I mean, Telly is giving away TVs that have a camera and second screen to play ads. Sony might not think they could get away with it a decade ago, but consumers seem to slowly accept more bullshit over time so I could definitely see their calculus changing in the future.
Oh it has a second screen… have to answer ~100 questions about your viewing habits to get it… so they must only ship to likely profitable demographics. Yeah pretty much hate it :D
Honestly I think it’s just a shit idea. Only way I could see it flying is if you heavily (or completely) subsidized the cost of the television. There’s already a company giving away free ad supported TVs.
Oh yeah it’s obviously a shit idea, but that generally doesn’t stop executives when they think there’s money to be made – considering how eg. YouTube’s trying to stop you from blocking ads and will apparently start showing ads when videos are paused, requiring attention seems like a logical next step to drive that CPM up to fund the CEO’s new yacht
It’s crazy that this is real. It looks like a comic someone would make to make fun of the idea. Like the fact that they’re watching some guy shoot someone, then the burger commercial comes on and the guy stands up and cheers “McDonalds!” Before sitting back down to watch more of guy shooting other guy.
This is peak “dumb Americans” humor, and they’re using this unironically to describe their business idea.
Gary M. Zalewski is listed as the inventor. He is listed on 99 patents, several of which are related to increasing advertising proliferation and penetration. He’s basically a driver of enshittification. My favorite was “System and method for taking control of a system during a commercial break”. Can’t have the plebs changing channels!
Sometimes I wish there really was a higher power watching over this kind of thing, but I don’t think anything like that exists. Probably all those evil people will die old and peacefully. It’s not fair.
Nine times out of ten, it’s not that anyone is scared of the LGBT community. We just recognize the negative impacts their activism is having on society (especially kids) and we get sick of having a completely contrary worldview shoved down our throats.
Well grease up that throat twinkle toes, because a lot of your kids are fucking gay as hell, because that shits in the DNA, not in how ignorant and homophobic your dumbass parents are. Good luck!
Weird, religion has been shoved down my throat and I’m not religious. You do realize you can’t make someone gay right? Just like you can’t make someone gay straight. How many hours per day do you watch fox “news”, be honest.
So what you’re saying is you’re scared of the supposed negative impacts on society. The negative impact being less people are depressed and less people kill themselves as they can openly be who they are without someone shoving their heteronormative worldview based on misinformation down their throats. Interesting stance to take
Nope, just sick of y’all pushing it on everyone, insisting we agree with your worldview, and making up goofy terms like “heteronormative” to make it sound philosophical.
Oh no, looks like I ruffled the feathers of a mod. This crap right here is exactly why I despise Reddit and it seems Lemmy ain’t any better. Every day, I grow more convinced that I might just need to ditch Lemmy entirely.
Oh sure, there’s definitely lots of valid criticism of rainbow capitalism, but to be clear, it’s not pride month itself that’s the issue there - it’s corporations leveraging it for profit
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
Is that the “lay with another man” bit? I’m pretty sure there’s arguments over the original text, and scholars think it originally meant “don’t have sex with little boys” not don’t have sex with men.
It’s very specific, and it’s in many places across the entire Bible. It’s written with the same concept, in different ways, leaving no room for misinterpretation when you read the entire thing. I just finished the new testament, can confirm it’s spread across that entire thing in different ways too. Here are 3 of them:
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV):
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV):
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NIV):
“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”
Not that I actually consider the Bible to be an authoritative source on morality (see: slavery), but are those faithful to the original texts? I only ask because it’s my understanding that sexuality wasn’t viewed as a straight-gay spectrum back then, but instead as a dominate-submissive spectrum. Like, if they were to actually have a problem with same sex acts, it was more to do with messing with the social order than any inherit sexuality problems.
Good for you for being a good little boy and following bible. I’m sure you just pick and choose but hey, you do you. I think the bible is a terrible work of fiction used to scare and govern people, therefore, I don’t believe in any of it, so your work of fiction means jack shit to me. Try being a good human, you’ll be less scared and angry.
