Okay, I’m gonna bite the bullet and say it. This is disheartening. I’m not one to clutch pearls, but come on. Would you say this about anyone else? Dogs? Cats? Anything at all? Do you understand how fucked up it is? I just don’t get it. It was the same in Reddit, and it’s fucking same in here. Why do you hate children? You don’t wanna have them, that’s fine. Why would you say these things?
Maybe you’re joking. Even after assuming that you are, this is in poor taste and a fucked up thing to say.
Do shitty parents and upset children exist? Absolutely.
Yet everyone seems to ignore that maybe, just maybe, that child is being “shitty” despite having good parents.
Maybe the kid has a medical issue causing pain and discomfort and there’s not a damn thing the parent can do except get on that flight to see a specialist.
Maybe she’s fleeing domestic violence and needs to get to family to safe.
Maybe the mother has postpartum depression and unfortunately cannot properly care for her child so she’s seeking help elsewhere.
Fuck maybe the kid has an undiagnosed brain tumour that’s going to kill them. I know people that happened to.
If you go around assuming everyone else who inconveniences you in the slightest is a shit person, you will be a shit person.
So get over yourself. You might have a slightly less comfortable flight while that poor parent might be going through the worst time in their life.
Of course these things do exist but most of the time(at least in my experience) the problems are shitty parents.
For example I had 2 kids crawling under my seat for the whole flight(takeoff and landing included) and the parents just watched something on the phone.
See, here’s the neat thing about things. You get to choose what you do and don’t care about. Empathy should not go so far as to cost. Your baby is not my problem and it’s your responsibility to keep it that way. I have my own, I didn’t take them to public places till they were able to have some self control. Is that always possible? No, but it’s really obvious if you are the type of person who doesn’t even try.
Part of using public transport is that you need to share it with the public, which is why I broadly detest it and cannot comprehend the fuck cars weirdos.
That said when I do use public transport I fully expect noisy children, insufferable karens and the occasional nut job.
Your concept of empathy seems to be severely lacking.
Part of using public transport is that you need to share it with the public, which is why I broadly detest it and cannot comprehend the fuck cars weirdos.
Couldn’t agree more. The anti car movement among young millennials and Gen Z is weird as hell to me. I’ve lived in a large city and taken well designed public transit for years. Compared to living in a small city and driving, it’s awful - so I left. There’s a literal loss of freedom and autonomy that comes with it, and I can’t fathom why the younger crowd wants to live in crowded apartments and post angry screeds to r/fuckcars. I like walking and hiking and biking too! I have no desire to do it in a city, so I have to drive somewhere uncrowded to do it. If public transit served those places, they would be crowded.
If you live in NA, you haven’t lived in a walkable city designed for people over cars. You can find clearer explanations of the rationale from Strong Towns or NotJustBikes.
Your concerns are not unfounded, but they would benefit from some context.
I’m reluctant to litigate something unpopular on the internet for the purpose of collecting downvotes, and I think there’s low probability we’ll agree on the issue, but I’ll explain my rationale:
I lived in NYC. NYC is not exactly designed for walking or bikes, but there’s a strong case to be made that it has become a city in which cars are much less feasible than transit, walking, or biking. The sidewalks are all double-wide. If you order delivery, the delivery guy is on a bike. Nobody I knew owned a car, and none of us would have been able to afford the parking if we had. We walked to get groceries. It has subways, busses, and ferries that run very frequently. The subways run 24/7/365. In terms of density, NYC should be a best-case scenario for public transit.
The fact remains that if you wanted to LEAVE the city and go somewhere green with the ability to get away from people, it was 3x as long by public transit than it would have been by car. Minimum. And those places are far away. It’s a place designed to keep you there. And that’s just my point: I don’t want to feel like a sardine in a city packed with people, I want to get out into nature where I can be the only person for miles around.
Amsterdam is the city I see cited most often as being the model for a /c/fuckcars-approved world, but my basic thesis is that living in a place with 13,670 people per square mile, greatly diminished personal space (densified housing), and greatly diminished personal autonomy (the ability to leave), is approximately my definition of urban hell.
I submit that the population of the Northeast Megalopolis (containing NYC, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore) is the stuff of dystopian hellscapes - FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE - and with an average population density of only 6.4% the density of the Netherlands (in other words, the same as Europe). It’s really hard there to find land in its natural state, which isn’t owned by someone - the best you can do is city parks or the equivalent. And while that’s a matter of personal preference, I see a feverish, unrelenting push by the younger generations, who didn’t grow up with cars-as-personal-freedom like the Boomers/GenX/Xennials did. In the US, young Millennials, gen Z, and beyond have decided that ultradense cities are great and cars are evil. I understand how they got to that conclusion, but to me it just looks like Eco-Austerity derived from urbanization, human overpopulation, and the lack of liberating personal-vehicular-experiences as a late teen and early adult.
