Question for the audience: what city do you most associate this style with? For me it’s Seattle, because that’s where I live, and ugh, it’s everywhere.
Came here to call out Seattle too. Those chairs especially show up in any style of restaurant it is wild. I see this some in Spokane (or I did when I was there last don’t know if there are more or fewer of them in the last few years).
I don’t associate this with any particular city, but with the rich neighbourhoods in every city, particularly the recently rich neighbourhoods built from gentrification and forcing the existing poor residents out. An upscale “urban eatery” is a sure sign that the neighbourhood is destroyed.
Winston-Salem, NC. This looks like 3/4 of our downtown hipster spots. Except everything here is also a microbrewery. Soooo many different IPAs. I didn’t realize that there were so many ways to make beer that tastes like shit.
Are IPAs somehow cheaper to make or something? Like the whole microbrewery scene has devolved into “We make nine IPAs, whatever the fuck a cucumber lager is, and a stout.”
Hops cover up shitty beer very easily. That’s a big part in it.
Even with a dozen microbreweries within a walk of my house, it’s over half IPAs. I love them, but my wife is sad about the lack of stouts. There’s a couple of good breweries with solid stouts, so it’s not too bad.
I was gonna say SF, but now that I think about it the burger places there tend to be a bit more quaint and definitely don’t have the live laugh love shit everywhere. At least I’ve never seen one, but it’s a big fucking city so there’s almost definitely at least one.
I mentioned it because I say “The average person has less than 1 testicle.”… Also The average person has less than 2 legs… 2 arms… 2 breasts… etc. One of my favorite eye rolling stupid joke.
There has been a very recent extensive study of vitamin C “supplements”. You know the conclusion was that there is only one sole reason that taking vitamin C that is good for you?
To be fair the only reason I took any vitamins is in case I’m deficient in something specific with my modern and ahitty diet. Currently I’m not taking any but I’m just as likely deficient as anyone else.
Yeah, I do the same. My main gripe with a lot of them is that they usually have way too much of some vitamins or minerals. The only one that should be >100% IMO is B12, as there is no upper tolerable limit and many people have issues absorbing it. My multivitamin just has 100% of everything except B12 at 2000%. That way if I have a gap, it gets filled.
Do teeth count as part of the skeleton? If you’ve lost teeth do you only have 99% of a skeleton left?
According to this, bones don’t start forming until the sixth or seventh week of gestation, so does the fetus technically not have a skeleton before then?
Just goes to show how your prejudices affect your judgement without you realising. I just assumed everyone’s skeleton was a perfect sphere one unit in diameter and mass, at rest, on a perfectly level, frictionless, infinite plane and in a vacuum. Like mine.
I’d argue teeth aren’t skeleton because they’re not made of the same substance as bone - the outside is enamel and dentin whereas bones are collagen, protein and minerals (mostly calcium). Kinda like how hair and nails don’t count because they’re made of keratin.
Everyone else is failing to count the number of babies (140 million per year) nearly all of whom have 100% complete skeletons and set that against the number of amputations of perhaps a few percentage points across a much smaller number of people annually (“more than 1 million annually”).
by the way, I’ve always been subconsciously curious but never asked anybody, what happens when we click “ok yes I accept cookies?” And What happens if we click " not ok, I don’t accept cookies?"
Depends on the implementation. If you decline, it’s either 1) no cookies are written at all and you get promoted again the next time you visit that site or 2) a single cookie is written only remembering that you declined the prompt.
Canada just released its timetable to phase routine maintenance dental care into a consolidated health plan.
It’s starting small, but if our Republican wanna-bes don’t kill it we could have universal coverage and equal access to dental care regardless of economic station.
This sounds awfully like one of those weird debates where twisted and contorted buzzwords get thrown around and once one of us Europeans innocently enters the discussion gets downvoted and hated into oblivion because everything we say is taken in some weird context we didn’t know shit about.
In what context dies a “Nordic model” come up and what’s it supposed to entail?
The Nordic model is often thrown out as an alternative to Marxism. The argument is that Nordic countries managed to create a capitalist society without exploitation.
