Smaller streams make more sense to me. It’s like a virtual social setting, an old school chatroom, but with a focus of attention, and a guy kind of structuring the whole thing, and a guy who can be engaged with. Occasionally, the streamer can be cool, most of the time they’re kind of a goblin, though, so the good streams are few and far between.
Larger streams don’t make much sense unless you kind of view them as being like, the same appeal as talk radio, or something, because the chat scrolls way too fast and most of it is emotes, so most messages will never get read, and never have anything good to say in the first place. There’s not much of an advantage for any of it to be live content, it just sort of is a relic of the format. Sometimes you get higher production stuff, most of the time it’s just some bald asshole ranting about the prices of things in costco and doing other bad stand up bits.
Edit: Also a big appeal is how brainrotted people are. The focus (I’m generalizing now across all internet platforms) is less on some specific information, and is more on “personality” and appeals like that, because that’s the most sustainable way to pump out a metric ton of content at all times, and algorithms tend to reward when you pump out a ton of content. And so you get a lot of parasocial relationships and non-content, and viewers, frankly, just watch whatever’s in front of them. There’s not a lot of control these platforms, increasingly, give you over what you’re watching anyways, and people aren’t going to keep pulling that skinner’s box lever unless they get a hit at some point. Most of the content ends up being dogshit, so you get a kind of selection for people who enjoy dogshit, and a lack of other options, so people just acclimate to their lack of alternative and become kind of complacent in their environment.
For twitch more specifically, you also basically just get shit that’s meant to only reward people’s dopamine centers, when they get their message read by the streamer, and then they keep pulling the lever on the slot machine over and over multiple times per stream. Either that, right, or you’re getting a lot of people who just don’t have many social relationships, and just want to feel like they’re part of a larger organization, or being, even if it’s totally mindless and meaningless. People who want to “turn off” and just kind of mindlessly be part of the flow of the chat, or what have you. That last part is the brainrot, basically.
You know I’m partial to the explanation that none of the viewers who watch this kind of shit would really want to watch anything else anyways, because they’re just here for the softcore porn market, so it’s not really hurting anyone. Or, if they would watch anything else, they clearly have their priorities, and it’s not the problem of the softcore streamer to stop streaming so kai cenat can have 0.5% higher viewership since theoretically they’re “stealing the views with their feminine wiles”. On the other hand, I do think a lot of people (mostly kids) tend to eat whatever you put in front of them, and it’s not as though tastes can’t change over time, with exposure, rather than something or other being necessarily higher value to the viewer. The only people who could probably attempt to know the truth, if they wanted, would be twitch themselves, because they have access to that collection of statistics, of what viewers are getting converted over to what streams. It’s not so clear as to be just a zero sum game, but it’s also not not a zero sum game, is basically what I’m saying.
FWIW though I don’t really care about softcore on twitch because ALL of twitch is softcore. All of it. Most of the people who complain about this shit are just idiots sitting around doing react content or gaming and doing really dumb stand up, and all the viewers are parasocial andys. The only good twitch streams I’ve seen are a guy getting tortured in a closet and a dude doing amateur cooking for random people he meets outside, and then a very small handful of people livestreaming technical subjects and doing live tutorials because that’s easier and provides more feedback than videos, even if it’s not scalable. And the sumo guy, that guy’s sick.
Unless it was just urban legend, VHS supposedly won out over Betamax because there was more porn available. It was the first “killer app” and helped make early rental stores profitable.
That was just urban legend I’m pretty sure. The reason it was able to be made profitable by video rental stores, I believe, is because JVC was more willing to license out their technology than Sony, so it was cheaper and more available to the average consumer. VHS also came out with more/had more recording styles more faster, and was more willing to degrade the integrity of their system, and degrade video quality, compared to Sony.
I forget if this was the case to begin with, or if this was a retroactive codec/recording style, but you could watch a full home theater VHS copy of a movie with one VHS tape, compared to the two betamax tapes you would need. That contributes, on top of not being a more proprietary technology, to a cheaper overall price. You could also, at a certain point, record multiple hours of a basketball game, in really shitty quality, if you wanted.
