Landrin201

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

No this is what happens when terrorists overwhelm a border crossing and stsrt indiscriminately murdering civilians, then carry their mutilated bodies around as literal flags as they celebrate the murder in the street

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Punitive reprisals to… The open declaration of war Hamas made today?

Who in their right mind expects a country to supply power to the country that literally just attacked them?

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Hamas mutilated a woman’s corpse then paraded it through the streets this morning. I’ve never even heard of Israel doing something remotely close.

Bust sure keep doing antisemitic whataboutism.

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

The thing is that according to liberal ideas, the economy IS doing great.

Anyone to the left of Joe Biden recognizes that it isn’t, but liberals are the majority of the democratic party. To them the “traditional” economic markers are the most important things to track, and those numbers all look good.

“Liberal” economic ideas have nothing to do with the living conditions of the average person, they have everything to do with the capitalist class being happy and “opportunity” being available to the working class. That’s why the economy in the 1910s could be described as healthy even though people were literally forced to live in tenement houses and were being locked into factories. That’s also why many liberal economists say that it’s possible for unemployment to get too low, because apparently that’s considered bad.

The question Joe Biden is answering when he says the economy is doing well is “are the capitalists happy and continuing to expand capitalism to extract as much wealth as possible from the working class,” and right now that answer is clearly yes.

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Redacted is a private tracker, I’ve seen a bunch of SACD stuff there. You can interview to get in, they have a website to prep for the interview.

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Could be worse

She could add corn to it

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Oh wow boo hoo, they have so much risk 😔 they have an entire house that they can sell at any time, who someone else is paying the mortgage of. Oh, the horror! If the market should crash they’ll lose the equity another person paid!

Really the landlords are the victims here, not the tenants paying their mortgage for them plus a little extra for profits. Clearly the tenants have committed the crime of not having good enough credit for a loan, or the crime of not having enough for a down payment, so they aren’t worthy of owning property.

No no it’s the landlord who has the real problems, because they could ein a shaky financial situation of “selling the second house iown” if the market dips!

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you’re SUPER attractive, especially if you’re a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you’re actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you’re seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a “dating economy” around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren’t getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It’s slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you’re not “winning” and getting dates they make it clear that it’s YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you’ll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it’s their only chance at getting a date. It’s disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that’s a different discussion

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

Why are you assuming that men who can’t get matched are automatically creeps? That’s not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That’s how I met my now fiancee, too.

Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people’s mental health. They’ve taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They’ve reduced finding a partner to “does this person look attractive to you?” which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you’re not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn’t matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn’t matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn’t mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is “aimed at creeps,” because it’s aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder’s algorithm. Desperation doesn’t necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.

Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You’re using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder’s part. The people who own and make the app know that, they’re doing this anyway. So they’re targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a “lifeline” which actually may make their chances worse.

Landrin201 , 11 months ago

In my experience (I’m a few years out of date with how the app works now, keep that in mind) it’s like 90% looks. You CAN build up a profile, but IIRC only the first sentence of it shows up on your picture. A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile before swiping, then read your profile if they’re going to use it to judge you on.

Most of the people I know who used tinder, myself included, didn’t really do that much. We just swiped based on looks, and if someone was borderline then we looked at the profile to make a decision. But that was pretty rare, most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.

The apps is designed to encourage that behavior. When I used it profiles were REALLY not being encouraged, IDK if that has changed (I would guess it hasn’t).

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.

Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.

But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn’t get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.

And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It’s so frustrating to watch

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I disagree that this is unambiguous, I was also confused reading this headline. It’s odd wording. It may be technically correct but that doesn’t mean it’s unambiguous.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

You actually believe that? The people who claim that people like Werner von Braun didn’t commit any crimes are the CIA and Braun himself. All of the records from Germany were destroyed. It’s essentially just taking his word on it to believe he was only involved because “he had to be.”

He was literally a member of the SS, the wing of the nazi government that was directly responsible for the Holocaust. He was photographed repeatedly with himmler himself, in uniform. He claimed that those were just ceremonial photos that he had to participate in the keep his career. He also claimed not to agree with the Nazis politically.

Why would you believe anything that a member of the SS said? Especially one as important to the Nazis as von Braun was.

Of fucking course he was never found guilty of any war crimes, the US was actively trying to recruit him. They didn’t want to prosecute their newest asset, a man who directly led to the US becoming the globally dominant force it became during the space race. He was useful so the US government deliberately didn’t investigate him seriously, took him at his word that he totally wasn’t a real nazi, and then used him to invent more rockets for them.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Because Google has gotten the law steuctured such that THEY aren’t liable for false advertisements they host and serve.

If I posted an ad that was blatantly false on Google, legally I’m the one liable, not Google.

It’s ass backwards, Google should be on the hook for this and should have to curate advertisements. Especially when so any of them are not just fake but are openly malicious

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

In what universe have corruption and lying not been rampant in “the west” over the last hundred years? Did you just pull this comment out of a book titled “Red Scare Propaganda?”

