After a year, my reasonably smart cats (potty training them to use the toilet took 3 weeks) have learned that the “outside” makes me open the door, because they rush towards it when I push it. But they never use the button themselves.
I am sorry but this just sounds like today's society with nothing new added to it. You just said there won't be any middleman anymore. And just magiced away a lot of issues, which often are solved by the middleman.
The doctor's club would still need people to run the club. There needs to be someone your farmers can approach to find an available doctor. They can't just shout it into the wind.
Your farmers won't have the logistics to bring their food to the people. They won't know how much to bring where. They won't have the equipment to do so. And if you solve all of these issues they won't have enough time to farm anymore.
Universal healthcare isn't a new concept and doesn't require people to buy exclusive access.
And you still talk about compensation but based on your explaining money would be useless. Everyone has free access to these shared specialists.
Well, fair criticism aside, I didn’t say money would be useless. The idea is if one doctor can see a thousand people a year, then a thousand people pool their money and hire their own doctor. Not an infinite service for finding a doctor. (Of course you’re right they still need to find each other and then find that one doctor, which sounds like real middleman stuff) But sort of this less abstract relationship - as it is you pay thousands to health insurance, not a specific doctor, and then when you go to see a doctor they pop in for 5 minutes then off to the next patient.
Wasn’t saying farmers would hire the doctor, was throwing out examples of services. Another one might be a neighborhood cafeteria - how many people can one or two people prepare lunch for everyday, then pool that many guests. Kind a very specific consumer coop.
If you see my other replies here I’m interested in universal healthcare. More was thinking about options because doesn’t seem to be an intermediate step for how far away the U.S. at least is from universal healthcare.
Lord, you and I must have been on different forms of reddit if you think the users over here are more overly assured and aggressive than reddit. Personally, I find most conversations so much more productive here.
Yes I’m seeing the same sentiment bubble up in multiple comments here. I don’t relate at all…
It’s been a few years since I encountered any meaningful discussion on Reddit that wasn’t immediately polluted by screeching buffoons. I’ve yet to see that here.
I hope this trend personally experiencing continues!
I agree. On Lemmy, saying the wrong thing on the wrong community is like stepping on a landmine. The ideological differences are wild. Maybe I just need to get used to this and block the worse communities. It certainly feels very hostile. Especially from leftwing users and communities.
I consider myself to be moderate left. But I may as well be a fascist in the eyes of some for pointing out flaws that are inherent in utopic thinking. I think social media only rewards those at the extremes with serious engagement now and these echo filters drive people to holding ever more extreme views.
I think a lot of people spend so much time online and so little time engaging with their local communities that they lose sight of how their opinions actually map out in the world and the nuances of how society actually engages and compromises. This is true of the left and the right.
Well said. I suppose we can all be guilty of this, and this is why I try to engage with people of with many different ideological positions. It’s not always comfortable to confront out own beliefs and biases, but I do think it makes us more well-rounded.
My dog was doing well until a "trained" dog, off the leash, attacked her. Wounded face, badly bruised ribs.
Then, about a year later, a "trained" dog, off the leash, ran up to her and went to sniff her, she took it as a threat, and another fight happened. No blood this time, but still.
Then about a year later... a "trained" dog, off the leash... same fucking story.
10 years later, I am more vigilant and proactive. If another "trained" dog is around (telltale because of the lackadaisical behavior of the owners), I get my dog right up to heel on the other side of my body and get ready.
At least 10 times over those 10 years, I have a dog running at my dog with an owner just standing there yelling "don't worry, they're nice!", me replying "MINE ISNT", and then them jogging leisurely over while I am hunched over trying to keep the 2 apart.
I dont care how well you think you've trained your dog, be a responsible owner. If it isn't your home (front yard NOT included) or a dog park, leash. Also, don't approach a dog you don't know. You don't know their history. Be aware of your surroundings and pick a route that keeps your dog leash distance from the other dog.
This “Don’t worry he’s nice” shit is pretty irresponsible imo. Ignoring the fact that animals are still unpredictable regardless of their track record, people can sometimes have real trauma with dogs and letting your dog just trot up to people willy nilly could really upset someone. Also something could happen to the “nice” dog if the person or other animal isn’t nice and frankly the owner of the nice dog would have only themselves to blame.
2 dogs have been injured by my dog for it and I just can't blame my dog.
Felt bad for a while and then just couldnt justify it anymore.