Basically, VHS benefited from a sort of economy of scale, and you were able to record more for less money total, which was rapidly becoming more appealing and more relevant, compared to the marginal quality gains of betamax, as things like VCRs and more accessible home movies started to hit the home video market.
I think the only major hits betamax ended up having was sort of filling out a gap in more mid-quality video recordings for stuff like TV shows, on the production end, because they were of higher quality than VHS, but I don’t remember much about that.
You don’t really need to be funny to “most people” as a comedian to be successful, though, you just need to be funny to the vast majority of your audience. There are like 300 million people in the US, if you were even funny to 3 million people, or 1% of the population, you could be a modestly successful comedian commuting between cities and releasing little specials. I also find it weird to say that someone else “don’t know shit about funny”: I thought it was pretty obvious that comedy was subjective, and not something that has any actual winning formula like the pretentious old guard of comedians would have everyone believe, as is in their best interest.
I think people have you conflated with the OP, which sucks, because the OP is quite obviously a sealion from the way that they phrase their issue, or what have you. Their issue isn’t really an open, geniune question, it sounds like they’re putting the onus on everyone else for having not educated them, and it also kind of implicitly contains the idea that they expect everyone else to fail at changing their mind. They’ve obviously looked for evidence before, or have argued about it before, and have become more entrenched, and haven’t looked further. They also slight anyone that would be arguing the opposite viewpoint more directly in order to get a rise out of them. So I think being equated with that person, especially after they’ve posted like, some pretty effective bait, is gonna get you blasted back. Their phrasing is optimized to make anyone replying to them be heated, you’re gonna take crossfire from that.
Also I wouldn’t necessarily draw the conclusion that rowling isn’t a transphobe, from the fact that you’ve been downvoted for asking that, that would be a pretty bad fallacy to make, that the people representing the argument are the best arguers for it.
Anyways, if you need evidence, I don’t have any because I don’t really give a shit about JK rowling’s shit, but I remember watching a couple contrapoints videos a while back that were pretty thorough in the way that a two hour youtube essay tends to be. Links are here and here. I don’t remember much from them, other than that they were good, and obviously she holds the opposing opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what I’ll give you since it’s what I can remember on hand. I also seem to remember rowling hanging out with some more hardcore right wing folks, but I can’t seem to remember which specific video that was from. I wanna say shaun? Anyways, that’s all I got for you, dude, have a nice. Night, day? Have a nice time, lol
That wasn’t really my point, I was just saying one man’s funny is another man’s transphobic, and that you can make money and be successful by being funny to like. I dunno, 5% of the population, rather than “most people”.
I don’t think asking questions can ever be a bad thing, really, especially if you’re not cutting anyone off. That’s not in counter to the post, or anything, I just think it’s generally a very good idea. You can honestly listen to someone with questions, and it shows that you’re thinking about their problems in a way that’s more real than just like, making eye contact, saying garbage platitudes, and then kind of being like the human equivalent of a teddy bear or some sort of comfort object for someone. A well directed question can often get more to the root of the problem more than anything else, I think. You can also direct people around with questions, but that’s maybe best left for your good faith actual listeners, rather than people who just want to abuse their question-asking so they can direct someone towards what they think the solution is.
I dunno. people are just like. Not good listeners, at all. I’m not, most of the time, I like to think that I’m decent at it when there’s something that matters, but then I also have a pretty big brainfog whenever this shit happens, and I forget to ask questions sometimes, which really, really, impairs your ability to comprehend the whole situation. The biggest thing is just trying to piece everything together, right, that’s a good use of your conscious thought. A bad use of your conscious thought is thinking about what you’re gonna say next, or remembering whatever like. scripted response you’ve come up with for this scenario, slotting this scenario into a specific “problem” set that you’re gonna pretend that you’ve already solved.
