It’s kinda funny tbh. Seeing all those ppl complaining yet still staying there. Or better yet: “protesting” by putting content in which they complain, directly on those platforms. If Twitter does shit and u still use it, u show that the company that runs it can continue doin whatever it’s doin.
Then again, doing a complaining comment in Twitter so Twitter users can see it, and then going to another service provider while trying to lead users from Twitter to use that other app...
ehhh, I don’t see many folks typically caring about anyone’s individual reasoning for complaining about or leaving $service.
maybe if it’s part of a wave of reasoning like “leaving Twitter because of antisemitic content” or similar, it would have more reaching impact to the company.
Like years ago when youtube made a change that nobody liked and people posted Bob and the whole of Alice in Wonderland into the comment section of every Youtube video
Blogs, actually updating your own damn websites, RSS/atom, mastodon, email.
Take a look at the Berkshire Hathaway website if you think your website needs to be fancy. They made $300B last year and still have a Geiko ad and haven’t updated the style since like 1997.
You can even run a website for free with GitHub pages. You can host a website from. Google cloud store bucket. Portugal The Man’s website is a Google Sheet.
Just want to note that Berkshire Hathaway is a terrible example as they don’t make their revenue off their site and have no need for it to be user friendly/inviting
It’s always difficult with digital matters, since there isn’t anything tangible and concrete to show.
Like, there’s no shady person following them with a notebook and reporting back to their boss all day, but that is kinda what’s happening, just invisible to the user.
My pihole is pretty good at showing family how many connections their apps make are completely unnecessary to their actual functions. That’s a good illustration to start with.
The guys was committed for two weeks and had threatened to shoot up a national guard base. They had the information to act on and take away his guns and they didn’t because they didn’t need to. This is even more fucked because it was probably avoidable.
There are no red flag laws in Maine. There was no legal way to take his guns even if they thought that was necessary. Also, the christofacist supreme court is set to strike down laws that prevent people convicted domestic violence from owning guns, which will chip away at the legality of red flag laws everywhere. Happy Thursday everyone!
It’s not about listening, it’s about the commander issuing an order, which has the same weight as a judge issuing a warrant, to actually take the weapons from his possession/home. An order that MPs and local law enforcement can legally go and execute.
Though I think this whacko is ultimately responsible for this ill and evil shit, I think the commander might’ve been negligent here not doing more. (If indeed the gunmen was institutionalized, and the commander was aware of that fact.)
And yes, I think the lack of any red flag laws in that state is insane, and that such laws likely could’ve helped here. I’m just making a point that more realistically could’ve have been done given the situation as it existed in that moment.
People get wrapped around the axle about this. If you don’t know the military doesn’t turn you into John Wick. Most people in the military have never been issued a gun outside of qual, but all are given a bare minimum level of training just in case things got dire.
Annual (if that) weapons training is basically “don’t tk your buddies 101” a bit of shooting to prove you can and cleaning after. You only get more if direct combat is your actual job, or will be soon.
Just like anything else if you want to get good you have to put in some effort on your own time.
I read your reply as “He was a weapons instructor and therefore cannot burn a fuse and go on a psychotic rampage”. I believe that is what the exchange was about before you replied. The question people are asking is “Why did he have guns” and not “How was he trained to use them”.
That’s not what I’m saying. He had a pretty good “why” for having easy access to weapons until he was checked into a mental institution. If he was a danger to himself or others I bet they could have prevented him from getting weapons. I’m interested to see why they chose not to or how their attempts failed.
I admit it was a deviation from the subject and might have been confusing. Every time this guy’s background is brought up people tend to think military training is some forbidden knowledge that citizens don’t have access to, which isn’t the case at all.
Thats the bro they get their weed from and regularly invites them together for a sesh. Single handedly keeping the peace in the building. Real guru that one.
If you had of invested the equivalent amount of money in the Dow Jones index instead of purchasing 10kg of gold and kept it invested from 1920-2024 you would have ~$15 million.
So I get the idea of a hedge, but I guess the question on my mind whenever I hear talk about hyper-inflation is “what are you going to do with the gold if society collapses?”. My thought is that if the world economy got so fucked up that the US dollar was worthless, and the government didn’t step in, then wouldn’t we sorta be in a failed state? And if we were in a failed state is the plan to sit on the gold in some sort of fortress to wait for civilization to come back? Hoping that you can defend it and that the incoming civilization doesn’t just take it?
I’ve always assumed you’d melt the gold down and create coins or other tradable sub-amounts of the gold that you could exchange for goods and services. If people are still peopling, they’ll still want a currency to transact with; if the dollar has failed then gold has a historical precedent that would probably make it easier to convince people to trade with you using it as a medium of exchange. It always seems like it’s more suited to be an emergency measure than a plan A to me.
I swear some people go out of their way to judge others for the most ridiculous things. Maybe try asking yourself why you are not happy about people finding love without going through half a dozen shitty relationships.
Wow, really? Sure is an expensive and necessarily painful thing to opt into or to normalize. I’d rather it be normalized to not get married in the first place.
