I don’t want to listen to an imperialism apologist and genocide apologist about anything. Maybe Chomsky has a point, maybe not, but he isn’t educated in economics beyond the undergrad level, and has had completely idiotic opinions on world events, so
He has the political/economic mind of a 14 year old edgelord. He’s not an expert at all (in these subjects. He is a fantastic linguist) - he’s just a minor commie celebrity
Both claims against Chomsky reek of CIA/neo-liberal propaganda, imo.
As to your comments seeking to discredit Chomsky’s expertise in this area, he’s an intellectual who has been following, protesting, and speaking out against Western Imperialism since the Vietnam war.
Neo-Liberalism (the Democrats) and Fascism (the modern GOP) aren’t the only choices and being critical of neo-liberalism =~ tankie or Russian apologist.
That’s CIA propaganda and I’m sorry to see it follow posters from reddit.
“everything I don’t like is CIA propaganda: a child’s guide to political discussion”
And yes, he has been running interference for Putin and used to run interference for the fucking Khmer Rouge. I don’t need his opinion like I don’t need Henry Kissingers. Although at least Kissinger would know what he is talking about, as a very competent ghoul.
I’m a skeptical and distrustful person by nature and not afraid to kill my heros because of this. So, when I started seeing this stuff circulating on reddit, I checked it out.
I go into detail as to why I believe what I do in my other responses to this comment and cite my sources. If you want to make an actual argument instead of name calling feel free to make one there.
Dude the man is so anti American that he was willing to enthusiastically enforce Khmer Rouge propaganda. He’s just the lefty mirror to Henry Kissinger, except ignorant and less evil.
Nuanced arguments about how the West must be lying about the genocide in Cambodia.
Dude, I am okay with people generally critical of the West. Especially within the context of the Cold War. Chomsky goes beyond that. His initial assumption is that everything the West is doing is bad.
That means his thoughts aren’t useful or insightful. They don’t change based on the situation. It’s just a better sounding version of your typical anti-west screed from anyone ranging from edgy 14 year old Marxists trying to piss off their parents or some aging hippie.
And it isn’t propaganda, it’s what he wrote, praising the regime of brutal murderers and discarding the accounts of survivors and escapees as propaganda.
Gov'ts singularly listening to economists on the cause of our current recession is what's causing our current recession.
Economists aren't always the best judge of much these days, and not being one shouldn't disqualify anyone from having an opinion on the current shit storm we face.
I don’t think our government should be solely listening to economists, but I don’t think that this means the government should be listening to an arrogant linguistics professor who has his head up his own ass and cannot critically examine his own intellectual failings.
I used to compare them to Tarot Card readers but it then occurred to me that at least Tarot Card readers can do cold reading. So my advice to economists is try to get to the accuracy of Tarot for now.
Just so everyone’s aware, there is also a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania (where this took place). No executions have been committed since 1999 despite any sentencing since then: Wikipedia.
What cops dont want to talk about is this guy (and others) get victims by pretending to be cops.
Because even real cops don’t follow procedure and will kill people for not following nonsensical orders, it’s really easy for criminals to just yell “police” and victims know even if it’s legitimately a cop, they may be murdered for not doing everything the person claiming to be a cop orders them to do.
Even the rape after “arrest”, that’s something cops are legally allowed to do in a lot of states still. They can just claim it’s consensual even when the women is being detained and handcuffed, and then it’s the cops word against their victim.
When cops act like criminals, it’s impossible to know if someone is a cop and also a criminal, or just a criminal pretending to be a cop.
You’re correct and it’s only get worse. A lot if not most of our police force are made up of fascist.
They even recruiting that way. There is terrifying video of police recruiters teaching that civilians should be treated as enemy combats.
And with Atlanta building that “cop city” were police will be trained in urban combat and full on war against us civilians we are totally fucked as a society.
Also, sex work is real work. If the same people trying to keep it illegal are paying for it, there’s no excuse to continue leaving sex workers out to fend for themselves.