Well, I’d say at least less exploitation than the raw capitalism the US has right now.
The funny thing is that the Allied powers helped establish a nation that has fixes for many problems the US faces right now, both constitutionally and economically in 1949.
Germany’s economy calls itself “social market economy” and acknowledges that the state has to interfere with “the market” whenever the developing power gradient in capitalism threatens to stomp the weaker. Does it work perfectly? Of course not! Nothing does on that level. Is it in danger of being hollowed out by capitalist fuckfaces constantly? Absolutely. Yet the model might give.some ideas.
In the American model, Larry and Carl turn the tray themselves, there’s only one slice of pie on it, and Homer is still in the dungeon getting whipped.
Good point but it’s important to note that in the US, the state definitely interferes with “the market”, but only when power is threatened i.e. bailing out the banks instead of the mortgage holders in 2008, subsidies for fossil fuels and the meat industries, and other instances of protecting capital which would otherwise get a boo-boo should it be exposed to either free market forces or something like the efficiency of single payer health care.
The problem is that exploitation is largely just exported to the countries that the west subjugate. Plenty of exploitation in places like Africa and Latin America is currently happening in order to produce cheap goods people in Europe consume. This is the kind of stuff that props things up theguardian.com/…/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face…
It is unreasonable to assume a model outside of this will be attainabille within the next two centuries.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
I can sit here and spin the exact same question about reducing global exploitation.
Reducing global exploitation would implies self sustainability and with the west, particularly the US, they never reach self sustainability with their current economic model of giving 95% of their production/wealth to the top 1% while a very large portion of its population is struggling economically/mentally/physically.
It’s a stepping stone in the problem of global exploitation, but it can’t happen overnight nor independently.
The thing is that the nordic model still gives the lions share of the wealth to the 1 percent, they just use the proceeds from exploiting the third world to supplement the wealth of the domestic working class.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
This just incentivizes more exploitation of the Global South.
If anything didn’t need a source then it’s that the wealth of rich nations is upheld by the less rich nations. Anyone who isn’t aware of that should not be listened to on any political or economical topic
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly? I’ve seen this word thrown around countless times (again, mostly from the US) and most of the ppl doing so would have made Karl Marx vomit in his luscious beard when he heard what wild theories go by “Marxism” these days. So you’ll have to be rather specific as to what you mean. "Marxism " isn’t a clear-cut thing in the best of times.
Secondly: I’m assuming you want the global revolution the theories by Engels and Marx discuss im their economical parts and change the whole world towards a classless society by an uprising of the working class (however that would look). Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to? Any capitalist would tell you that the nations held back by the “1st world” just needed to fend for themselves and all would be great, right? While I can see how this is not a sentiment one would support (I don’t either), it’s not completely off. Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else? (Unlikely, yet still)
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
Lacking many state-driven social security nets, the US will likely come upnfirst when it comes to local exploitation. So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
What I actually said was that the Nordic model is used as an example of a viable alternative to Marxism. Nowhere did I say Marxism was the only possible option, simply that capitalism with the Nordic model is not a viable alternative.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
I’m not really sure what you mean by middle ground here. Either the working class owns the means of production, or you have a capital owning class in charge.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly?
What I mean by that is workers owning the means of production such as factories, schools, farms, and so on. I mean a society where labour is done for collective benefit, and the decisions of what work is done and to what purpose are done democratically.
Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to?
Not at all, a call for workers to overthrow the ruling class and be in charge of their own work is in no way a manifestation of 1st world superiority. That’s frankly a bizarre argument to try and make.
Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else?
They wouldn’t be following western lead though would they. They would be following China’s Vietnam’s, Laos’s and Cuba’s lead. These are the existing Marxist states today. The west is not leading anybody here. Furthermore, the original argument here was against western colonialism and subjugation of countries. Countries having sovereignty and the right to self determination is a prerequisite for any sort of liberation.
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
There is no great mystery here. US is simply further along the path to late stage capitalism than Europe is. However, direction of travel is very much the same. Sweden is a great case study for this jacobin.com/…/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-o…
So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Where do I argue that if such a route was actually available that it should not be taken? It’s a bit of an fallacious argument to claim that Marxists want to a violent revolution.