On the flip-side, I do find it kind of annoying when you ask someone some question like “well have you tried talking to them?”, and they interpret that as “what do you think I’m STUPID do you think I haven’t TRIED THAT!”, when usually the purpose of a question like that is more like “what was the result when you talked to them?”. It’s to spurn on more context, it’s a platform to vent more, basically. The language of the question could be more precise, yes, but oftentimes people are so used to not being talked to and engaged with as human beings, that they kind of default to taking every question as a bad faith attack on their intelligence as a sort of defense mechanism, or something. It’s kind of annoying, and when that happens you have to deliberately be more precise and be more careful to get across explicitly that you’re invested in their life, but it’s just like. It’s just a thing I’ve noticed that people do sometimes, I guess, what I’m saying is, be on the lookout for that more. Don’t get mad when/if that happens, just be like, oh, my bad, sorry, that’s not really what I meant to say, I meant to say (insert more precise and carefully worded question here).
That’s it, that’s all I got.
edit: Actually it wasn’t. Most of the time, the solutions you’re proposing are garbage, and your partner (usually, unfortunately, could be whoever you’re talking to) is elevating the conversation to a more top down view of why all your solutions suck. The reason it’s important to ask questions is because the problems everyone is having are usually more complex than the solution you can come up with in five seconds. People aren’t like, “how do I fix my toilet”, and then you just tell them to turn off the water. The problems people have are way more complicated than that. At least give it five minutes of listening, you will be impressed by the results.
It’s sort of really dependent on what people want out of you, which has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people just want someone to vent at, or, they want someone to kind of be like “hey that sucks sorry about that”, and actually care about them and their hardships (these are usually the situations in which people are facing some sort of inevitable problem that they have the solution for, but the only solution sucks), what they need is emotional support, and probably a boost to their ego. And then sometimes people have been like, facing what’s an unsolvable problem, and they just need kind of a new, fresh pair of eyes on it. The latter is the circumstance in which people will be more open to obvious solutions, because sometimes people just won’t think of them for whatever reason, could even be as simple as just forgetting that something existed. I think, in either case, it’s usually a decent idea to ask obvious questions, and if you end up stepping on a bombshell (“well I ALREADY THOUGHT of THAT!”), that’s usually more of a like, that’s indicative of something that you both have to defuse in the moment, but that’s also something that you can sort of question why that was placed there, and what the foundation of it was. Usually, though, that’s something you reserve for later.
The reason zero tolerance policies get so often implemented is because kids tend to be much smarter in how they go about being dicks to one another than in how they do their schoolwork, or, in how they do almost anything else. If you implement one-sided policies that favor the bullied, it’s then in the bully’s best interest to instead appear bullied, which can end up being a pretty common tactic anyways. There’s also more circumstances under which bullying can take place than just physical. Verbal bullying is much harder to prove and do anything about, and the worst is probably when some random kid gets dogpiled for being different, there’s not much teachers can do about that even if it’s relatively obvious. Which is also resting on the assumption that the teacher isn’t also taking part in the bullying as a way to be seen as “cool” by their students, which is unfortunately something that’s not uncommon. There’s also mutual bullying in which kids can egg each other on until one goes too far, and then maybe zero-tolerance policies end up making some sense, as the group’s behavior as a whole is what really needed to stop.
I think taking a more top-down view of the problem, it would seem to me that there’s a similar problem going on to when reagan defunded all of the mental institutions, or whatever metaphor you’d wanna use here. There’s a lot of attempts to make things right by removing things, rather than adding things. It’s bad to lower a student’s grade as a result of their malicious behavior, rather than their output, and usually bullies have bad grades anyways. Can’t impose on the parents at all because the parents of bullies tend to either be nutso helicopter parents, or tend to be bullies to their children. And then sending kids to other school districts usually just ends up condemning then to a boiling pot of other kids who are maybe worse, or will exacerbate their behavior as it isolates them more, and in extreme cases it can lead them to criminality. Results are going to be kind of mixed on student counseling, if you have a therapist or psychiatrist on campus that’s extremely lucky and can also have mixed results, and there’s really not anything else you can offer kids other than that, for a variety of reasons. It’s relatively hard to get people to stop being self-destructive in the best of times, as an institution, and it’s much harder when those people are kids, and when you’re inevitably going to be some underfunded institution, since schools funded by the rich, and their property taxes, tend to have children that will engage in less bullying, even if those kids are subject to other psychologically unhealthy pressures.
