’re not fundamentalist.
Science is answering our pondering about our place in the universe. We can also be scientists and create a moral belief system that’s not based on God.
That wouldn’t be science. It would be a religion.
For most of history science was done by the religious because few other people were literate. We long ago decided it would be better to have people specialized in science, and separated science from religion. And it worked really well.
Now you want to turn science into a religion? We already know that wouldn’t work very well. Why would you want this? It seems to me you’re not really against the concept of religion you just don’t like the religions we currently have.
Science isn’t about beliefs. It depends on people being skeptical of everything. Searching for empirical evidence that’s contrary to current theories so those theories can be improved and sometimes even replaced. Science is a process. Mixing morals and beliefs into science makes for bad morals and bad science.
Science is a method to find truth by telling us how to construct proofs.
What we call rationality in general, in which science is based on, is to use proof to believe in something.
Whereas faith and so religion is believing without proof.
So as a scientist you do believe in any theory that has been proven. And of course you change your beliefs with each new information.
Believing isn’t just a word we use for religion, it also means to accept something is true.
I don’t think most scientists were religious, but for the one that were, people are never coherent, they can use science for some beliefs and religion for others even if that’s contradictory.
As for moral, i didn’t explicitly say it’s science, because it isn’t, it’s philosophy. But scientists that don’t want to believe in God and his morals have created other philosophies and morals.
Some based on the same premise of rationality as science. For which science can even be a tool.
Conversely the foundation of science always was motivated by philosophical questions about reality. And it’s application always had concerned about morals.
P.S. I don’t have faith, and i do think most current religions have bad morals and are just manipulative organizations. But most religious people are not part of them, most of them are good people. Their faith isn’t a problem for me or anyone, and can even be good driving force.
To paraphrase Dr. Jones… Science is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it’s truth you’re are interested in the philosophy class is down the hall.
You seem to have science mixed up with philosophy. There is an argument for science being a subset of philosophy since it’s governed by a philosophy. But mixing up science with other parts of philosophy is just bad science. If you declare a theory to be the Truth then it’s impossible to make changes to that theory.
Back when it was the Earth being the center of the Universe was considered to be the truth then people have to create some crazy complicated models to explain the movement of the planets. Perhaps if they had more advanced mathematics they would have been able to accurately predict the movements of the planets while keeping the Earth at the center. But since science isn’t about The Truth, it is only concerned with theories that work, everyone switched over to the Copernicus model for the solar system because it worked.
Someone other than scientists can debate how central the role of humans (and therefore the Earth) are in universe. Science shouldn’t have to worry about having to weigh in on those debates.
If a theory best fits the evidence then that’s the theory that’s used until more evidence requires the theory be changed or replaced. The philosophical or religious ramifications are for the philosophers and theologians to discuss.
You’re right, it’s probably not right way ro put it, it’s not The truth in the philosophical sens.
Although science is based on the premise such a truth exist in regard to reality. Aka what we call realism in ontology. So i think we can see science as a subset of philosophy in that sens.
However i don’t think science is just about facts, it’s also about understanding them to a point we can predict them. That’s what we call theory or model. Hence the distinction between experimental and theoretical science.
So what i really meant by truth is what we think is the true theories to explain phenomenons.
That’s why i said we adapt our beliefs to proof. We don’t know if a model is correct or not, and we say we believe it’s true if there is enough evidence.
However, what allows us to change our mind is the fact that we can’t never be 100% sure if something is true. Leaving always a possibility to correct our belief if new proof is found.
(This idea to use probability for our beliefs is based on Bayesian epistemology.)
…
For your exemple, Greeks already had pretty good geometrical knowledge, Ptolemy created this idea of epicyclic trajectories to explain geocentrism. Which is what the model of Copernicus would have resulted in earth’s frame of reference.
(Of course Greek’s models were not as good as Copernicus, mostly because of their obsession with finding mathematics in the universe.)
What made Galileo say his observations proved heliocentrism, and so Copernicus, is the movement of other stars around Jupiter.