And let me be clear, we have had friends dogs over to the house, done controlled introductions and it has been fine. Took her to a kennel one time when we went on a trip and no fights reported because it was a professional staff and a controlled environment.
However, when a strange dog runs up and puts a nose in her butt without pause, she starts biting.
That first time she didn't have her guard up and got seriously injured stayed with her. Simple as that and I can't blame her.
It’s not too late. Stick to your guns and refuse to go. Make Grandma take the kids herself while you and the wife stay home and enjoy some alone time.
All things considered, I realize you have to pick your battles where in-laws are concerned, so good luck. If you don’t put your foot down with her now though, when will you, if ever?
I can’t really think of any way to make amends to the employees on strike. Maybe go back later with some snacks and water or something, but at the end of the day, if you go to the show, you’re prioritizing your shitty mother-in-law’s lack of compassion and morals over workers making a decent wage/benefits.
More practical: the main version is on my desktop PC. That one gets synced automatically to my NAS. This NAS makes a nightly incremental backup to a cloud provider.
Once you have a setup like this, maintaining it is peanuts. Pay the bills on time and setup email alerts to let you know if drives are going bad or you’re reaching your storage limits.
You do need to ensure you’re testing your recovery plans once in a while. A backup is worthless if you can’t restore it
Don’t hold on to things you haven’t done before you retire… It is a waste of time and regretting not doing stuff, which lasts for moments, is the folly of youth.
Also what/who you want to do changes as you get older…
When I was doing my applied math PhD, the vast majority of people in my discipline used either “machine learning”, “statistical learning”, “deep learning”, but almost never “AI” (at least not in a paper or a conference). Once I finished my PhD and took on my first quant job at a bank, management insisted that I should use the word AI more in my communications. I make a neural network that simply interpolates between prices? That’s AI.
The point is that top management and shareholders don’t want the accurate terminology, they want to hear that you’re implementing AI and that the company is investing in it, because that’s what pumps the company’s stock as long as we’re in the current AI bubble.
So many thoughts on this. I’ll try to parse some out, one post at a time.
Part of the problem is the standard of legality. Late-stage capitalism is defined by the state serving the ownership class rather than the public. It’s why the state cares very little about wage theft, or addicts dropping dead from opioid overdose, or homeless freezing to death in sub-zero Minnesota but are arresting immigrants who are otherwise well-behaved (and paying their taxes) or raiding repair shops that fix iPhones without an Apple authorization. It’s why media agencies are so worried about piracy even as they try to lay off their development teams if they can be replaced with AI software.
Laws and the legal system work for the ownership class, not the public. Any legal efforts to strip billionaires of their wealth, or even reduce their profits is going to quickly get neutered. This is why the protections afforded by the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution of the United States have been thoroughly gutted with carve-outs. It’s why asset forfeiture is not only a thing, but takes more from Americans than burglaries.
And this is why law enforcement is already attacking mutual aid organizations based on licensing issues, because it’s not actually illegal but facilitates other threats to the ownership class, such as labor actions. There is no rule of law in the US. Your rights go only as far as your lawyer’s means to enforce them, and if you’re depending on a public defender, they just don’t have the time or funding.
The ownership class will (according to Marx) tremble before a communist revolution because we will have ruled out all other alternatives, though we may try a fascist autocracy and a massive genocide machine to dispose of all the underclasses, first.
And that’s the problem. The Holocaust was legal too. Leaving workers hungry and cold to the elements during the Great Depression was totally legal, and at the time communism as per the Soviet Union was looking pretty good to those of our great grandparents who weren’t Carnegie or Rockefeller. This is not our first rodeo. What the state likes (id est, what is legal ) is not a fair moral standard. Nor is what religious ministries like (id est, what is sin ). We have to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and if we’re willing to die for our pacifistic standards when law enforcement decides we are intrinsically unlawful
This is why some are arguing the climate crisis warrants resorting to violent sabotage (say, blowing up oil pipelines) since the alternative is to let industry pollute us to global catastrophic risk (of extinction). If you want a sustainable civilization, if you want wealth and power distributed fairly, if you want a public-serving government, then you’re going to have to give up on lawful action. And if you want to stay within the confines of law, you’ll have to give up on equality, a functional state or a future.
Great reply, thank you. OP points out that the situation appears hopeless and I often leave feeling that capitalism has truly captured all the regulators and is now free to grind all value out of society. Assume we get a decent amount of the population on the same page what is the next step? Is there no room for reforms? I have a feeling that only when public discussion consistently prioritizes human well-being above all else can any progress be even attempted.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.