We could probably solve a good amount of this by just funding schools federally on an equal basis, or with voucher programs based on student population, but nobody wants to fund/expand those programs because schools tend to be underfunded and give bad results already, and we unfortunately have a tendency in this country to give something less money when it performs poorly, as some sort of sacrifice to the free market.
You could also potentially use them as a solution for more efficiently allocating energy, less by pumping energy back into the grid, and more by running home power from the car battery during peak hours, rather than having to produce too much energy during off hours, having to shut down the power during peak hours or provide limited access, or having to provide power for less people. You can make the power go further, and especially for renewables which have potentially less consistent energy production (the nice part being that peak demand roughly lines up with peak production for solar power, at least, in the summer). But none of that’s really an attractive proposition to the american car buyer who wants to travel as far as possible at the drop of a hat, and you have to make car batteries larger and the cars themselves less efficient to compensate for this power draw and power storage that may or may not be happening at any given moment, so it’s sort of self-defeating with the american car market.
Obviously, it isn’t really a more equitable or more efficient solution broadly than doing something like pumping water uphill. Or trying to limit demand in the first place by decreasing surface area of homes, by moving towards multiple units in one building, increasing r-values by using better building materials you could shell out for with a larger amount of occupants, yadda yadda urban design garbage. Stuff that generally is antithetical to car-centric infrastructure and thus electric cars. You also potentially run into problems where the as the grid as a whole becomes less relied upon, they make less money, and then the grid starts to fail further in a positive feedback loop. Poor people can’t afford rooftop solar and electric cars, because most of them can barely afford rent and aren’t really the ones making those decisions anyways.
So, I think it’s kind of naive to believe that we can solve everything tomorrow/very soon with public transportation. It’s pretty easy to believe that if you define the rural/urban divide to include a lot of suburbs as urban, which sort of, gets away from the bleakness of the situation a little bit, I think. I think I remember somewhere around a third being split between each form, with a little less being in the suburbs compared to either rural or urban, so it’s pretty evident that, even of a portion of the people that work in cities, live just outside cities, those people live with untenable densities for public transportation. I think that’s solvable, right, in the long term, by local municipalities, over the course of the next 40-50 years give or take, because infrastructure gets decroded, needs to be replaced, and you can replace it in the meantime just by reworking the standards, something which is generally self-evident to voters as a better solution and creates a positive feedback loop as long as people aren’t completely propagandized to.
The only problem I think you might encounter with this is that it’s very hard to get this going in a place that doesn’t already support it at all. It’s much easier to create public transport if you have somewhere to go, if you’re already on the outskirts of a large city. If you make a walkable place in the midst of a collection of townships and municipalities which don’t support that, you’ve become less permeable to cars, and those other municipalities need to provide public transport that goes to your town where they can spend money on your goods and stimulate your local economy, and that doesn’t strike me as something likely to happen. This is the structure of lots of shitholes in america already, because the lack of density kind of lends itself towards a fragmented series of municipalities joined together with dogshit social services rather than a singular contiguous government.