What they mean is, it is legal for police there to "have sexual relations" with people in police custody. For that reason it is very easy for them to overpower people/coerce them and rape them, and very difficult for victims to get justice for this.
Except the teacher has the legal right to force the student to go into a space the teacher controlls, force the student to get rid of all possessions including ones that could be used for recording, handcuff them, and then it is illegal for the student to fight back against the teacher in any way even while being raped. Also teachers may kill students during this with minimal repercussions
If a person is in custody, most states don’t say an on duty cop can’t have sex with them.
So the cop just starts doing it, the victim thinks saying no won’t help, or even does say no.
Later the cop claims it’s consensual and since they turned off the cameras, it’s their word against their victim’s.
And most won’t even report it, because it’s hard to believe other cops will do anything after they were just raped while in custody, either in a police car or even in a police station.
It’s not legal. What it comes down to is that some states wrote laws saying any sexual encounter where one person is in duty in a position of power, that encounter is automatically deemed non-consensual. In other states, it would follow the exact same laws as any other sexual assault. In these other states, if a rape were reported, during the ensuing investigation/court case (if there actually was one), the prosecutor would basically just say the same thing, that there was no consent because of the power dynamic. I don’t know whether or not those laws make a difference in the long run. It’s probably a good thing to have on the books, but not as sensational as people make it out to be.
To use the first weird analogy that came to mind, it’s like if one state had a law saying that you couldn’t poke whales with sticks, while another state just said you couldn’t mess with whales. Either state would prosecute you for poking a whale with a stick, just the one would have to say that poking is a form of messing with the whale.
There’s arguments for and against laws like that, cause on the one hand, you want laws to be as simple as possible to cover whatever use case, but on the other hand, you don’t want to give criminals/businesses/etc. to have any wiggle room to do things against the public interest because there isn’t a specific law against it
In many states, the law fails to recognize coercive power dynamics (like being arrested and detained) as inherently non-consensual, leaving "but she said yes!" as a viable defense for cops who "have sex with" a detained woman. It's disgusting and very real.
"After a woman accused two New York police officers of raping her while in their custody in 2017, the legality of police-detainee sexual conduct gained national attention.
While the Prison Rape Elimination Act protects inmates from sexual abuse by prison staff, the law does not apply to detainees who have not been convicted of a crime. Forced sexual conduct is illegal in every state in any context, but in states without a law mandating otherwise, police can argue a consent defense if detainees accuse them of rape."
To add context this isn’t a hypothetical situation. In New York Two cops Eddie Martins and Richard Hall raped an 18 year old woman they had arrested for marijuana possession. They detained a group of teens, and let all of them go except for the woman who they then handcuffed and raped in the back of their police van. They then dropped her off in another location. She went to a hospital where a rape kit found semen matching the DNA of detectives Eddie Martins and Richard Hall. Both officers claimed that they did have sex with her, but it was consensual. Because it wasn’t specifically illegal for police to have sex with someone they detained they were able to accept a plea deal for taking bribes and official misconduct where they got 5 years probation with no jail time. Because of this case New York unanimously passed a new law (SB S7708) making it so that a person “under arrest, detention or otherwise in actual custody” cannot consent to sex. In any other state that doesn’t have a similar law it is essentially legal (as in it is not specifically illegal) for police to rape someone they arrested.
That’s pretty horrifying. You have all the evidence you need but can’t do anything. Being police always puts you in a position of power, which makes it so much more likely for people to not resist for the fear of consequences.
Much as I enjoy seeing bad things happen to Elon Musk, I don’t think this will have good future results if AFP wins. What will it say for Lemmy itself when we quote articles and don’t pay for them?
Much as the (legal) world wasn’t ready for “socal media” (which in this context actually means “web content aggregators”), the law in turn will not be ready for anything federated. They’ll try to apply the same “social media” rules to services that are decentralized, and those rules won’t really fit, and we’ll go through all this rigamarole again… in like 10 years.