Edit: When I was in high school, you could buy a well-used economy car that got 35mpg for $500-1k. Gas was a buck a gallon. Traveling 100+ miles to another state to explore rural areas with <1 person per SQ mile, for $3 in gas, all in a couple of hours was empowering. Being stuck in a manmade urban jungle is confining and I think people who lacked the opportunities I had will never understand.
Hell, I believe so much in personal vehicles and the autonomy they enable, I obtained a pilot’s license – something that is overwhelmingly difficult and expensive to do in overcrowded Europe, but for the time being still remains something you can achieve as a middle-class American in some places. I can go places far away without regard for transit schedules, routes, or finding hordes of people there when I arrive. It’s a very non-European experience, and I prefer it to being just another person in an ocean of continuous human habitation.
Single-family homes vs densified housing is an adjacent topic, and I don’t want to get too sidetracked, but suffice it to say that it was the yardstick of middle-class wealth in postwar America. To have your very own land and space, that was private, green, and notionally yours forever. And now thanks to perpetually ballooning city populations and demand for land in historically-occupied places forever outstripping supply, the younger generations are idolizing what amounts to apartment living. Personally, I couldn’t get away from apartments fast enough once my income allowed it. I still don’t know whether I’ll ever own a house, but if I never share a wall or floor with someone again, it will be too soon. I’m frustrated by this newfound need to do away with the tools of our personal independence, and at some level, I fundamentally can’t understand it. It frustrates me almost daily to run into anti-car, pro-urban zealots online, and I think they’re misguided. They’re all either mega extroverts, or don’t have a clue what they’re missing through lack of personal experience.
You almost wonder if these opinions are a product of very clever propaganda. “You will own nothing and you will be happy”. No personal transportation, no public land, and rent an apartment forever to enrich corporate landlords. Stuck in the city, owning nothing of substance, with limited personal freedom because there are just too many people. Just more consumers for capitalism.
noisy children, insufferable karens and the occasional nut job
but that doesn’t mean I have much empathy for them.
Being loud in public imposes a cost on the people around you. In our society parents with babies are generally allowed to impose such a cost, but so are raving lunatics…
Yet everyone seems to ignore that maybe, just maybe, that child is being “shitty” despite having good parents.
If you’re bringing an infant onto a plane, you’re a shitty parent.
Maybe she’s fleeing domestic violence and needs to get to family to safe.
You don’t need a plane for this
Maybe the kid has a medical issue causing pain and discomfort and there’s not a damn thing the parent can do except get on that flight to see a specialist.
You don’t need a plane for this
Maybe the mother has postpartum depression and unfortunately cannot properly care for her child so she’s seeking help elsewhere.
You don’t need a plane for this
I think you can figure out the pattern for the rest of your points.
It’s usually the air pressure causing the kid some pain from mild barotrauma / airplane ear. They can’t help it. No amount of good or bad parenting changes the pressure differential in the inner ear.
No i wouldn’t think this about dogs and cats etc. As those are not annoying 24/7. Of course there are dogs and cats that are but the majority is well behaved… unlike Babies
You can train dogs and cats to be quiet and sit still. Not all of them will be happy doing it for a long plane ride, but you can do it. Babies on the other hand? Babies don’t give a fuck.
Hungry?
Scream.
Tired?
Scream.
Happy?
Scream.
Mad?
Scream
You can do everything right and the baby will still scream.
See, I have this speculation that early humans were fucking dumb, had no object permanence, couldn’t keep track of their kids, and generally pretended they didn’t exist unless they were being annoying. So their babies had to fucking scream as loud as a firetruck for their parents to not lose them.
That’s the other thing too. The sound of a crying baby will drive anyone who doesn’t have antisocial personality disorder or has been driven deaf by the wonders of childcare completely insane. Why? Because while the sheer volume of a baby’s scream might not be as loud as a barking dog on an objective decibel scale, but when it comes to perceptual decibel levels, babies are loud. Our hearing sensitivity varies based on pitch. The higher the pitch, the more sensitive our ears are. On top of that, our brains are hardwired to have a reaction to a screaming baby, which can manifest itself as irritation, annoyance, frustration, and other negative emotions, because our primitive monkey brains are screeching, “WHY WON’T YOU TAKE CARE OF BABY!?” but we can’t do anything because it’s not our baby.