But, then, I also think it’s kind of insane the level to which we accept cars and car-centric infrastructure as inevitable even within this context. If you want to slowly increase density, I think there’s really a lot of progress that could be made, not specifically by the technology of EVs, but just by making cars smaller. Like, we already see that in europe, japan, whatever. EVs have bigger batteries on average, sure, but you’re not going to see people get up in arms about the increased pollution that E-bikes cause, and that’s the same fundamental technology of a battery electric vehicle in a different form factor. I feel like the first and most obvious step towards a solution would be decreasing the absolutely extreme size of cars in the US, in any case. You can still be compatible with your 15 mile city outskirts shithole suburb while driving a car that’s the size of a geo metro or smaller. It’s worked so far for me, anyways. Decreasing size totally strikes me as a bigger win than transitioning to EVs, a higher priority, maybe, though, they’re not really mutually exclusive in any way. Smaller lighter cars can be safer in crashes because of the decreased mass, decreased need for stopping power, they can be more gas efficient, possibly much more gas efficient, especially with hybrid technologies. It strikes me as a much simpler solution, one that legitimately requires less production to solve the issue, is more efficient.
I have never really understood this meme at all, it just seems like a cynical nothing-burger cry. No substance.
Capitalism isn’t really based on theoretically infinite growth. Maybe the idea is that monopoly is assumed, in capitalist ideology, to not exist, in the same way that people talk with ancaps, and they (ancaps) wish away monopolization with dogmatism to an unenforceable liberal brainrot NAP? I don’t think any serious capitalist ideology discards monopoly. Not any worth engaging with, anyways. Oil barons know that the resource they peddle is finite, and everyone generally knows that every resource is theoretically a finite thing, and so is every market, and thus, all markets in sum. That’s like, your basic supply and demand curve. It doesn’t just go up and down linearly like the ones they use to explain to brainlets, actual supply and demand curves look fucked up because the market is weird, and they all totally plateau at either extreme end. If you charge a billion dollars for a single orange, you maybe will only get a buyer if you name the orange “X” and the buyer is [redacted]. Maybe the idea is that if you market a product enough, even if it’s bullshit, then you could just charge a gazillion dollars for it and have it be over the natural or necessary amount, and I’d agree with that being capitalism but I don’t really think that’s like. limitless growth, that’s just marketing, that’s just bullshit.
Capitalists often use this assumed finity to price gouge, maximize profit, that’s why you dump oranges in the desert to keep up the prices of oranges or whatever. Maybe that’s like, oh, they’re assuming the oranges to be infinite, but that’s because oranges are recyclable. You can grow more oranges, and if we scaled back orange production massively, making it more efficient, we’d still have enough oranges for everyone (Degrowth, I guess? It can be even more efficient if you grow local flora instead of oranges but ech). Maybe you can’t have infinite oranges if some other sector of the economy is dumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but for like, 10,000 years of human history, you can grow more oranges, and you can grow more oranges until the sun expands and burns the earth in like 2 billion years.
If I read this meme in a different way, the fucked up thing about this meme is that it’s not real. We’re not like, at the end of civilization just by some natural factor of luck, or something, or you know, suddenly all the human creativity has petered out. That would almost be better, in a way. The human creativity is actively being suppressed, underfunded, bought out and scraped for parts, because it’s easier to sell people actual bullshit year over year, in a cartel that you basically control all of, than introduce something new.
At my least graceful reading of this post, it kind of almost becomes malthusian, or something. Limitless growth! Grow the market limitlessly! Of course that means we must have a limitless population! And if someone’s getting mad at that fake bullshit, then what they probably really believe is that there will be/there is too many people. But then that’s all instance number 700 of getting mad at a spook.
But it’s also like, how are you tracking growth? Cause if growth is just entropy, I think it probably is limitless.
I dunno man, I’ve met some of my peers. The vast majority of them are just normal people, right, living their lives, totally nice, but then some of them are really fucking stupid or mean, and I kind of wonder if this narrative that gen Z will save the world is true at all, or if it’s just that same sort of nonsense, that all we’ll have to do is wait and things will somehow get better.
You’re just a brat. That’s all. Brat. Annoying, ignorant, spoiled brat who cannot appreciate the good stuff they have.
This seems like a really good way to engage with people and change their minds, and get them to enjoy the things in their life. Definitely not contributing to the problem, or you just taking out whatever issue you have here on other random passersby of the thread. Very cool.