The first batch of shoes released in June, which sold out, helped the company reach an operating profit of 176 million euros in the second quarter, better than it originally planned, Adidas said Thursday.
After Ye’s antisemitic and other offensive comments led the company to end its partnership with the rapper in October, Adidas said it had sought a way to dispose of 1.2 billion euros worth of the high-end shoes in a responsible way.
“This is much better than destroying and writing off the inventory and allows us to make substantial donations to organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the Philonise & Keeta Floyd Institute for Social Change and Robert Kraft’s Foundation to Combat Antisemitism,” Gulden said.
Adidas also warned that the first sale included the highest-priced shoes and sold out completely but that it wasn’t clear whether the remaining releases would see similar price levels and demand.
The blow-up of the Ye partnership put Adidas in a precarious position because of the popularity of the Yeezy line, and it faced growing pressure to end ties last year as other companies cut off the rapper.
Investigators interviewed Zuberi’s wife and neighbors, but authorities declined to say if there was any indication that any of them had been aware of the abduction.
Assuming they didn't live separated it is hard to imagine that they didn't know. A makeshift cell in your garage that holds your victims is kind of hard to hide from your family.
A search of Zuberi’s home and garage turned up the Seattle woman’s purse and handwritten notes, according to investigators. One of them was labeled “Operation Take Over” and included a bullet list with entries that read, “Leave phone at home” and “Make sure they don’t have a bunch of ppl (sic) in their life. You don’t want any type of investigation.”
This kinda makes it sound even darker, maybe like a trafficking ring. Did he write that himself? Some third party? His wife?
I heard that the woman was taken from Washington, held in the cell in Oregon, and the guy was arrested with his family in Reno. I don’t know any details, but figured there was something more to the logistics that weren’t being reported.
Don’t pitch a WFH by bragging about how you’re doing personal stuff (breakfast) on work time.
Also, it’s really beneficial to the workflow if you don’t do work in the kitchen, and don’t eat meals in the home office. Get the downtime, and preserve the separation, while also being adequate on your time-management.
At the office jobs I’ve worked at eating during work hours was fine. Why would WFH be any different? I’m perfectly capable of reading emails and slacks over a bowl of cereal, be it in the office or at home.
If you think office drones are 100% productive for all 8 hours I have a bridge to sell you.
There’ve now been several studies showing WFH is a net good for productivity. Instead of hiding in the bathroom to scroll Lemmy, people are taking their 5 minute breaks to do laundry, clean the house, check on the baby - I can’t see how that’s anything but a good thing.
When we were in the office, people were in the kitchen at all hours to get something to eat. I’m not sure how that’s any different than home.
it’s really beneficial to the workflow if you don’t do work in the kitchen, and don’t eat meals in the home office.
Who’s workflow? If you have an issue getting your work done, that’s something that you need to address. If someone else isn’t, then why should they change what they’re doing because you have issues?
I bring my laptop to the kitchen and take calls if they come in. I check my email while eating.
I get everything done I need to do. My boss is actually great and encourages us to prioritize being happy, as long as we get everything done in a reasonable amount of time.
I do not WFH and unabashedly eat breakfast at my desk every single day lol.
Not a single person has said a word to me, and my direct supervisor and their supervisor have both seen me doing it. Not a word.
My philosophy has always been - and I’ve told the employees who work under me many times - as long as you complete the tasks assigned to you, and are performing the role that you were hired for, I don’t particularly care what you’re doing in the interim (as long as it’s not something that is explicitly against the Code of Conduct). Giving people a little breathing room, and, ya know, treating them like human beings instead of soulless automatons, goes a long way. My team is generally more productive, and is nearly always the front runner for task resolution times compared to the other offices.
My old schedule were wake up at 7:10. Out the door by 7:40. Be at the office by 9:00ish. The most painful part if not the 90 min train ride but the 25 stops… I counted those stops for 5 years.
I saw him pop up recently in another thread. I don’t ever think someone holds all the answers to the world problems or someone or something is wholly responsible (maybe besides greed) but I think it’s important to be exposed to other narratives and views to make a better sense of the world.