That’s why people like to make jokes about dead babies, infant abuse, etc. Because babies are annoying as hell and literally everything they do is designed to make sure we know they’re there at all times.
Edit: AND ONE MORE THING, have you ever wondered how a parent can love their baby when it’s quiet but hate it when it’s awake? Yeah, that’s almost certainly a result of primitive humans trying to take advantage of the fact that the annoying poop demon was finally quiet and wasn’t ear-fucking their monkey brain into guilt-tripping them anymore, so that they could ditch their babies when they were sleeping. So you can probably thank the negligent, sociopathic protohumans for babies being annoying as shit.
I love this theory that early (and current) humans were so incompetently stupid that we evolved to fucking scream all the time just so they don’t walk away and forget us.
Considering how many kids get left in locked cars in the summer, as well as no other species of animal has annoying ass babies I have to canonize this as the Truth.
Consider this as well: if you’re a primitive human and you have to take your baby somewhere, you’re going to be praying to whatever deity(s) you believe are watching over you that your baby understands the severity of the situation and doesn’t start screaming in the middle of the jungle. 'cause if it does, every predator in a 5 mile radius is going to hear your baby screaming and dinner bells will start going off in their heads. Our only major survival traits are our near-infinite stamina (if properly trained) and ability to magically fuse or deform useless objects into something useful. Additionally, the usefulness of both of those traits diminishes with the size of the group as a single human with a spear is far less likely to survive a tiger attack than two humans with spears. To put it another way, your baby will actively alert predators that you’re burdened with its existence and that you could be free food so that you get removed from the gene pool if you’re stupid or unlucky enough to travel alone.
As a parent of two boys, i feel that much of the annoyance of no-children-having people is due to parents not putting boundaries for children in place.
Children scream because of attention. It means they are not getting it.
Start walking around with the kid to calm it down. Its your job as a parent. You cannot stay seated and act like “what are you gonna do? They are children ! They scream!”
No. You are a bad parent for letting them just scream.
Having said that, babies sometimes just scream without reason. Perhaps, and I mean this, if you have a baby that is prone to doing this, do not travel in confined spaces, or dine at restaurants until that phase of screaming is over.
Would you say this about anyone else? Dogs? Cats? Anything at all?
What an odd comparison, given that pets are crated and put in (a warm/pressurized part of) the cargo bay. Is that better then hiding under a seat or the overhead bin? It seems about the same to me.
Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and other chromium browsers are forks of the main chromium project. They can decide whether to include or exclude features from mainstream chromium.
As far as I know, Brave and Vivaldi will keep Manifest V2 extension support and said that they will not ship WEI (Web Environment Integrity).
Discord uses a modified version of electron, and it’s also probably an outdated fork as well, although I am not sure about that.
Steam, in the other hand, uses CEF, which they use as a way to render it’s interface and as a replacement of VGUI (a good example of this is the steam game overlay), I don’t know if they will ship WEI if it ever releases in chromium as there isn’t a statement from Valve yet.
Discord’s electron still hasn’t received the patch for spectre/meltdown mitigation in the browser, I doubt they will ever have to deal with manifest V3 or WEI.
You probably missed a part where Chrome, Chromium, and CEF are practically the same thing when it comes to resource consumption. Man, I can’t even make Steam consume less than 1 gb ram at any time anymore, even when minimized. CPU consumption, the amount of processes, loading times are also problematic. I wish companies would rely on a labor of programmers, not just web programmers.
I don’t think that Steam would consume less resources if it wasn’t a web app. Most of the resources usage there comes from crap loads of high quality images. You can’t have hundreds of images in a single window without eating loads of RAM.
Sorry what? I literally said that it consumes this amount of memory while there is no active windows. You can close them all and it won’t change much.
Also years ago the website was still filled with images and it didn’t consume that much.
Also, do you really think high quality images consume more resources? High resolution I can understand, but quality is irrelevant when it comes to ram.
What do you mean there are no active windows? You can only have no active windows if the app is closed. If you don’t see it on the screen, it doesn’t mean there are no windows or related services running in the background. If you want to free up memory, shut the app down.
Also part of image quality is its resolution. And image resolution has grown a lot ib the last 10-15 years. Rendered images also went from 8 bit and 256 colours byte arrays to 32 bit byte arrays (already 4x bigger) plus colour correction and all kinds of other meta data stored in memory.
