[-] [email protected] 1 points 8 minutes ago

Then why is Israel helping them? It is, after all, quite true that Israel has refused to stop settlement activity in the West Bank. Seems like a great way to cause protests, and then responding with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality will lead to a lot of martyrs. Are you accusing the Israeli government of being in league with Hamas?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Let's not lump Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk together though. I feel weird defending Bezos, but he does have a big charitable fund that's quite transparent about how it spends its money. As for Elon, he's allegedly given billions to charity, but has never specified what that charity is and given his views on things it's probably appropriate to consider that highly suspect.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

To steel man the downvoters, maybe there are other solutions besides killing off every business that can't afford to comply with copyright. After all, isn't the whole point of copyright to enable the capitalist exploitation of information?

[-] [email protected] 131 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

FFS that's not what Tim Walz did, at all. He signed (as opposed to vetoing) a bipartisan bill to provide free menstrual products to students, after a years-long campaign by students who had to pay for these at school.

The law doesn't say anything about boys bathrooms or genders. At most it can be argued that by not specifying that only girls bathrooms are included, it avoids singling out female-to-male and intersex students who use boys bathrooms for persecution. Which is of course controversial to Republicans.

3
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

So a bit about me, I'm a very practical-oriented, some might say cheap person. I look at excessive luxury as a moral failing at any wealth level, either because you should be giving that money to charity, or because you should be saving it so you don't end up needing charity yourself someday.

However, finding a woman with a compatible mindset has always been a challenge, and it seems to be getting harder every year. I've been dating mostly online for a good while, and prior to the pandemic I pretty much never ran into a woman with a lot of luxuries in her life. Now it seems like almost every profile features a woman showing off a LV/YSL/Gucci purse that cost 4 figures or more. These luxury brand purchases are the hardest thing for me to relate to, because it's just the brand - it's purely to signal that you could afford to send some corporation your hard-earned money for virtually no reason. And you don't have to take my word for it, luxury goods are booming, especially among gen Y and Z.

Problem is, I'm finding it harder and harder to cut this massive chunk of the population out of my dating pool. I'm also attracted to the look of feminine accessories like jewelry and heels (isn't everyone?). And while I don't care if it's cheap accessories, there seems to be basically a 100% overlap between women who wear feminine accessories and those who like spending lots of money on brand names. I kinda hit rock bottom recently when I went on a date with a low-wage worker which made me excited that maybe I finally found someone down to earth enough, and then even she showed up with a $1200 purse (yes I looked it up).

So it's time to pause and seek alternative perspectives. I want to keep looking for the cheap-yet-feminine woman. But at the same time, I feel increasingly like I'm being an extremist. Is there some way I can understand the need for luxury brand purchases differently so I can find it more acceptable in a long term partner?

89
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

This seems insane to me. I live in a city where maybe 50-60% of people have cars, and most don't drive them that much. Yet every grocery store I'm aware of with the sole exception of the expensive Whole Foods has a fuel rewards points program. Reasons this should be controversial enough to enable a low-cost alternative:

  1. Many people don't drive and therefore pay a little more for groceries because it includes a perk they don't use
  2. It seems like a very ardent pro-fossil fuel move that you'd think would cause some sort of negative attention from environment activists.
  3. The subsidy typically applies as an amount off per gallon, so you end up really subsidizing big vehicles with big gas tanks. Again, really makes some customers subsidize others and you'd think people (other than me) would be annoyed at this.

But yet, virtually every grocery store does this. Anyone know why? Does the fossil fuel industry somehow encourage this?

[-] [email protected] 101 points 2 months ago

The craziest part is he read this off a prompter

[-] [email protected] 94 points 4 months ago

As productivity increases, artificial scarcity becomes necessary to maintain pre-existing levels of inequality.

[-] [email protected] 85 points 5 months ago

I'm actually glad to see what's been happening to Twitter because as much as it was started with good intentions and used to be a positive force for tech, it was also fundamentally flawed social media model. The basic problem was that only positive reactions were allowed - like, retweet, follow. This is NOT the town square, where you can get any reaction. It's more akin to a dictator's rally, where you're only allowed to clap and booing is not allowed. So it's no surprise that over time, it led to filter bubbles and the spread of mass delusions. Because you could say the craziest or most depraved thing, and all you'd hear is applause.

[-] [email protected] 87 points 7 months ago

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) study that found SUVs to be 20 percent more polluting and twice as likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to smaller conventional cars.

Twice as likely to kill a pedestrian...if that number holds up this needs to happen in more cities. Driving an excessively deadly vehicle through crowded areas shouldn't be free.

[-] [email protected] 79 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I've done this on a simple timer app I developed.

Why? Because I want the timer to stop automatically during a phone call. To do this I need to request READ_PHONE_STATE (which bafflingly tells the user the permission is to "make and manage phone calls"). Unfortunately, there's no way to alter the permission request to tell the user (at least in Android) why you want the permission. They really need to make the permissions more granular and provide some way for devs to communicate what the permission is for.

[-] [email protected] 110 points 9 months ago

I'm happy with this. I feel like Lemmy is an oasis of nerds in a social media world of toxic people obsessed with all the wrong things.

[-] [email protected] 63 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's like everyone's opinion is "my tribe is always right and deserves all the sympathy, the other tribe is always wrong and deserves all the suffering". No one cares about solutions or examining why a conflict has persisted for 80 years. Humans are so predictable.

82
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I'm annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics. I think a big part of the problem is that modern political figures use social media platforms that are hostile to context and citing sources.

So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged. For example, you could have an article that's a breakdown of the relative costs to society of private vs public transportation, with calculations and sources and tables and whatnot. It wouldn't exactly be an argument, but all the data you'd need to make one. And like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, allowing otherwise massive research tasks to be broken up.

The problem is - who creates a wiki nowadays? It feels like getting such a site and community up and running would be hopeless in a landscape dominated by social media. Will this be a pointless waste of time? Is there a more modern way to do this? All thoughts welcome.

view more: next ›

rsuri

joined 1 year ago