I don’t claim that his narrative is correct but it’s interesting to think about the concepts he presents
Shit like this is just a reminder of how absolutely batshit insane cops like this are when they demand unquestioning acquiescence. People are right to take their own safety into account when approached by someone claiming to be an officer, because even legitimate officers can (and do) trample people’s rights EVERY. SINGLE. DAY in this country, and they’ve made the case loud and clear that no one will protect us but ourselves. They should BEGIN their training with a course about the horrific situations innocent people have had to endure as a result of unquestioning obedience to a real or purported LEO, and only then start to wrestle with the hefty responsibility that comes with exerting that kind of authority.
However, some conservative and Republican lawmakers denounced them for interfering with consumer choice and placing undue burdens on businesses. Under former President Donald Trump, the Energy Department scrapped them in 2019.
Conservative in your bed room to inspect your genitals, but your light bulb are out of reach.
they aren't "Conservative", they're just cowardly bullies and ignorant fucking trolls.. they don't deserve any fancy names..
you have to actually understand governance and be good at it to consider yourself Conservative.. these people are morons and ignorant fascists, who destroy everything and steal whatever isn't nailed down..
While opposed by many conservatives, the Bill was signed into law by conservative ( GW Bush). Go figure . Also Intresting to me is the members of the Senate that didn’t vote on the bill: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Hagel, McCain, Obama .
I am going to assume that you are not American, so you are ignorant about how our laws work. The DOE is enforcing parts of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that were amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which I mentioned in my previous reply.
Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.
So yes, the DOE is making rules but it can’t makes rules in a vacuum. It is directed to do so by the bills signed into law by the President of the United States (or in some cases just by Congress if a veto is overridden). In 2019, the Trump administration’s DOE blocked the rule that was going to be implemented. In 2023 the Biden administration’s DOE enforced the rule. None of this could happen without congress.
I will say that incandescents still have a specific use case in entertainment. Newer fixtures are LEDs, but stage/film is largely comprised of community theaters and indie projects that can’t afford to pay $500 per light to upgrade to LED. Because a lot of fixtures need to be completely replaced, instead of simply swapping out an incandescent lamp for an LED.
Basically, LED’s fucking suck at dimming. They’ve gotten much better in recent years, but they’re nowhere near incandescents. If you need a slow gradual dim over two or three minutes for a stage effect (like the sun setting during a play) incandescents can do that easily. The dimmers will have distinct “steps” (because they’re digitally controlled, and are 8 bit, so they only have 256 “levels”), but the thermal inertia in the lamp’s filament will smooth out those distinct steps. For example, going from 246 to 245 isn’t immediately noticeable, because the filament just slowly cools and dims as the voltage drops slightly. It naturally smooths out the dim curve. But LEDs don’t do that. When you drop from 246 to 245, you get a distinct “jump” when the light immediately shifts from one intensity to the next. Even small steps are immediately noticeable, because there isn’t any thermal inertia to smooth out that dim.
So we don’t use LEDs on voltage dimmers. Instead, we dim them electronically. This comes with its own set of problems though. For starters, it means you’re installing an entire control unit, instead of simply replacing the lamp. This is a retrofit part that attaches onto your fixture and replaces the standard lamp socket. (For reference, the right image is the standard lamp housing, and the left is the LED retrofit.) But if your fixtures are super old, (as is common with lots of churches and community theaters,) they probably aren’t going to fit the LED units that are on the market because lighting fixtures aren’t universal. So now you need to replace the entire fixture, instead of installing a retrofit. And that’s obviously even more expensive, because now you’re buying entire fixtures. And when even smaller theaters will have 50 or 60 lights, that $500 retrofit quickly begins to add up. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of theaters are non-profit, and will need to fundraise to buy them. So you suddenly have a bunch of small non-profits and churches looking at mid-five figure bills just to keep their lights on. Larger spaces are looking at bills closer to six figures.