I think generally you will find that people of this opinion hold that it is unreasonable that we have privatized basically all of the internet infrastructure. These people tend to be in favor of expecting the consumer spends more on hardware for hosting, and enthusiasts, hobbyists, non-profits, and occasionally companies develop the software necessary to make the internet function, rather than companies just paying for tons and tons of warehouses of servers, and then just forcing the software to all become fucked up walled gardens while the actual utilities everyone rests upon is left to rot.
ntg but can you point me in the direction of your sources for that? I’m kind of lazy and google/my google fu sucks for me recently. no big prob if you can’t though
yeah, but their taco bell kind of sucks major ass because they don’t have access to the same ingredients, or something along those lines, I can’t quite remember.
Tell me whether or not they have any good black bean tacos. I’m interested in their bean variety, because I’m not sure to what extent they have the same beanage as over here. I have to expect that they have some level, as otherwise you’d get no bean paste pastries, no miso soup bean stock, yadda yadda. I expect a full report on my desk by may 2024.
The naivety there isn’t so much that soldiers would be incapable of fighting the US citizenry in a large scale war, but more that the framing of the question is false to begin with. It’s way easier for soldiers to commit small scale acts of terror than large scale genocides, and it’s always easier to commit acts of terror on minorities or the “other” rather than on the gen pop. If we were to see any domestic american guerilla warfare (I find this kind of unlikely compared to the rising amount of lone wolf, stochastic incidents), then it’s likely that even the regular population would get fed a ton of bullshit about the opposition being subhuman, or something to that effect. Larger scale versions of how, every time a black guy gets shot by the police, everyone trots out every encounter he’s ever had with the police within like 12 hours of the incident. Character assassination, but at a group level, instead of on the individual level.
you can’t acquire an automatic weapon, or “machine gun”, in the US without either an FFL, or buying an expensive as fuck and extremely rare automatic gun from pre-1986. You might see firearms with fire rates similar to automatic weapons as a result of illegal modifications, like that of the bump stock, but there are also less reversible modifications someone might end up doing. Anyways that’s more like a theoretical, really stupid correction for me to make, because it’s kind of up in the air as to whether or not automatic weapons would even be more effective if you wanted to kill a lot of people, as military doctrine generally employs them (full auto) as suppression or cover fire, making active zones of danger which enemies can’t pass through or fire from, rather than for the use of killing people. Though, the military doesn’t really tend to kill large unarmed groups of people, or, they prefer to do that with drone strikes, anyways. You don’t really care about any of that, though, probably.
I would also like to posit that probably america has a unique combination of factors which spurn on violence. Insane amounts of wealth disparity, probably only comparable to some places in the middle east, if that, but also a sense of entitlement towards middle class living, aka the “american dream”, which creates a kind of scorn and spite in the american mind when that middle class ideal is denied, or revealed as false. The way that these ideologies work is that they say that X is entitled to middle class living, that they deserve it, but that Y minority or Y oppressed group is in the way.
Also, these mass shootings, mass shootings of this specific type, tend to be relatively rare. Or at least, not as big of a problem as the media would have you believe, relative to: the vast majority of firearm violence, which primarily happens with handguns, and is related to gang violence (this category includes shootings by the police). Which is quite obviously related to poverty, and the protection of drugs as a high-value good that obviously can’t be protected by the actual government. So you see a local monopoly of force evolve taking advantage of the poor in order to bring themselves to a more economically workable position, yadda yadda, I’m sure you’ve heard that story before. And then on top of that you have handgun suicide comprising somewhere between half and a third of all gun deaths (I can’t quite remember).
All that considered, in combination with a lack of political will to get rid of guns, for somewhere around half the population, I’d probably make the prescription that you would see a better drop in violence from the legalization, or decriminalization, of drugs, universal mental healthcare, rectifying economic inequality, and of course, “common sense” gun laws, which would probably mostly apply to screenings for mental illness, primarily depression, but also conspiratorial thinking. The latter there, “common sense” gun laws, I think is agreeable to the majority of the population.