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Is the “commie” in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

My fiancee and I both got artificial sapphires in our engagement rings.

Real ones were nearly double the price.

You wouldn’t know they’re lab grown. They look great.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

OK, then why fucking make them? Aren’t games supposed to be fun?

This whole genre really bugs me, and I’m someone who LOVES space games. The best game in the genre IMO is elite dangerous, because their ship to ship combat is so damn fun to play that I can hop in for a bit and have a blast without having to engage with the other systems that are often painfully boring.

The problem here is that people what the feeling of being explorers and finding new things, but video games inherently can’t provide that. There aren’t computers strong enough to produce thousands or millions of planets that all have genuinely interesting features on them that are worth exploring for. “Exploration” in current space Sims is basically “stick your name on something someone else hasn’t already stuck their name on, maybe grab some resources from it, and leave.” That gets dull very fast.

Developers COULD choose instead to make a couple of good, big planets that are interesting and full of actually good content. They could give you a reason to explore beyond “look other planets cool.”

If you made 1000 planets and only 10 of them are at all interesting, and your game is centered on exploring other planets and not really focussed on much else, you’ve made a boring game.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

We desperately need laws to regulate these kinds of privacy policies/user agreements. The VAST majority are way too long and complicated for a normal person to actually understand, let alone read. We need to limit what companies can/can’t do with them instead of letting them do whatever they want to.

We also need a law that prevents them from changing the terms of service on a product someone has been using, then locking them out of it if they don’t agree to the new terms.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Also I’m willing to bet really good money that if a nun wore a habit to a beach, she wouldn’t get fined. A muslim woman wearing a burkini would though.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

No, it has Christian roots. I’m Jewish, and I hate the term “Judeo-christian.” We do not believe the same things, and we do not share the same history. Christians have been persecuting us for well over a thousand years, they’ve driven us out of our homes, murdered us en-masse multiple times in multiple different countries in multiple different centuries, and have refused to give us any respect and dignity until after World War 2, when it became politically convenient for them to do so.

Our values are different, our history is different, the only thing we have in common is that the Christians read our bible sometimes when it’s convenient for them to cite it to reinforce their intolerance.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

It’s so funny to me that so many people in this thread are like “well technically it also applies to christians wearing crosses! So it isn’t discriminatory.” I guarantee you that a kid wearing a cross won’t get in any trouble for it, they certainly won’t be sent home. They’d probably be asked to hide it better and let off by the teacher, if anything at all was said.

These kinds of laws are classic examples of laws that are deliberately targeted at specific groups, but worded in a way which technically makes them apply to everyone, with the intent that enforcement will not target the group it wasn’t supposed to.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

It got us so much good will that the French still ban us from wearing religious garments in public, and antisemitic attacks across Europe have been increasing steadily for at least 20 years, with governments seemingly unable to do anything about it.

If you “recognize your roots” but changed your name and also have spent your entire lifetime attempting to murder your parents and grandparents, I think it’s fair to say that you don’t respect or care about your roots.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Hard disagree here. I’m a rabid wheel of time fan who has read the books at least 6 times.

Ir would be downright impossible to “stick to the source” for book one (or really, any if them) and have it be good on film. It just wouldn’t work on film, there is too much going on. The story would feel like it drags and is being forcefully stretched out, because the book is rather repetitive. That repetition works in a book because you are getting to read the characters inner thoughts, and in paper it adds tension that, for example, Rand and Mat are unsure whether the next place they stay will be full of dark friends.

But after the third time they get chased out by dark friends a TV audience would be like “OK they did this already get on with it.” Repetition on TV gets boring FAST.

And the magic system is all kinds of messy in the books. They’re diving into it a bit more now, but it’s still got Tobe simplified for screen. You can’t convey characters thoughts on screen, which basically neuters the whole system. The book is VERY exposition heavy, and that gets boring real quick on screen. Look at the LOTR theatrical VS extended editions. There is a reason that Bilbo talking about Hobbits at the beginning got cut. I like that scene, but it also is too much exposition to drop on the viewer right after the intro, which is also exposition. EOTW is like half exposition, and most of the books are at least a third exposition. That all has to get cut or reworked to be actually fun to watch without being super preachy. It’s

Listen to Brandon Sanderson talking about the adaptation of Mistborm he has been working in for ages now. He has said that he had to make big, fundamental changes to the characters and story to make it work on film. He said his first draft was closest to the book, and that it was quite bad.

The biggest fuckup season 1 of the show did was not including the prologue. Idk why they cut it, it’s such a good intro. Besides that, I thought they did alright. Season two has been much better so far, and has shown that they really do understand the core of this story and all of the characters in it.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Appendices to LOTR*

They legally cannot use the silmarillion

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Is this the incel brigades talking point? That it’s racist to think that using “female” is creepy and dehumanizing?