And then you should keep in mind that Steam main storefront page has hundreds if not thousands images in one place. And they are pre-rendered and cached in memory so that you have nice and smooth experience. People seriously underestimate how many resources are consumed by media. As a software developer I can tell you that you can easily have a few megabytes of code and then hundreds of megabytes of COMPRESSED images, fonts and sounds for a small app. Unpack everything into memory and no wonder modern mobile phones need 16+ gigs of RAM.
You seem to not understand what you are talking about.
First, it’s possible to have an app active without spending resources on background windows. This process is called “close a window”. If an app has the tray icon available it should be perfectly viable option and, guess what, it works like that with many apps. But no, even the tray menu for Steam is now a damn web-rendered element. Also even in Chromium based browsers, you can have 2 or more windows opened, and when you close one of them you can expect less ram usage than before you closed it. I’ve seen at least one VScodium derived app that completely unloads browser based code when no active windows are visible. You don’t need to be a huge corporation to know how to do it.
Second, it’s insane to propose that thousands of images from some site (or even from disk cache) are going to be cached into memory immediately upon app launch. You could at least do some research or try Steam app yourself. Want to also tell me how I need thousands of images in my ram even when using Steam small mode?
Third, you mustn’t tell me what I need to sacrifice to have “nice and smooth experience”. I know enough about code and have seen enough apps to know that you don’t need to require GBs of ram from every user to provide good experience. There are literally web based alternatives to CEF that consume 5x-10x less. And then there are many other options for native code.
You mention few megabytes of code. Yeah. Problem is, Chromium code is tons more than that. Those are not “small” apps.
Brave has an entire contingent of the FOSS community up in arms. They claim that it is doing more data harvesting than Alphabet, and the EULA prevents anyone from finding out what they are doing with all that data scraping.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, other than as a windows user I would like to see FOSS adopted as quickly as possible since they have predicted all this shit for the last 30 years at least.
ETA: I know basically nothing about Vivaldi, though having used it, it seems to function as lightweight as chromium did back in the day. I have no comments on Edge.
Only if you want it (yes you still need to download a larger package).
Vivaldi is created by the former creator of Opera, with sort of the same goals it used to have: care for the power user. They are up for adding any customization and power user tool if people want it. It has never tried to be as lightweight as possible. Instead, it should be one of the most customizable and feature rich browsers out there.
It’s great, as I can add and remove features so it’s tailored to me.
Just to add the missing comment about Edge - MS is turning into the Microsoft version of Chrome. They removed Google’s ad bs and replaced it with their own ad and monetization bs.
@DogMuffins@amycatgirl, it is not so simple, there are a huge number of third-party pages that also depend on certain Google services, directly or indirectly. This is what happens when you depend on sponsors, because with this you lose your freedom of decision, especially if you make a pact with the devil, sorry, Google.
Mozilla has already suffered this in its own flesh, becoming a Google mascot from an independent platform, even with Google devs working on Firefox.
yeah its not free XD you have to look at ads which you DONT have to do with regular lemmy.
Also, why do you care if people are using sync or paying for it. How does that affect you personally?
it doesnt, why do you ask? i was just correcting the user saying its “free” which is not under any pov. not in price because of ads, not in freedom because it sucks.
I think it’s very valid to say a service isn’t free if it makes you the product by forcibly showing you ads. This is especially true when your data is being collected and shared with advertisers.
Time is more valuable than money, and I don’t like spending time on ads. That’s just my two cents, though.
They’re saying that if you time it right, they won’t get/hear the notification that you’ve checked in and you can slide into the right spot. Wait awhile and then you’ll get refunded because you were “waiting so long”
Which it can work TBH, it just won’t be a reliable method by any means
This is why there are spaces clearly marked for curbside pickup. If you’re not in one of the designated spaces and try to pull this you will not get free food.
The apostrophe actually makes it a contraction, not possessive. So they’re really saying “the underpaid teacher who bought it with it is own money”. I know not everyone cares, but that’s how our weird language works…
Well, they aren’t alone. Blizzard and Activision is on my blacklist. As well as pretty much any studio own by Microsoft at this point… Oh, and Sony! Can’t forget about them.
In the 1999s-2000s we used WebWasher. It was basically a proxy server which you ran locally on your computer and it had all the filters. You just set up your browser’s network connection to point to WebWasher and it acted as the gateway to the Internet.
If browsers somehow decided to kill all their plugin support, you could still use that to filter your content.