But dispite being close, Copernicus model didn’t actually worked, and so neither did Ptolemy’s idea of epicycle, because they had circular trajectories.
It was Kepler, based on the observations of Tycho Brahe, who created a model that actually worked using elliptical trajectories, later formalize by Newton.
(Einstein later explained how frames of reference are all physically equal. Making geocentric frame of reference not technically wrong.)
Just to end on your last point, what i mix up isn’t science with philosophy but rather scientists. Scientists are the one that needs philosophy, they are the one concerned by moral decisions, not science itself. That’s an important distinction in most context…
The only time I ever fell for a “lifetime” software purchase was back when Trillian (the IM client) was popular. That lasted less than 5 years. Then they released “Astas”, which was just a UI refresh, but they treated it like it was a whole new company and product. “Lifetime” is always a scam.
If it’s for software you like, yes. Lemmy apps are a great example of this.
A lifetime license isn’t going to sustain the dev long term. If you like the app, buy a monthly subscription that gives them predictable income every month. Do a year if you feel confident about it. But honestly monthly is probably best.
For shitty corporate apps like Adobe, pirate that shit.
No. It is not the consumer’s job to support the software developers. It is the software developers’ job to develop a product that they can make a living on.
You act like nobody can make a living without these bullshit subscriptions. That is simply not the case, and anyone who disagrees is brainwashed by subscription pushers. You are being fleeced like sheep with all these bullshit subscriptions.
Software developers have been around for many decades, making damn good money all over the place. Only in the recent years have the software companies turned to the subscription model for everything, because their accountants figured out it makes them more money over the long term.
Again, it is not OUR job to support them. It is THEIR job to support themselves by making a product that people want to buy. I don’t want to buy their subscriptions, so they are doing a bad job of marketing to me.
I bought Affinity Photo because their software marketing was more attractive to me than any of Adobe’s bullshit subscriptions. I will continue to use the product I paid for (once) indefinitely, and if it stops getting updates I will still be able to use it as long as I want because I control its installation locally.
Nope. I’m here to tell you from 20 years of IT experience, you should definitely get perpetual licenses, whether they call them “lifetime” or not. Fuck all subscriptions.
Im using Jellyfin now. It’s great, but it doesn’t have the same support across platforms. It was nice to have a native Plex app on the TV, Xbox, etc. I’m now just switching to Chromecasts on the TVs and teaching my wife to use the app for everything.
Same here, although I’m still using it. It’s doing what I got it for and some of the additions are welcome (I use live TV fairly often and some friends and I are sharing libraries) but I have been concerned. What made you switch and did you find something better?
I still actively use Plex, but I’ve been trying Jellyfin. It’s almost there but still has some work to do to catch up to Plex fully. However, its wonderfully free from bloat. I can’t stand all the crap they’ve added to Plex. Especially when I search for content that’s IN MY LIBRARY and the result it sends me to is a streaming service I don’t even have. 😡
I still find myself using Plex for its native DVR functions. NextDVR alway seemed a little bit buggier, after finally getting an IPTV source working in Plex I went back (at least for DVR stuff).
Edit: forgot to add, Plexamp and the way Plex does its sonic analysis is worth the lifetime subscription cost to me.
Scooping up a lifetime sub to Nexus, back when they were still available, might have been one of my best online moves. If a game can be modded, I will be modding it - I get SO much value from that one-time investment.
Oh yeah I mean, it’s expensive. But if you’re very much into modding and like me don’t like your gbit download speed to be limited to 3mbit or whatever the free thing is… I get paying it.
I wouldn’t pay for what yearly costs now, but the 40eur lifetime price 10 years ago sure wasn’t a bad deal.
Also you’re supporting modders through Donation Points. Creators get real money proportional to mod download count. The mods are still free, to clarify.
Honestly the way I always look at it is just take the lifetime cost and divide it by the yearly cost and if I think the product/license deal will exist for that long (and I’ll use it for that long) it’s worth it otherwise not. Like, I have lifetime Plex and frankly I don’t expect the, to exist forever but I like the premium features and I’ve had lifetime for long enough that I’ve saved money.