The very concept of “revolutionary violence” is a false framing of the situation, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform as opposed to those struggling for reform. Focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden overlooks the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, such as attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squads, so so on.
Most social revolutions begin peaceably. Why would it be otherwise? Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy everyadvantage in mobility and firepower? Revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and El Salvador all began peacefully, with crowds of peasants and workers launching nonviolent protests only to be met with violent oppression from the authorities. Peaceful protest and reform are exactly what the people are denied by the ruling oligarchs. The dissidents who continue to fight back, who try to defend themselves from the oligarchs’ repressive fury, are then called “violent revolutionaries” and “terrorists”.
Biden sucks… but vote for him. I mean the two party system sucks, first passed the post sucks, gerrymandering sucks… but the republican party sucks even more. I’d rather have a dottering old liberal than an outright fascist, and at the same time the system won’t be reformed because of an election cycle. People need to organise, get off their lazy butts. But since you ain’t doing that, there’s only one thing to do.
Vote Biden. Don’t be dumb. It’s like the only sane alternative, no matter how insane that sounds.
What’s that? Somebody thinks that a different president is going to stop the drones and bombings!? Like they’re not tied up in deals?! Like if a third party candidate won the process would just magically stop?!?!
Bush made the bombs drop, Obama made the bombs drop, Trump made the bombs drop, Biden made the bombs drop… wtf do you think the next president will do? The CIA tells them what’s what and that’s it.
Vote Biden, or get a republican president. Your call.
The faster USA collapses, the faster a possibility would be created for tearing down the 2 party Deep State terrorist system, rebuilding America, and ushering in socialism without leftover crusty poisonous bread crumbs like Bernie Sanders.
It is better for a Republican to accelerate the process that Democrats will eventually lead to, regardless of the quality of copium Americans smoke.
I know. This was clapback to all those who think the notion of voting third party does anything else but taking away votes from the democrats. It’s naive, it’s dumb, it’s quite frankly ignorant. Change in power dynamics happens from the ground up, not the top down.
You know, when Biden took office the capitol building had literally just been attacked by a violent mob who smeared shit on the walls. And we were still in covid-lockdowns, and gas was $4 a gallon, and Ukraine had just started getting attacked.
Idk why Biden gets so much shit, but given where he started, I think we are doing a damn fine job and our inflation numbers are much better than most of the rest of the world.
Trump would’ve done the exact same thing. You’re not minimizing any damage your regime is facilitating a literal genocide. The fact that you’re keep trying to minimize this fact because it’s your fascist in office shows how utterly morally bankrupt you are.
The immediate response to the war would probably have been the same, but another 4 years of Trump would have meant more time to inflame tensions in the region even worse with actions such as:
Biden has continued all the same policies and has also dragged the world into a proxy war against Russia while continuing to escalate tensions with China. Biden is a lunatic whose actions continue to bring the world closer to a world war.
Pretty sure it was literally Russia who started that war.
Edit: Sorry, meant to say ‘special operation’. This is how states operate now. It fucking sucks. It all fucking sucks. Everyone fucking suck. Throwing shit at each other is no way it’s going to stop. People need to pull their heads out of their ass as point fingers at the people who actually put this shit together. The entire world economy is tired to oil and guns. As long as oil and guns reign supreme, so will war.
Meanwhile, people who put this all together are the ones running the empire, and as long as Americans keep voting for the lesser evil nothing’s going to change.
Meanwhile, Stoltenberg finally admitted that the reason the war started was because of NATO expansion
Your link does not support that. It literally states that Putin wanted to completely veto NATO expansion, which he has no right to do. In retaliation for not caving to his absurd demands, he declared war on Ukraine. All of this are actions by Putin and could only have been prevented by Putin. He started the war, nobody else.
Stopping NATO expansion would be an absurd demand if Russia did not have the power to stop do so by force which is what it’s now doing. Russia gave NATO a choice of either stopping expansion to its borders, or resolving the situation by force. NATO chose to resolve the situation by force. The whole narrative that Putin started the war and nobody else is beyond infantile because it just ignores all the history and geopolitical context pretending as if this was some random event that happened out of the blue and for no logical reason.