It’s not that expensive, I did it for $400 amicably. We had a fun time while married and I don’t regret it. Why not just make it easier for people to do what they want and not punish young people for making decisions.
I think a divorce is like $80 where I am, but if you have to go to court obvs it’s a lot more. I spent almost nothing on my wedding, granted it was just friends and was an elopement. Marriage has big tax advantages for some, and it’s the only way my spouse was getting health insurance to survive this godforsaken wasteland. It also guarantees that they get a slice of my income if the unforeseeable happens and we split so they can survive.
I think people should not see marriage as the end goal, but be pragmatic about its costs and benefits, which I think you are getting at too
For real. This post has big “I have regrets and/or fears that I missed out on my younger life, and the only way to not be afraid is to invalidate other people’s choices” energy. Every life and every combination of experiences produces a unique piece of art. OP, your life is valid and worthwhile - you don’t have to tear other people down for that to be the case.
Oh I have issues with commitment and a constant feeling of ‘Is this the best I can expect?’ but I don’t regret my younger life.
My ‘weird’ sentiment stems more from me looking in from the outside at relationships where 20 year olds decide they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other. I can’t imagine missing out on potentially meeting someone more compatible. Can you really meet the most compatible person for you when you’re 20?
When I was 20 I was a very different person, I’m assuming that’s similar for others.
Other commenters have talked about how they grow with partners but I wonder if it’s truly possible to do that while being so ‘together’ with another person. Some things you have to learn on your own.
Depends/sometimes… If it’s like you said then 25% of that 60% and you get 60-15=45. If it’s some rando looking at 60% total and 35% total and they go “oh neat one of these numbers is 25 bigger/smaller!” Then maybe not?
You can be happy and find love without marrying someone.
Like i think most people would say its weird to marry someone the day after you meet them for the first time, right? Is that you hating peoples happiness and love? or is that you being a realest that that marriage probably wont last and will just be messy for both people?
The “belief” we’re in a simulation is more like a interesting idea than something people organize their lives around. Is it possible? Yes. Am I going to praise the great programmer every Sunday? No.
The belief in God in most cases is not just belief in some general higher power but a very specific deity with weird morality, silly mythology and bunch of scam artists behind it.
I think there’s a higher power…
Ok…
that got mad at us for eating fruits but then impregnated a lady with itself and pissed us off so that we murdered him and he could say he’s not mad anymore.
English is an endless deluge of that experience, because our orthography is bullshit. People have tried to fix it. Their clever rules were partly adopted and became even more exceptions and special cases.
I just learned of the Shavian Alphabet yesterday. It’s designed specifically for English and fits it well, except the sounds in it are so specific that when you write in it, you have to write in a specific regional accent. Fortunately it can’t become a new set of special cases because it’s an entirely new script not related to Latin.
This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That “most” religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.
Religion’s weakest argument is the claim that the world was intelligently designed. When it so clearly isn’t.
Simulation theory doesn’t claim someone designed all this. They built a simulator where all this evolution and history happened, like emergent gameplay on steroids. It’s not the same kind of “design” we’re talking about.
Intelligent design is a broad, vague, and intensely mutable concept. It isn’t helped by the fact that there’s multiple kinds, with the pseudoscientific kind touted by the religious right in America and the more generic, very fucking old “teleological argument” which is also intelligent design at its core. To give a specific example of intelligent design philosophy that isn’t directly tied to a belief in a deity as an active participant, you can look at the deists, who believed that the universe’s fundamental laws were engineered by a kind of “clock maker” deity who left the universe running under its own principles but doesn’t have a direct, guiding hand in individual events. This is still a form of “intelligent design” and closely corresponds to simulation theory. At this point, you are redefining terms to suite your argument. Also, you can’t really say the world is or is not intelligently designed, as you have no evidence for either. The only truly “logical” position to hold for any of this is straight agnosticism.
Could an all powerful, loving God be real? Sure. Why not?
Could a powerful, all loving God be real? Yeah, seems realistic. In many ways, I am a God to an ant.
Could an all powerful all loving God be real?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.
God is either inept, indifferent, or a straight up ass. None of those items are something I care to worship, even at the threat of the eternal damnation.
By their own book, the bad guy thought the stupid naked people should have a bit of an education and the good guy punished them for trying to improve their knowledge base. Serpents rule!
I was taught in school that the real battle in the universe is between chaos and order. They gave it a fancy name, Entropy, but that was the gist.
So Chaos is God and Order is Satan. Live all hunter gathering under God or just go to the Supermarket under Satan, and spend the rest of your time doing other things, like making art or scientific theories.
Even now the Church is against progress. Don’t let them Gays get married for fucks sake, the world will explode.
Now if you become one with a chair for most of the day, expect it in your 40s. And expect an active 80+ year old to physically kick your ass by the time you hit 60.
I dunno about it being as much of an outlier nowadays. People seem to sit a lot for their jobs, and then glue themselves to their couch when they get home.
Getting up and walking around a bit goes a long way.