If you read the fine print, many “lifetime” warranties are like this too. They mean the “lifetime of the product” which is usually defined in the same fine print as like, 5 years or some other bullshit timespan.
I saw a lot of cool Nintendo Lego creations recently at a convention. Nothing had Nintendo names. Instead of Goomba, it was named “angry mushroom” and stuff like that.
Also Disney once told a family no multiple times regarding putting Spider-Man on their dead child’s tombstone.
Worked in retail awhile back. Kept having glass shit fall off displays and ends. It wasn’t TOO often, just enough to be an annoyance. They were stacking glass product on top of one another. I explained why this was a problem; they didn’t care. Some time later I came back to the bosses with an argument:
This is how much we’re charging for the product.
This is how much I make per hour.
Cleanup of said broken product takes X time.
This is how much I make in that time, or Y.
Which means a single broken product that breaks costs you Z, multiplied by the number of times it happens, plus the cost of the product itself.
This was what got their attention. These people usually aren’t human, they’re sociopaths. Remember that.
Also Disney once told a family no multiple times regarding putting Spider-Man on their dead child’s tombstone.
This is one of those situations where it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. Even the most cold-hearted corporate ghoul is going to understand the cost/benefit of going after that family isn’t remotely worth it.
Yeah, the lawyers are going to say “no”. But even if they’re stupid enough to sue: some suit that isn’t a moron is going to tell them to drop it during the ensuing PR nightmare, and the family will be swimming in donations.
Well the reason it is like this, is because the lawyers that get to decide are “only doing their job” and can blame the policy. The ones responsible for policy are just slaves to the megacorp automaton machine that continues to not regard morals or ethics or laws in its hunger for profit. The one responsible for this mess is a machine where you can replace any or even all individuals and it will still continue to globally absorb value and eat anyone in its way. We nurture and cheer these machines on because they give us “profit” when in fact it gives only some profits to specific people that hoard it in Panama. I am very against these entities of destruction, but targeting any individual human is never going to help, and we probably can’t stop them without actually using politics. Except all available options in politics all want to and are praised for nurturing these entities because they bring illusory cash flow to the region
I’m in Thailand and knockoff Disney stuff (and Legos) are pretty normal. And it’s nice. The kids buying them have to deal with seeing their ads plastered all over town, so it’s nice there are versions they can buy. I just wish they were so shitty quality and the big companies markup wasn’t so fucking insane. Lego sets pretty regularly hit $200-$300 here. There literally is no Nintendo Thailand, so game prices are pretty random based on import fees that retailers can negotiate (or sneak through).
The nice thing is no one gives a shit about piracy. No risks really.
I hate that whenever I check in to see how flat earthers are doing they’ve somehow grown in size
Like… Why
They have to do all this shoddy crackhead troll math to prove how something like timezones can work on a flat earth but then it completely invalidates the shoddy crackhead troll math they did to prove how gravity works on a flat earth.
People aren’t rational beings - we mostly operate on emotions, fueled by chemical reactions to certain events and sensations and experiences.
Most flat-earthers probably don’t care about any of the “facts” or “explanations” they hear or spread or study or come up with - first and foremost, it’s a community to them, a place where they feel like they belong and such. For their own reasons, they allow the obviously positive emotions they experience there to outweigh any of the absurd they may honestly recognize internally, but never admit or voice out or truly give in to.
I think I’ve seen several somewhat lengthy videos on YouTube on the matter, explaining how and why that happens. It’s a mechanism similar to other conspiracy theories and communities around them, as well as various cults - vulnerable, susceptible people are the ones to usually to end up in these because they’re reeled in one way or the other.
I’m not saying the theory isn’t nonsense, of course; only that the theory itself is probably only a facade for a way for some people to experience connection with others, a sense of belonging, some shared activities, something along these lines. That’s why you shouldn’t be surprised that their numbers grow or that they can easily ignore facts and science - it simply isn’t about facts or science, but emotions and feelings.