I mean, trump seems obvious. Unstable wannabe tyrant/dictator from a party of evangelical theocrats, criminal, fraudster, blatant liar, thief, rapist, sycophant of dictators, insurrectionist, wife beater…and we haven’t even dug in to the party that supports this behavior along with their LGBTQ hate, restricting womens’ rights, voter fraud, election fraud, gun rights > your life, handing everything to the billionaires, environmental destruction of most every kind, and of course their NAZI underpinnings.
Joe is a career politician with all the baggage that goes with that, but he’s not actively and willfully sabotaging the country.
One has worked with Bernie Sanders and helped get some his goals achieved in policy and legislature.
The other hired his own children despite their inability to get security clearances, cheated on his wife while she was at home with their newborn, paid illegal hush money over that matter, stole classified documents and likely gave them to adversaries, likely compromised national security multiple times, sowed doubt in our elections with zero evidence to back it up, blew up the debt, fucked up the Supreme Court and has said he’d ignore the constitution, term limits all of that.
“I let my hatred willfully blind me to admitting trump is a sack of shit and I’d prefer a dictatorship to democracy if that pisses off the libs. Bonus: I get to be a bastard too because the libs will be shut up unless they want to go to a reeducation camp.”
More likely.
E: I re-read what you said and realized I didn’t get it right. Do Dems really think like that, or is it just general apathy of some Dems and the independent voters?
The bad parts of capitalism are the authoritarianism and the grift. Venezuela, like any soviet structured entity is not an alternative to capitalism, its just imperialism wearing a different coat of paint
Both are objectively terrible, the Democrats are tepid liberals that are trying to put band-aids on gaping holes in a sinking ship rather than solving the underlying issues.
The GOP is, of course, fascist, and thus far worse, but in the sinking ship that is America, continuing to sink without fixing the underlying issues is bad as well.
Actually fixing the problems is far greater than the DNC, which is far greater than the GOP.
Edit: no, I’m not advocating for third party voting, I plan on voting for Biden, because I believe change must come from below. Begging the DNC to fix the gaping problems with American society will never get anything done, ever. Organize, donate to strike funds, actually try to build pressure from below.
People really seem to think Biden should have a magic wand, or should somehow impose things the majority of Americans are against and when he can’t they say he’s the devil. It’s so silly.
I’m far more radical left than most people and I’ve come to accept that, I have faith in the strength of my ideas and that they’ll displace capitalism but understand it’ll be a struggle and a fight. Biden has very likely literally no concept of the ideals I value, I imagine it’d take me hours to explain the importance of open source software for example and I don’t expect he’d take it on board very seriously even at best so of course I wouldn’t pick him as the leader of my.movememt but that’s not what people are being asked to pick, they’re picking the president of the whole country so of course he’s also going to have to work in the existing frameworks and with the many factions that exist.
I don’t expect Biden to do anything other than continue the American Liberal project, but I’m also not a reformist, I don’t believe it’s possible to vote Capitalism into Socialism. I only vote for Biden because it appears to me that it is easier to organize a grassroots movement under liberals than under fascists.
Liberalism won’t make America better, it just won’t make it fascist as quickly as the fascist party.
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
Proving that liberals like fascism when it’s not pointing at them. To them, it is a weapon that should be wielded against their opponents rather than a blight that needs to be eradicated before it kills us all. Your irresponsibility will have devastating consequences.
So for anyone other than that guy who might actually be interested…
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
( a ) Killing members of the group;
( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
There is video evidence of 1-3, and I would personally say that the intentional, wanton destruction of hospitals, almost 20 years blockade with restriction of caloric intake, escalating into a famine. Guess who is specifically called out in a recent report by MedGlobal:
But we are also seeing that pregnant and lactating women are suffering from this, as well, and there’s a rapid increase in malnutrition across mothers, as well.
That depends what you think the greatest threats to quality of life for the average in American are. I believe the greatest threat is the corrupt system, which gives more power and money to the rich and screws over almost everyone else, and both of those candidates are firmly entrenched in it.
They both know and embrace their role in that system, although they would phrase it in different terms.
Finally, you asked about objective terribleness. But there is no such thing. This is all subjective, because of course it is, the country has hundreds of millions of residents who all have different priorities.
If it wasn’t for his position regarding Israel and Palestine, I would have been pleasantly surprised by Biden overall. His administration seemed to be making a lot of good moves for a bunch of liberals.
Joe is a self-admitted Zionist. He’s also a U.S. President and unfortunately for the Palestinians, U.S. hegemony in the Middle East is entirely predicated on a stable U.S.-friendly Country (i.e Israel) in the region.