Ah yes, the classic and completely justified DRPK supporter. Lemme ask you this, does the US doing something bad nullify the wrongdoings of another country/regime?
Lemme ask you this, does the US doing something bad nullify the wrongdoings of another country/regime?
When they’re in the process or about to cause a humanitarian disaster in said country, yes.
Saddam’s regime was terrible, however sanctions, plus destroying vital infrastructure such as water treatment facilities and power plants during war were infinitely worse. The sanctions on the DPRK that have been going on since 1950 compounded the nightmare of destroying all the infrastructure in the country and the killing of 20% of the population and are still ongoing.
Yankees really lived through Afghanistan and Iraq and learned about Vietnam and still think they are being given accurate narratives of state enemies now. I had hoped by now we might see even the most rudimentary skepticism of US media but alas.
When I told the guy I knew that the US media has repeatedly lied for decades and offered tons of examples his response was “Maybe they’re telling the truth now”
Any supposed wrongdoing of the DPRK pales in comparison to what the USA did to the Korean people. Nine million Korean corpses lay at the feet of American imperialism, a number that continues to grow due to continued sanctions, spying, military exercises and aggression. The alleged wrongdoings of the DPRK’s entire history do not even amount to the misery inflected by a single hour of American empire.
I’m not a coward who feels the need to avoid taking stances. I’m not a coward who finds moral equivalence in imperialism and defense against imperialism. The fact that the DPRK exists at all in such a context of overt hostility should be regarded as a supreme achievement. The DPRK manages to still stand, despite its hardships and this is a testament to the resilience of the Korean people and the power of socialism.
Seriously like. Even the absolute worst dubious, unproven accusations of what the DPRK’s “Crimes” are pale in comparison to what the US and allies did to them. And thats just their crimes against Korea.
South Korea doesn’t count, you can’t invade yourself
North Korea and South Korea were separate entities following the surrender of Imperial Japan, with the North administered by the Soviets and the South administered by the US. North Korea 100% invaded South Korea, both with troops and supporting insurgency groups.
My point was more this. In the American Civil War, the South was a breakaway region. In the Korean War, the North and South were separate countries with separate governments. The government of the North invaded the South. Period.
Before this gets brought up, the governments of both countries were authoritarian turds.
The US created south korea out of thin air at the end of WWII, literally just drawing a line on a map.
Then they both held elections. The south’s election was rigged by the US, who used their sway at the UN (the USSR was boycotting at the time and PRC still hadn’t been accepted) to get South Korea’s puppet state recognized as the gov’t of all Korea, including the parts that didn’t even have the US’s sham elections. As preparation to invade the north, the US purged any non-compliant elements from the gov’t (going so far as to put compradors who’d worked for Japan during occupation in high ranking positions) and carried out massacres of elements likely to side with communists (such as rural villages that lead communal lifestyles).
The north saw America was coming for them and the longer they waited, the worse position they’d be in.
Well you’re a dumbass if you can’t understand this lol. What the fuck does the American Civil War have to do with this? Nobody forced the slavers to make a separate country. Meanwhile the US forced the south of Korea to set up a government and refuse any discussion with the rest of Korea. You can define invasion however you want but it’s nonsense to define how you’re trying other “governments tm” being how you define it
They were not though, neither the communists nor the Japanese collaborators believed the line was a legitimate or permanent division of the country. The plan was always reunification and no Korean party accepted the terms you’re talking about.
Ironically there was an independent government emerging in the wake of the collapse of Japan but the US occupation outlawed it when they came in.
The People’s Republic of Korea was basically the Korean government in exile during World War II. I think they merged into the DPRK after the US refused to let them take control of South Korea, even though they were the legitimate government of Korea.
I think that’s a slight exaggeration, although I get what you’re saying. But I think it’s important to demonstrate to libs that I’m being consistent so I’ll explain what I mean.
I don’t think the communal decision making bodies that spun up in the wake of the Japanese evacuation were necessarily completely aligned with Kim or the communists in exile, it was virtually impossible to maintain a functioning domestic apparatus and what I’ve read makes it seem like these were mostly improvisational.
That said, I think in the long run you’re right, I see it as similar to Vietnam later: because US foreign policy was aligned with elements that were naturally unpopular to the population of the country (in Korea’s case, the Japanese and domestic collaborators) a democratic resolution of the question of what sort of government a united Korea would chose for itself was not going to be an acceptable outcome to the US.
But we don’t know what they would organically choose for themselves because that decision was foreclosed by US occupation. I suspect a popular referendum was the best possible outcome but I think it would probably look very different from the current DPRK, for understandable reasons.
It is true that there are big differences in the ideology of the PRK and the DPRK, but the DPRK still was made as a sort of reconstitution of the PRK government
My favorite version of this is when they try to lie about what he “meant,” only to then tell on themselves by saying something that’s still awful.
Like with the recent “poisoning the blood” quote. I saw several people say he didn’t mean ALL immigrants. Okay? That’s still some racist shit. It’s not even lying about crime anymore, it’s straight-up eugenic garbage.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.