Next, there’s the issue with color. LEDs have historically been really bad at something called CRI. That’s basically a measure of how well you’re able to distinguish individual colors in the light. Incandescents emit photons at everything in the visible spectrum, so they actually have really great CRI. They tend to bias towards warmer colors, but cool colors are still acceptable. But anyone who has used early LEDs knows how “washed out” they can make things look. This is because LEDs have historically been hilariously awful at CRI. They’re usually monochromatic, meaning they only emit light in a very narrow bandwidth. So everything outside of that narrow bandwidth gets lost. Even the “white” LEDs have historically just been a combination of several monochromatic emitters. So you can see things that are red, green, or blue, but anything else in between looks faded. Or it’s a “full spectrum” emitter that has major dips in certain spots. This is obviously horrible for something like film, where actors and directors tend to complain when your lights make them look sickly and pale in every shot.
It also complicates the setup slightly, because now every single fixture needs both a power and a data cable, when previously they only needed power. Lights are controlled via a protocol called DMX, and previously you could simply run DMX to your dimmers to control everything. But now each individual light needs DMX. Not a huge issue for permanent installs, but for a tour that is setting up and taking down their lighting rig multiple times per week, this extra labor time to set up and run data quickly begins to add up. And as someone who has had to troubleshoot plenty of systems, every single fixture is now a potential point of failure for your lighting rig.
New builds should absolutely be planning on using LEDs going forwards, and they have already been working on that. Pretty much every theater or church built within the last 5 years has LEDs. But before that, the dimming/color issues with LEDs made them untenable for use on stage. So anything older than that still has incandescents. And the ban has actually caused a run on supplies, with theaters/churches/film studios/etc scrambling to stockpile incandescent lamps while they’re still available, just to postpone the inevitable $30k-$90k bill to upgrade to LEDs. And ironically enough, the entertainment lamps have historically had a carve-out exception to the law. But lawmakers have repeatedly threatened to close that loophole. So every time it makes the headlines again, there’s another mad rush for lamps as every single theater, church, and film lot scrambles to refresh their stockpile.
Some good points. Indulge my rambling a bit. I did a little work in the nightclub biz, remember DMX, the lighting protocol not the rapper; used to love changing the patterns, especially like the slow, down-facing strobes, made everyone look like an old cartoon.
In an equitable, cultured society, theater and stage arts get all money needed. In America I think many theaters sit empty six days a week, and I hate to see it, but nice things cost money and if the money isn’t there…
In America I think many theaters sit empty six days a week,
You’d be surprised. I work in a mid-sized theater. We had nearly a thousand rentals last year, and most of them weren’t open to the general public as ticketed events. We have three main rental spaces, so that comes out to roughly one rental per day, though there are obviously some days we’re empty and some days we’re at full capacity. But my point is that you’d only really be aware of the publicly ticketed events, because those are the only ones you’d have access to. Theater spaces are popular for all kinds of events, not just plays and concerts. There are a lot of corporate events that happen throughout the week, for example. But you wouldn’t notice those, because they’ll tend to happen while you’re also at work and they’re not announced anywhere because they’re private events. Those big corporate events where the sales team wants to circlejerk about hitting their quarterly targets in front of a big PowerPoint presentation? Those need a rental space that is equipped to handle them. We just had a recording session in our main hall, at noon on a Thursday. There are weddings, banquets, parties, luncheons, classes, etc that all need space to host their events.
You’re correct. The article makes it very clear there are multiple exceptions. I guarantee not a single republican out there is only using incandescent bulbs in their homes. Obviously they’re virtue signaling for their base. Companies for a while have been making to switch to LED and they’re much cheaper than they used to be. This is where the free market really has prevailed. Most people don’t mind paying extra if it means they don’t have to change out a light bulb as often.
That makes sense, but at that point the price per bulb is probably going to be higher than LED bulbs, so they’d just be paying more money just to be a contrarian. The ban is fine in this case, since a better alternative is readily available, even if it is a little bit more expensive.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.