I have never once heard a non-native speaker make this mistake. Having learned two other languages myself, I find it extremely hard to believe it’s a mistake someone would have learned to make, even if they learned to speak English online. Teaching the words “man” and “woman” is literally one of the first lessons in ANY language class. That’s true for English classes as well.

I never learned the equivalent of male and female in either of the language classes I have taken. So unless there’s a language that has words ONLY for “male” and “female” and no equivalents for “man” and “woman” this talking point is stupid.

Why are you"asking questions" to make the use of “female” seem more acceptable?

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Show me in the screenshot where the doctor referring to a woman as a female in a medical context is.

OH wait, you can’t, it’s not there. We literally are not talking about that.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

It’s a terrible idea and it tells me that all the propaganda were getting about Ukraine clearly winning and barely losing anyone is bullshit. They must be real desperate if they’re conscription people with mental disorders.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

It’s amazing anyone can believe they are well informed and unironically say this bullshit

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Tell me you’re a lib who doesn’t know what imperialism is without saying it directly holy fucking shit

Why are there so many brain dead takes in this thread? Who the fuck can possibly believe that imperialism can’t be imperialism if it’s “invited”?

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

No see it’s NOT a threat when the US surrounds China with literally dozens of military installations placed as close to their border as possible and actively practices military drills on their borders with their puppet states because the US is “good” and China is “bad” and our understanding of geopolitics shouldn’t go any further than that because China scary bad

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

You know full well that if China were to attempt to establish a military base in Tijuana then the US would invade Mexico within the month. Don’t be dense. The last time a geopolitical rival set up a base near the US we invaded, nearly started a nuclear war, and blockade them for 80 years.

The US is the walking embodiment of “rules for thee, but not for me” in international politics

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

We have nukes in Turkey, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy. All of which are within easy first strike distance of Russia. Especially Turkey. And that’s just the ones we know of. I have no doubt there are others we haven’t told the public about.

Yet when Russia tried to get nukes in Cuba for the same reason, you’re claiming it was definitely for a first strike. The Russians said that the nukes in Cuba were not for a first strike, just like NATO does with the nukes in Turkey. Why do you believe NATO and not Russia? Only one side of the cold war had EVER used a nuclear first strike, and it wasn’t the Russians…

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Did you just have a stroke? Because your comment doesn’t make any sense at all…

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Neolibs use “whataboutism” to avoid responding to comments that actually make them consider whether their beliefs are silly or not. Instead of actually considering the argument they slit out a buzzword and promptly ignore whatever was said.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I still don’t see how it’s legal for an accredited university to have rules prohibiting sexual activity of their students

Want to be a religious school? That’s fine, but you won’t be accredited to teach any Gen Ed classes. Have your catholic pastor school, or your rabbinical school, that’s fine. But you won’t be making those into general education colleges.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

If they don’t want to have rules that our society finds acceptable they don’t have any right to just exist. This isn’t a person were talking about they are an education institution. A school cannot by definition have a religion because it isn’t a person. I don’t particularly care if the people wo made the school are themselves religious; that should not give them the right to use their new founded institution to enforce those beliefs on other people. If you want to teach people I think you should be held to certain standards, and one of those standards is that you shouldn’t restrict the freedom of your students.

Having sexual morality rules is absolutely restricting their freedom. People have a right to privacy that such rules inherently violate.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I would literally die, I already got drunk at dragoncon tonight, 10 more beers and I die

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Based

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I genuinely think that advertising should be illegal at this point. It’s a ridiculous concept.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

If premium cost $5per month I’d pay for it, u use YouTube all the time

No way in hell it’s worth $15 a month though, their pricing is completely brwindead

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Nope, not available her ein the states.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

I agree 100%. I set up a home server after reddit fell, and unfortunately I’ve been having to use reddit to ask a lot of my questions. The communities for the stuff I need to ask here on Lemmy just don’t exist, and on reddit they do, and you’ll get responses pretty quickly.

For any kind of programming questions reddit has been far better than lemmy simply because it is significantly more populated.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Sim Park

Idk if anyone else ever even heard of it, it was a late 90s Sim game where you built a wildlife park.

Landrin201 , 1 year ago

Yeah this is a definition of “theft” that doesn’t really work at all with the commonly used one.

Like, if you download a torrent, it was uploaded by someone else, willingly. If they bought a DVD and handed it to a friend, that friend wouldn’t be stealing the DVD. But now, if they upload the file to the internet for other people to watch, this class is calling that theft.

Its the kind of “theft” that leaves no victims. The alleged “victim” isn’t the person from whom the content was downloaded, no, it’s the third party who originally sold that person the product in the first place.

The whole concept isn’t logically consistent, but the corporations wrote the laws and get to decide how they are enforced and what they mean so it doesn’t matter that the law makes no sense and is punishing people for “crimes” that are, at their very core, victimless.