How many threads are you wearing? Do you kill your kids when they dont obey you? Think owning slaves is fine as long as they survive a couple days after you beat them?
Points for consideration, there were a handful of ships full of Jews during WW2 seeking asylum. It's widely believed that world leaders knew of or suspected that the Holocaust was murdering Jews around the time those boats were rejected for asylum.
Additionally, even after people knew the details of the Holocaust people still didn't really like Jews.
how would you account for those points?
also thank you for engaging with me on this. I'm genuinely enjoying our conversation!
Everything you’re saying really just supports the fact that the nations of the time were handling the situation in a wildly immoral way, and the creation of Israel as an ethnostate was part and parcel of that immorality, and remains highly consequential to this date.
There’s no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time, because one person can’t unilaterally force a nation to do anything without being a dictator, and people don’t become dictators without doing horrible things.
What matters is recognizing that the Israel of today came to exist out of two factors:
Wealthy and influential Zionists wanted to claim Palestinian land by any means possible to further enrich themselves.
Other nations wanted somewhere to send as many Jewish people as possible because they were antisemitic and didn’t like refugees.
Now we’re stuck dealing with the consequences of our idiot racist ancestors. Let’s just try our best to not be overtly idiotic or racist ourselves (racist, for example, by turning a blind eye to the genocide happening to Palestinians, as if they’re not even human beings, or idiotic by thinking that there’s any justification for Israel’s insanely disproportionate use of force).
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you specifically of being racist or idiotic, I’m just describing my general position on things.
It won't solve the problems of today but sometimes it can be interesting to see what people of today think for problems and crisises of yesterday. I was in model UN and that was a fairly frequent conference idea.
I also enjoy talking to people because it's easy for us to say "that's a colonialist action" and even though it's true the question becomes (for me) 'alright how could we have done better' and discussing that thought experiment
and I appreciate the call-out, I definitely didn't assume you were calling me one.
Maybe for a better question we ask "what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman." While they were singular people they did give the diplomats their marching orders when it came to the peace resolutions.
“what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman.”
These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.
Mmm that's a pretty fair point. Even back then being the President that ended a war only got you so much political good will in the States. Not sure how it worked for Churchill.
I kinda wonder what if any good solutions there were for this. Doing the moral thing but losing your job doing it and potentially seeing the work you did undone by your successor would suck hella bad.
Well thank you for indulging my questions this has been really fun chatting with you!
Churchill lost re-election because he made a really tone-deaf radio address on Labour’s plans for socialized medicine, national insurance, and nationalisation of utilities and critical industries (all of which the overwhelming majority of the country wanted), basically calling them communism, said it would require a “gestapo” to implement, and he wouldn’t stand for it.
Clement Atlee more or less thanked him for that speech the next day, and assumed the Prime Minister role after the Tories were absolutely trounced in the 1945 election.
Atlee lasted 6 years. Labour ran the show with a huge majority for a full five year term, then got an unworkably small majority of 5 seats in 1950. Snap election was called in 1951, and Conservatives retook the majority, despite Labour getting 48.8% of the vote, and Conservatives only getting 48.0%.
…Funny how that keeps happening.
Churchill resumed the role of Prime Minister until he retired in 1955.
It wasn’t (maybe still isn’t?) a strictly proportional representation system, so the urban areas get slightly fewer members per vote. More equal than the Electoral College, but still imbalanced in favor of the rural areas where wealthy people have huge estates that have been handed down for generations.
Unlike purchasing things for imaginary gods, carbon credits could work in theory. At least well enough to be part of the solution. That is, if they were properly regulated around strategies that actually absorb carbon and everyone is forced to be honest and transparent.
I wonder how much energy google wastes on its AI service in the regular search just to give me a worse answer than the top results I was actually looking for.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.