I’d argue this is at the root of all fringe theories and why they all seem to attract the same archetypes of people.
We are living in an era of history where long traditional societal norms are in rapid turnover. The “old ways of doing things” are dying off, and the new ways that replaced them are often a revolving door. Very little in the world at any given time feels stable and secure.
Institutional trust is breaking down. Interacting with the world in good faith is increasingly leaving you open to abuse by bad actors. Why trust anything, then? Trust is for rubes. You’re an intelligent, free, and independent thinker. You should question anything and everything that is simply handed down to you. Especially if it is unintuitive. To not do so is to be railroaded.
And it’s that last part in particular that identifies the most fertile candidates for a good conspiracy theory. Like, is the Earth round? It looks flat to me. Essentially all evidence you can throw at the notion falls either into at least one of, “I witnessed it, trust me bro”, “hope you like letters in your math equations” (people who can’t intuit math won’t be impressed by any proofs), or “you can do this experiment at home, you just need <esoteric setup>/<rare equipment> so you can watch for <nearly imperceptible effect>”. A depressing sum of people in the world will remain unconvinced by any demonstration that isn’t simple, intuitive, and of an overwhelmingly obvious magnitude. Complex answers or answers that observe tiny effects are scams.
And just like that, we’ve abandoned rational thought and replaced it with trust-averse thought. We’ve invented the notion that the world is a hostile place where anyone trying to hand you something is an agenda-pusher trying to extract something of value from you. All of the world’s major institutions are shams designed to keep you complacent in some sort of world order that is merely using you. To participate in it is to further your enslavement.
In that hellish headspace, conspiracy theories almost feel like a haven. Finally! A group of real thinkers who share your frustrations about the world! The underground movement working to free us all from the hostile system!
Except, no. At best it’s just a bunch of people who are wrong indulging in a little harmless escapism. At worst it’s a mass of people getting Immanuel Goldstien’d by the very kind of well-spoken swindler they’re breaking their collective backs bending over to avoid in the first place. Regardless the form it takes, my hypothesis remains: proliferation of conspiracy theories is merely a symptom of a lack of trust.
That’s the usual explanation that’s given, but how do they even profit? What do you sell to those idiots? (I suppose that since they’re idiots you can just sell them pretty much anything)
There was some guy who got his homemade rocket hobby funded by flat earther types to prove NASA is lying or something. Also that guy could be crazy and one of them.
But fools will throw cash at the dumbest of things.
At the end of the day people love being in the “in” group that knows everyone else is blinded by falsehoods and they’re above it all and “in the know.” Religion has been that for a lot of people in the past as well as in current times, pretty much every high control group is developed due to this mentality as well.
Your problem is you’re bringing math into it wrong.
You see, Earth is actually a hypersphere. You can get to Agatha, which itself appears as a normal 3d planet, through tunnels that twist ana to kata. That’s why water seems to sometimes flow uphill - that’s a sign that a tunnel might be close.
There you go. It’s got secret lore, it encourages learning math, and it gives people a hobby where they look for inconsistencies in physics instead of rejecting it. We could even make some interesting discoveries if people are going out trying to find places where physics is weird.
It’s basic math, if you want to reduce flat earthers, you have to cancel them out
A small blade safe can hold hundreds of blades and it’s like 4"x3"x3". Makes sense they thought the inside of drywall 5’x3’x1’ would be fine. It can probably hold tens of thousands. Even with a new blade daily that’s decades. And when you tear down the wall you’re dealing with Sheetrock, nails and screws already. All that time would have dulled the incredibly thin blades.
This is all to say: it seems wild but was a decent idea.
Unironically dividing the Proletariat against itself by stirring up racism among conservatives on a large social platform is the correct move for him to keep his dragon hoard, though I doubt it’s intentional.
And he even said he changes his build if he needs to roll faster, so he understands the basics of equip load yet deliberately used 2 shields that were both unnecessary.
Even crazy new Dragons get the “Respect the #1 rule of Dragon Club; do nothing to threaten the viability of the existence of Dragons” speech, I reckon.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.