There’s still good and plenty fuckery that can happen with citing books, though. Depending on the obscurity of the book, whether or not it’s out of print, or just has been outright destroyed, it might be really hard to access a copy, and check the source, especially if someone doesn’t have access to the internet archive or library genesis, i.e. digital scans of said book. There are reprints and new editions, sometimes not noted by the author of the citation (the author might have no way of knowing, depends), which can change or remove quoted passages. The internet also contains the ability to mass copy anything you want, and cite that copy, like what the internet archive does with the wayback machine, so if you have a citation of a webpage it’s probably a good idea to copy that in time and then spread it around anyways just for the sake of posterity and accessibility, especially if it’s obscure or is likely to be changed or removed. Same as you might for a book, except much easier, it’s much harder to copy a whole book in context and spread that around compared to a webpage.
A bunch of wikipedia sources are already archived on the wayback machine, anything cited to like pre-2010, online, there’s a good chance it got taken down or changed in the last 13 years.
That sucks, but I also kind of empathize with wiki mods, cause it’s really hard to know when to cut stuff down. I remember seeing a while back a bunch of people that migrated out from wikipedia to some completely unknown new wiki nobody will ever hear about, because they were working on chronicling all the roads in america with screenshots and notes of location and historical details about it all. Wikipedia didn’t really get it, as it’s more like a kind of academic and news aggregate, and there was nothing really there to aggregate, it was just an infodump of a bunch of different stuff. If wikipedia was a 1-1 map of the world, then it would be the size of the world. Or bigger, if you include historical stuff. No way you’re fitting all that on a 102 gig drive, or whatever the size of wikipedia is. Plus there’s hosting costs to consider, so it’s not like they could do that even if they really wanted.
I kind of half-heartedly agree with most of this, but the human era one is kind of stupid. I don’t really care about jesus’s birth or death or whatever, I just have no reason to add an extra 1 to the date for the next 10,000 years until I switch it to a 2. Mostly because I’ll be dead, but also because such a point would be so far in the future that I don’t know that any of this argument will be relevant at all.
Edit: also, you forgot the biggest one, which kind of goes along with months but not really: seasons. Lots of places don’t have four distinct seasons, they just have a wet season and a dry season, or a dry kind of summer and then a wet winter and then a dry winter, or whatever, which influences local ecology a lot. Moulding these around to roughly fit whatever any individual location’s season is, is kind of stupid. It’s better just to say what the actual season is, it’s less confusing, Everyone knows what everyone else means, it’s more specific. People have been tricked into thinking that the four seasons are a universal thing, they’re not, that’s false.
That’s always kind of been an illusion. For lots of places, especially around the equator, it gets hot enough that expecting everyone will work the same 9-5 schedule, and businesses will all be open at the same time, is kind of stupid. Places like arizona, it would make sense if instead everyone used a siesta schedule, or if the schedule was shifted way forward in the day, from the later night to early morning, in the much cooler parts. And that’s not even something that’s really dependent on time zones, that’s just dependent on variable climate. I see elimination of time zones, as more of an admittal that how we track that sort of thing is arbitrary anyways, so it’s probably better in my mind to eliminate any pretense of it being an objective system.
I meant less evening/night shifts and more like. get up at 5:00 and stay up until 3:00 pm or so, with work obviously not being in the latter portion of the day, which is when it really starts to heat up ime. Seasonal depression and other related health issues we can cure with vitamin D, as they’ve been doing in the scandi countries since like the 70’s, so I don’t really understand how you’d be getting more health issues. If anything I would think that would be reduced as people working physical labor jobs would be less prone to heat stroke and exhaustion. You know, in places where you’re working outdoors in 110 degree weather, hottest part of the day, after having already worked for like 5 hours. At the very least I think a siesta schedule would make more sense, which there’s maybe a little bit more historical precedent for.
