chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

6

Comments

2,172

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your other comments in this thread seem to contradict that a little, at least the idea that these harms or benefits would be visible enough to you to evaluate, since you claim to have switched positions when they started becoming more visible and something you would have had to engage with directly. For software in particular, you empower your users to do whatever they happen to choose to do with it.

Which isn't to say you're doing the wrong thing. I just see the economy as a whole as an inherently cannibalistic system we have little choice but to be a contributing part of one way or another, with the main form of meaningful available agency being to minimize involvement rather than choosing how to be involved.

That seems more coherent than the alternative to me...

I feel like that has got to be pretty difficult unless you include jobs where you are personally isolated from and ignorant of the harmful things the company you contribute to is doing

Maybe still a little questionable? Like if you honestly convince someone that they are supernaturally compelled to be in love with you, that might be a bit manipulative

To me the negative connotation of "welfare" is, Kafkaesque bureaucracy used to gate access. Actually being on it feels more like you are playing a fucked up game than receiving assistance.

the show's 20th anniversary

wtf

What about unjustly light sentences though? Like a sex criminal who is let off easy because he's white, has rich parents and was on track to get a high paying career?

Yes, but the opposite way you might be thinking since mass death from war and other catastrophe is strongly correlated with very high birth rates. We're on track for the global population to stabilize around 10 billion right now, but if billions die in a world war we will probably go exponential again for a long time.

For starting a fire, look for bits of birch bark on the ground, it is extremely flammable and is much better tinder than leaves.

There's also birds being loud and the sun making the inside of your tent too hot to contend with

You can also take off your shoe and use that

I would like that to be true, but I don't think the numbers really support it, at least for the approval rating:

42% approve, 54% disapprove

Last updated on July 2nd 2025

He was 6th lowest approved president ever for his first term, but that was with an approval rating of 34%, which is lower than it is currently. Bottom 3 are Truman, Nixon, and Bush, with 22,24,25% respectively.

The exact logic behind why in the world they thought this would be a good idea will be a better question answered in court

I sympathize with the guy's situation but that's a hell of a bait and switch headline, no explanation of what happened there is offered beyond it

More nuance than you normally see in these kinds of screenshots

Definitely feeling some anxiety about this one

what’s likely is that users will scatter across so many sites, apps, proxies, and channels that they’ll become untraceable, guaranteeing the failure of future regulations. And unlike today, many of those new destinations will be dangerous, unmoderated, and openly hostile to enforcement.

That seems to be the argument; that these verification laws specifically target dedicated porn sites while similar content still exists all over and is not similarly punished, which given people's extreme and natural aversion to doing KYC for porn will cause them to leave for wherever doesn't demand it, killing off what protections now exist against especially shady material and practices.

but I’m playing it in English, so I guess I wouldn’t have anyway?

The text in the screenshot in the reddit post they link is in English

“It’s curiosity about a really sick and evil mind. We read it the way you read [Karl Marx’s] Das Kapital.”

hmmm

The article makes the argument that it is overtly anti queer:

The law targets "explicit descriptions of gay sex or other sexual perversions". Heterosexual depictions often have more leeway - works by acclaimed Chinese authors, including Nobel Laureate Mo Yan, have graphic sexual scenes, but are widely available.

Although authors of heterosexual erotica have been jailed in China, observers say the genre is subjected to far less censorship. Gay erotica, which is more subversive, seems to bother authorities more. Volunteers in a support group for the Haitang writers told the BBC police even questioned some readers.

Is what bothers you about it that she is creating a significant expense you have to deal with, or something else? If it's not the something else, seems like a simple solution would be to just ask her to split the bill so she can be responsible for her expensive preferences. If it is the something else, why is it a problem?