It only enables us to. It doesn’t authorize us to. The idea is we should only use the power when the authority we’d otherwise seek is completely illegitimate.
This is good. Are you aware of any places explicitly doing solutions journalism? (I’m sure there are, more just interested to find places I’m not aware of)
This reminded me of “The Problem with Jon Stewart” which while not perfect seems like a move in the right direction. It just got canceled, and the article I had seen suggested it was because Apple had concerns over some of the subjects (ie, didn’t want to piss off china and have its operations in china highlighted, and didn’t want focus on AI which it may be using).
So then what are the conditions which would allow for more solutions journalism? Off-hand I’d say employee owned entities (or less optimally operations with wealthy patrons willing to give them leeway) would mean they’re less likely to be shut down. I suppose seeing examples of it being successful would inspire more individuals or groups to move in that direction.
Dunno why this got downvoted, it’s a great question:
Nokia 3310 - legendary, got stolen
Moto Timeport 7382i
Sony CMD J70 - dial operation menu
Sony Ericsson T610 - joystick got fluff jammed.
LG Viewty - mediocre iPhone imitation but great slow motion vids 120fps
Blackberry Curve 8520 - batteries heat and swell when browsing!All the apps were shit, and no games. … but the physical qwerty keyboard was divine though - fastest I have ever typed AND accurately!
iPhone 4S - solid
Samsung (not sure which) too small
Moto G7 Power - 4 years still sweet.
Gotta love old Firefox on any platform, never lets me down
Stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, not officially but I like to think it is. It’s a corporation built around a database engine.
They have a well deserved terrible reputation based on their commercial practices, including but not exhaustive, shipping full fledged software with functionality locked behind paywalls, buying and demolishing established open source companies/projects, suing the shit out of their customers for license violation (see above), price gouging their customers who often have no other choice than to run their products.
The engine itself is nice and reliable but the business practices of Oracle drives a lot of companies to settle for the competition, at least, those who can afford to leave.
Oracle hires more lawyers than they do developers then they do things like “oh? You’re using this product in the cloud with the license you purchased? But you didn’t purchase the cloud license”
They also buy technology and proceed to violate whatever license it has, like ZFS.
Be careful to not confuse the metaphor with what it’s supposed to represent. With that in mind:
What do you consider an “idea”? Are you talking about things that practical, epistemic (true/false) or moral (good/bad) in nature?
What do you consider a “helpful” or “beneficial” idea? And helpful/beneficial for whom?
What’s the target audience those ideas? Everyone, or 1+ specific groups?
Who’s “we” in your “we can”? In other words, who’s willing to help you out?
From circling those questions you’ll probably find unclear spots on your goal. And once you find those spots, and get rid of them, you’ll be able to pragmatically list potential solutions, their pros and cons.
Note that trying to do too much will often yield practically no results. Even when dealing with abstract things, there’s a limit on the amount of work that you can do, and you can’t spread it too thin. Virality can help you out a bit with this though, as it allows you to relay work in a headless way.
The “we” thing is a good point, and even as I was writing this was thinking about the post the other day where someone was like “how can we get more redditors to lemmy” and a bunch of people were like, “we don’t want that.”
I’m thinking about anyone interested in the subject. There’s never going to be universal interest in some philosophical project, and there doesn’t need to be in order to have a positive impact. So I’m thinking of people who do have an interest in the sort of meta issue, how things “ought” to be.
I’m interested in practical, testable ideas, and at the same time I think there needs to be a philosophical underpinning to any type of project nurturing “beneficial” ideas, because otherwise how do you evaluate what’s beneficial?
My philosophy is that existence is desirable, continued existence is desirable, and ever more elevated ways of existing. So going from “anything existing,” to life existing, to animals, to conscious beings. The basic nuts and bolts are important then - is there enough food to live, is something going to kill me, and we’ve for the most part got these down (although not at a systemic level to eliminate homelessness, universal healthcare, etc). But I don’t think we have any kind of grasp on long term sustainability - we’re in serious environmental peril, the existence of any nuclear weapon is a threat, biological weapons, decline of democracy, even something like an asteroid impact.
So when talking about an ecosystem of ideas, for me at least its about ideas that will avoid or mitigate larger threats which are difficult for any individual to address.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned in the 224 (so far) comments… but another bad guy worth hating is
Hewlett Packard.
Their
“Hey, you need to have our proprietary ink cartrige in your HP inkjet printer plus scanner to print AND to scan as well. The scanner won’t work when you are out of ink”
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.