Most people think it’s just kind of a free speech hellhole, but it’s not, that’s just the coat of paint the site took on/has always slightly had. Remnants of an idealized 1990’s internet space where people thought everything would be free to use and free to access, and the storage would be infinite, ironically concocted by out-of-touch yuppies who didn’t work on the pipes. In reality, free speech bullshit is always just a cover for admins to be able to enforce whatever totally inconsistent rules that they want without any form of repercussion, because obviously there are limits, even just legally, in terms of keeping the site up, and keeping it free from commercial spam, and having advertisers stay on. Most rules you can concoct have some sort of exception, or lack of clarity, or are too restrictive, so it really just falls down to some arbitrary decision as to what stays around and what doesn’t.
With sites like 4chan, it isn’t so much that “free speech” just inevitably leads to this tragedy of the commons where everyone becomes or is taken over by racists and incels, it’s more that active decisions are made to turn these sites into shitholes by malignant actors, because sites like 4chan are the easiest targets, and have a kind of natural selection bias towards the type of people they want to recruit. They take advantage of this fact that “free speech” is obfuscating the actual moderation and enforcement of the site, and then use it to promote whatever ideologies they want, like a little internet meme terrarium, or maybe more of a virus cell culture. Then, this attracts other malignant actors, some of whom are even funded by different states, who work within the bounds of the site to advance it one step further, until you have a kind of horrible coalition of different ideas all stewing together.
Which is all kind of tragic, because, like that one guy said, it’s responsible for a novel mathematical proof, the revival of a british indie rock band, the beginnings of anonymous, probably some other cool stuff I can’t remember. Lots of early classic internet memes, of course. It’s not all bad, really, it’s just the lowest hanging fruit of web forum. Sometimes that’s shitty, but then sometimes you get draw*** threads, where artists will go in and take low-pressure requests or concoct some sort of forum-game. Idealized, it’s sort of like pub bathroom graffiti, or something. Which isn’t really nefarious, is never serious, is sometimes charming, and very very occasionally is beautiful, useful, or novel.
I think the main smartphone market is kind of like the market for cars. The only people that can afford to buy them, can afford to keep up heavy consumer traffic, are the ones who are convinced they need to swap to the top of the line model with some sort of trade-in payment plan, where they want every new trendy thing, and every piece of bullshit technology that’s not going to last even to the next flagship model. Basically, stupid people who are rich and are insecure about it. I’m certainly vulnerable to that to, just as I’m vulnerable to the unbearable lag on even just like a 6 year old phone, which should really not be that old, and then security updates and support are always a concern, I suppose. I think maybe the solution, individually, might just be to root my phone, or install some linux alternative operating system, cause I don’t wanna keep up with this bullshit anymore. I’m trapped in a world of large 19:9 and 21:9 smartphones, unusable with one hand, and with screen space that’s useless 90% of the time. I’m stuck without aux ports, and without any physical style keyboard, no nothin. I also want stuff like the DS stylus port and the flip camera they had on the zenfone 7, that shit is cool.
And thus my subtitle requirement was born (lemmy.world)
The current state of Twitch (startrek.website)
deleted_by_moderator
Offering solutions is annoying (lemmy.world)
Everytime (lemmy.ml)
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
Capitalism is killing our planet (lemmy.ml)
The Aliens did a little trolling (lemmy.world)
Epic Games Admits In Court That Its PC Store Still Isn't Profitable (kotaku.com)
Just fuck me up fam (sh.itjust.works)
Truly an art form to use properly (lemmy.world)
YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers (www.androidauthority.com)
cross-posted from: lemdro.id/post/2883134 (!android)
CNN Host Left Stunned As IDF Confirms Israel Hit Refugee Camp With Airstrike (newrepublic.com)
NewRepublic.com
Almost a shitpost. (lemmy.ananace.dev)
We have had guns for 200 years but mass shootings only became common in the last 30. So what changed?
Story of Cruz (lemmy.world)
[meme] Urbanists 🤝 Pastoralists (lemmy.world)
Image transcript:...
They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust.
xkcd #2846: Daylight Saving Choice (imgs.xkcd.com)
xkcd.com/2846...
Redditor when women (i.imgur.com)
So long, small phones (www.theverge.com)