“If we didn’t have an Israel, we’d probably have to make one.” ~Joe Biden
It’s a shit-trap, for any POTUS regardless of their personal beliefs
If you had of invested the equivalent amount of money in the Dow Jones index instead of purchasing 10kg of gold and kept it invested from 1920-2024 you would have ~$15 million.
So I get the idea of a hedge, but I guess the question on my mind whenever I hear talk about hyper-inflation is “what are you going to do with the gold if society collapses?”. My thought is that if the world economy got so fucked up that the US dollar was worthless, and the government didn’t step in, then wouldn’t we sorta be in a failed state? And if we were in a failed state is the plan to sit on the gold in some sort of fortress to wait for civilization to come back? Hoping that you can defend it and that the incoming civilization doesn’t just take it?
I’ve always assumed you’d melt the gold down and create coins or other tradable sub-amounts of the gold that you could exchange for goods and services. If people are still peopling, they’ll still want a currency to transact with; if the dollar has failed then gold has a historical precedent that would probably make it easier to convince people to trade with you using it as a medium of exchange. It always seems like it’s more suited to be an emergency measure than a plan A to me.
As far as I know, the idea with holding gold in bank storage is, that if hyperinflation occurs, the currency becomes worthless and there will be economic upheaval, but it will not be the apocalypse. And then a new currency will be created and everybody who held physical assets instead of the old currency will be in a way better position.
Not only that, but SP500 pays dividends practically every year, whereas gold costs money to store securely. $15M in SP500 would have netting something around $300k last year in dividends alone.
Helps that HBomberGuy hasn’t posted endless rounds of response videos. That’s how you milk the drama for views.
Conversely, I’m getting a little tired of Karl Jobst mostly becoming a drama channel against fraudsters like Billy Mitchell or the Open Hand Charity. Those guys do deserve it, but it’s sucking oxygen away from Jobst’s usual commentary on speed running techniques. He’s also working outside his specialty–these are American cases, and he’s a lawyer under Australian law–and not all his claims carry weight.
I haven’t watched his videos in a while but isn’t he being sued by Billy Mitchell? I assumed his videos were more out of spite than actually chasing drama.
Doesn’t help the fact that his (Karl Jobst) latest video is of course AGAIN about Billy Mitchell: “I Just Exposed Billy Mitchell’s DUMBEST LIE EVER!” I think I’m starting to see a bit of a patern here…
Thank you so much for this post, I thought I was the only one. The quality of his content has really gone down as a result of him fixating on the drama. I thought his deep dive into rating retro games was good, but he is becoming full of himself. Needs to step back and reevaluate what the channel used to be about. But I’m guessing the drama makes him more money. He wouldn’t be the first youtuber to “go bad” because of the algorithm.
YouTube recommended me a Jobst video the other day, and I thought “I’ve already seen his Billy Mitchell video, haven’t I?” And I had. What I hadn’t seen were the fifteen other videos he’s made about him. As I write this comment, his latest video about Billy Mitchell was uploaded 17 hours ago.
I think people in this section of the comments are a bit unreasonable. Jobst made 2 videos about Open Hands Foundation and the reason to publish the first one doesn’t have to be “drama”. The second… Maybe… But then again, people like “updates” which is also the reason by billy Mitchell videos are coming and they are updates. In both cases, there is a strong relationship between the core theme video games and the “drama”. Open Hands Foundation’s event was about showcasing games and Billy is the best video gamer of all time. God bless billy.
So I don’t think Jobst videos are so… Offtopic. Especially as he talked about Speedrun drama before.
Genetically modified generally refers to direct modifications to genes done in a lab. As opposed to selective breeding.
Organic often refers to the use of fertiliser and pesticides. So produce that is grown with compost rather than synthetic fertiliser and synthetic pesticides.
It’s completely feasible to produce organic watermelons and solely consume organic watermelons. It only refers to how the fruit was grown. Not the variety.
There are GMOs that are created in a lab. Commercial varieties breed mainly for shelf life and volume. Then there is heirloom variety’s, older varieties generally breed prior to over commercialisation of farming that has made food more bland and bigger. All of these can be grown organically.
In fact it’s very easy for the only watermelon you eat to be organic. Especially if you grow them yourself, as many gardeners use organic methods exclusively.
It’s probably because they use the same cultivar that doesn’t mature seeds and goes for maximum growth and Resistance to fungi and disease instead of flavour.