NATO has maintained a policy of might makes right since the fall of USSR, it has invaded and razed numerous countries over the past few decades, and now it’s run into a country that will no longer tolerate an aggressive military alliance on its borders.
NATO did not fire a single shot during this war. Russia was the one who started all the shooting. Not to mention that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that gets to choose if it wishes to associate with NATO. Russia decided to use force to prevent Ukraine from doing that.
There is no history or geopolitical context here that justifies Putins invasion of Ukraine. To claim anything else is an endorsement of Putins flavour of fascism, where he is literally saying that Russian might makes right. It’s insane how deluded you are to literally draw the opposite conclusion from facts that do not support your arguments at all.
The whole point of a proxy war is that you use somebody else to do the fighting for you. Meanwhile, Ukraine lost its sovereignty back in 2014 when a democratically elected government was overthrown in a western backed coup. Painting this as Ukraine freely choosing to associate with NATO is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Meanwhile, bleating about justifications is just a distraction from the reality of why the war happened. Pretty hilarious of you to run around calling others deluded while spewing utter nonsense. One thing that’s abundantly clear here is that you don’t care one bit about the actual facts. You’re an ideologue regurgitating propaganda you’ve memorized.
Meanwhile, Ukraine lost its sovereignty back in 2014 when a democratically elected government was overthrown in a western backed coup. Painting this as Ukraine freely choosing to associate with NATO is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
You are ignorant of the facts. The democratically elected Ukrainian parliament adopted a treaty for closer association with the EU, which Yanukovich tried to block. After sending snipers to fire at protestors against his deeply unpopular decision, the Ukrainian parliament voted by a large majority to remove Yanukovich from his post. There is no evidence of Western involvement here, and the only nation that spoke of a “coup” was Russia, as Putin lost his ally in Yanukovich. All of this happened through democratic votes, by a democratically elected governing body.
And one of the first things the interim government did? Hold new elections. How did Putin respond? By sending in troops and illegally occupying Crimea. And in Donetsk and Luhansk the pro-Russian separatists tried everything to disrupt the elections and deprive the Ukrainians there of their democratic right to vote.
Had Yanukovich decided not to send in snipers, the protests would have happened without bloodshed. Had Putin decided not to send in troops, there would not have been bloodshed. Every single time the decision to use violence was taken by Putin or one of his allies.
You’re an ideologue regurgitating propaganda you’ve memorized
Rich coming from someone who only regurgitates Russian talking points verbatim.
be me, depressed, shitty programmer, jobless CS graduate
leave all personal projects incomplete, have nothing to show to get a job cuz muh superiah creature, mus make mah own microkornel to shit on Linus
"Hey, Andrew was right all along, you stupid penguin"
but suck at writing code, have low attention span :-/
uses C to feel special, rage hard because memory leak on hello-world.c
bored, more depressed, try finding FLOSS games
Hmm, this particular xyz game sounds cool
"Woah, this must be like Doom on steroids, you can run it everywhere, even on the web?!?!"
"This was made with C? Mind == blown!"
The dev has their own website, cool :-)
Click on random links across page without reading, come across a page about learning C-lang
Page is something about suckless world or something, yeah I guess there’s too many conspiracy-theory idiots out there, maybe bro is calling them out?
"Meh, this tutorial isn’t that good, I’ll just pirate a modern C17 book"
goes back to home and starts reading about themselves
what? bro has their own 3d model nude uploaded for the entire world to see.
Is bro okay? trigger warning-type stuff about self-harm, lots of blood!
what the actual fuck? bro hates feminism and trans, but ironically, pansexual themselves?
WHAT THE FUCK? Also anti-vaxx, because bro thinks that weak animals like humans should die, survival of the fittest?
I NEED BLEACH FOR MY EYES, bro’s not ashamed of wanting to groom children, also banned over a few different places on the web for the same reason!
Curious about one of their remote Git profile, also checks other users who have starred them - get even more grossed, shut down laptop, touch grass after a long time
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.