That did and in some places does still matter. Homes moving away from heating with coal to natural gas reduces smog. Thus it is seen as clean energy. Because everything is cleaner in the true sense of the word clean. Green is often a better predictor.
Yes, I get that literally clean energy is important and in many places it would be a significant improvement. It can also be easier to explain that we need to move away from fossil fuels based on tangible pollution, not the nebulous “greenhouse gasses” and “global warming”, especially when talking to conservative folks.
Still, I feel like public awareness of the issue is… questionable. Whenever I read about some government program to fund more renewable energy, or hear politiciants discuss it, it’s almost always the literal clean, not green clean. Invisible emissions will still mess up our climate, and more people should know that.
It’s a heavily abused and arbitrary marketing term that doesn’t actually indicate anything about what the food is made of or how it’s made or grown. It also doesn’t indicate anything about how healthy the food is or how good it tastes. At most it’s slightly better for the environment in some areas with some brands when used properly, but even then regulations are too lax and inconsistent worldwide for it to be a trustworthy label.
This is false. The reality is that USDA organic does have meaning. It’s certainly less meaning than implied, but the binary thinking leads to an incorrect view like yours. I actively avoid organic if it’s more expensive, but when it’s about the same, it’s clearly somewhat better to some degree
I did do my research. There’s no evidence of any health benefit from eating organic foods and the environmental benefit is relatively minor depending on the country and ultimately no more effective (often less effective) than other dietary lifestyle changes like vegetarianism or veganism or even just reducing the amount of meat you eat. Depending on how the word organic is used on the packaging it could mean the food contains anywhere from 50-90% “organic” products. The USDA rating only accounts for the standards of one country, not the whole world, not to mention even the USDA rating doesn’t exclude all fertilizers or all GMO products, but organic stuff is commonly described and marketed as being “pesticide and GMO free food”. “Organic” food is constantly marketed and viewed as being healthier despite there being no actual evidence supporting that. None of that contradicts what I said in my first comment. It is an arbitrary and abused term that doesn’t actually tell you anything about the food reliably. I’m not saying it’s completely meaningless entirely I’m just saying it has little meaning, certainly much less than most people believe, due to a lack of consistency, constant lies in marketing, and the low level of impact it has on the environment compared to other comparable dietary options. You also don’t even need to buy stuff labeled as organic in order to eat organic, since lots of organic foods aren’t labelled.
By all means I would love more strict wide-spread regulation and enforcement of the term “organic” based around maximizing its environmental impact, but at the moment it’s little more than a marketing tool for most companies.
Nothing inherently, you can go ahead and eat apples from your apple tree.
The main issue with “organic” foods is that the term is usually very badly regulated. Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”… besides price. Sometimes “organic” foods use very ecologically unfriendly techniques, or are grown/processed in countries where supply chains are not inspected anyway.
Then there’s the fact that if something is different, it may not always be an environmental or health win. Growing your food in 30cm of water may be one organic and traditional way to avoid using pesticides (see: rice), but doing that with corn in the middle of Arizona would obviously be a terrible idea!
Anyway, overall I don’t think organic foods are worse if you’re well off enough that the price is not an issue. But you shouldn’t feel personal guilt for buying whatever’s cheaper, because quite often the alternative does not justify the price anyway. Eating truly “organic” food unfortunately requires a lot more involvement than picking the green package at a national supermarket chain.
Sometimes there is no difference between “organic” and “non organic”
Probably the most amusing example is strawberries: it’s essentially impossible to grow them without using non-organic pesticides (and there are such things as organic pesticides despite the near-universal but incorrect belief that “organic” means “no pesticides”) so the USDA allows them to be labelled “organic” if they’re grown with non-organic methods but then replanted and treated organically for a few days before being harvested and shipped to market.
I thought people in the US calling food “organic” was akin to our “Agriculture biologique” in France, which is heavily regulated at an european level. Is it nit the case?
The AB label is regulated yes, which is almost equivalent to the EU green leaf. Then there are various private labels. In the US it’s all up to private labels I believe.
Anyone can put “bio” and a vaguely green packaging on anything though AFAIK. And I don’t think the average consumer is very knowledgeable about which label means what; I certainly am not.
Then there’s the problem of fraud, and various issues with the way the EU defines “biological agriculture”, but I don’t really know much about either.
Organic foods can and usually do have pesticides, and those pesticides are just as harmful to you as the artificial ones. For instance, Rotenone was an organic pesticide used for decades that is strongly linked to parkinsons and has since been banned in North America.
Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.
Depends on where you live. As far as I know the term is not well protected in many countries, so it means next to nothing there.
However, I live in the EU / Germany, where we have several organic farming standards that are all fairly strict. Generally, organic actually means organically produced food here, grown without artificial pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.
Just out of curiosity since I assume you know more about this, is “plant based” the same as vegan? Because that’s the hip new term but I’ve always wondered if they’re equivalent or if they do have some animal products which is why they’re dancing around the word vegan. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from the people at the store/restaurant.
Unfortunately, the answer is “It depends”. Although plant-based foods are usually suitable for vegans, it isn’t a regulated term, so you can’t be sure. Also, I think the term “vegan” has negative connotations that “plant-based” doesn’t, so marketers prefer to use that term instead.
This seems to be a general theme. Those arguing loudest for better privacy are really saying “only we should be allowed to invade your privacy”. See: Google, Apple, the EU
because (I firmly believe that) it won’t get passed. The Commission doesn’t have a majority yet, and it will be laughed out of the EUP. EVEN IF the EUP votes to pass it, the ECJ ought to step in, because the UNCHR and the European Data Protection Supervisor have already said that it goes against the (human(!)) right of privacy. There is no shot that this will get implemented by 27 member states.
This might surprise you but the bible isn’t 100% accurate.
Jokes aside: scholars think that the Israelites were a group of Canaanites who lived as “outcasts” in the hinterlands and seized the cities after the bronze age collapse.
So Israelites came when the Canaanites collapsed but the causality is different than depicted in the bible. Also they weren’t that foreign in the first place.
I’m not very familiar with the “history” of the time period, but I know Abraham was a Canaanite. Many Jews (and Arabs) could trace lineage to Canaan, before the collapse.
I’m not sure why you put “history” into quotation. I was referring to history as in archeology.
The arguments are according to pottery and art in general, linguistics and I think genetics too. The first israelite settlements were in the north and therefore not were you would expect them if they arrived from Egypt. I don’t know if Abraham was a historic figure and it honestly doesn’t really matter.
Yeah, iirc the Isrealite ethnic group was a combination of Canaanites and tribes from near Canaan that invaded during the Bronze Age Collapse. Though the religion is mostly Canaanite-derived, Yahweh and Elohim, the two main titles/names used to describe the Abrahamic God in the Torah are descended from the Canaanite gods Yaweh and El, who were syncretized together into a single god sometime before/during the early 1st temple period.
Edit: Though there’s also loads of Mesopatamian influence, the Noah’s flood myth is directly based on the Mesopatamian flood myth that eventually made it into the Epic of Gilgamesh. Plus lots of ancient Isrealite folklore is derived from Mesopatamia, like Lilith, who is probably derived from a kind of demon in Mesopatamian mythology that fed on newborn children and was in league with Lamashtu, who was basically an Anti-Fertility goddess, considered responsible for infant mortality.
While one may oppose and even condemn particular Israeli policies or actions with regard to Palestinians or Israel’s Arab citizens, the fact remains that in no way has Israel engaged in any action with the intent to exterminate, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people.
Indeed, accusing Israel of genocide has the collateral effect diminishing real acts of genocide – such as those that occurred in the Holocaust, against Armenians, and in Rwanda.
Furthermore, it is deeply concerning that Israel is often the only country in the world accused by activist groups of contemporaneously engaging in genocide. Not only is this false as a matter of both law and fact, but it also applies a singularly demonizing double standard to Israel.
Finally, claiming as some do, that there are many “types” of genocide, and Israel is, for example, committing “cultural” genocide, is equally problematic. Regardless of how the term is applied, it is clearly heard and impacts a large audience who hear it as the legal term intended to convey the most awful of human crimes – mass murder and population expulsion – a charge that is misapplied to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This might surprise you but Bible is new book written not so long ago while Israely were there from 10000 b.c. Fighting other local tribes until Muslims where invented and came with all their sadistic hate to other nations and killing infants just like they behave now. No excuses. They need to be wiped out, like Russia and other tumors on Earth.
This might surprise you but Bible is new book written not so long ago while Israely were there from 10000 b.c.
Verifiably no, there’s argument at to if ancient Israel ever existed or of out was a loose confederation like the early German empire.
Fighting other local tribes until Muslims where invented and came with all their sadistic hate to other nations and killing infants just like they behave now.
There’s exactly zero proof of that and literally no one knows who started what or when.
No excuses. They need to be wiped out, like Russia and other tumors on Earth.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.