MolochAlter

Hey, some drugs are quirky and fun too.

Yes, comedy.

Nothing about Lemmy is inherently supposed to be raging zealots.

Highly depends on who you ask, the founders are raging zealot tankies and I’m sure they’d be delighted if everyone was like them, on the platform and off.

Reborn, any day. I’m quite happy with my life, but this and being a multimillionaire through some minor investments in bitcoin, and a stat screen to minmax? 11/10

Also, hollow (i.e. with no rigid core, just a penis shaped rubber balloon) inflatable dildos work really well for that.

Wait, how is getting vaccinated but opposing the government forcing people to get vaccinated “antivaxx”?

Sounds to me like she just wants her bodily autonomy to be respected… unsurprisingly, given the title of this post?

if it really is so bad you feel you should get your money back on principle, you know before the end of the meal/film.

I disagree that you would necessarily know.

Mass Effect 3 is stellar, until the ending invalidates basically all of your choices and destroys the galaxy no matter what you do, because the lead writer and the director thought it right to bypass their internal review process.

Firewatch feels like it’s going to take at least some of the dialogue choices you made in the game into account but then it turns out it’s entirely linear and smoke and mirrors.

A bad ending can absolutely restrospectively destroy the experience of an otherwise good story.

Doesn’t help that phase 2 and the endings both suck pretty hard, so why bother.

The media goes poof anyway, there’s plenty of NFTs that point to dead links on domains that expired once the grift was no longer worth it.

Personal backups are the only real way to protect media for yourself and those around you.

The “reason” not to is that trees need tending and cobblestone does not.

It’s a stupid reason, but you know…

He’s saying that’s not useful information, not condescending you for buying a low spec machine.

What is your hardware configuration?

The answer is probably “no”, but let’s show the work, just in case.

He has been caught, multiple times, disingenuously embracing positions and politicians that contradict his own prior supposed “strongly held beliefs”, only ever really strongly condemns his own side if it benefits him, or at least if not doing so would harm him, his show is boring as shit and his streaming service a transparent propaganda vehicle devoid of artistry or craft.

He may be a good husband and father behind closed doors, we have no way to verify that at this time.

Yeah I’d say he’s morally absolutely mercenary and spineless which makes him a pretty worthless person, in a “banal evil” kind of way.

But I don’t appreciate your tired arguments that privatization of public utilities is a necessary good

Fucking hell man, are you absolutely sure you’re not American? Your reading comprehension is on par with their shittier states.

Where have I argued for privatization? Logistic concerns apply regardless of who is providing a service, even the state still needs employees to provide a service with their fucking work.

In fact, I’m from Italy, our healthcare system is public and subisidised, and I used that as an example because the state struggles to fill positions in rural and mountainous areas even though it has a mandate to fill them and no profit motive. At some point, if people are not willing to relocate to the middle of nowhere, they just aren’t gonna.

So that’s strike 1.

I don’t appreciate the reality of millions of hands that extend to reach safe borders to be told “no, we have too many workers already” when the issue isn’t “enough work” but private profit and governments colluding around the gold pile they’ve built.

AAAH I see the problem, you are arguing with your imaginary friend who is some insane neocon, and not someone with a basic grasp of liberal economics who defended the concept that richer people should pay more taxes than poorer people with an economically sound argument.

Gotcha. Say hi for me.

There is no societal burden except the ones we create for ourselves.

Right.

Infrastructure needs no maintenance, logistics aren’t real, people don’t spend their time and energy to make the things you consume!

Food materializes out of nowhere, no labour is involved in maintaining power plants, roads, bridges, hospitals, all the things that apparently come for fucking free.

And certainly not through paying fucking taxes.

I am not allowed to use words that better describe you on this site, so I will use what I can: American lefty in spirit.

Arrogant, self assured, catastrophically wrong, and you will never need to pay the price because you are surrounded, undeservedly, by people who know better and will prevent your cancerous ideas from being implemented.

Better lucky than smart.

do you really think that’s healthy?

Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.

Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.

I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.

How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services?

Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?

I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.

The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.

Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?

It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.

people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system.

There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.

In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.

If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.

Why would you pay tax at all in that scenario? For all salaries to be equal they basically must be doled out by the state, otherwise it implies employment, competition, markets, etc. so why would you need taxes as a system to begin with?

How is this proving anything about broader economics? Or any of Marx’s boondoggle social claims?

This just says that calculating the summation of all labour costs is a good predictor of the overall cost of production and thus price, Marx makes way broader and wilder claims than that.

Defending marxist views on the LTV with this paper might as well be a motte and bailey; there is no substantial dispute that the sum total of costs is a decent predictor of an industrial good’s price (industrial production per-product margins are notoriously slim), while there is plenty of dispute that the generation of “surplus value” causes “alienation” and “dehumanization”.

That’s wrong.

The current economic model is based on the Keynesian model, popularised by explicit detractors of the Austrian school.

Right, the labour theory of value is not pseudoscience then? It’s based on empiricism? Care to substantiate that with literally anything other than “Marx said so”?

1 was purple and 2 was orange, green was the last color left.

Most people still don’t know anything about AI, whether it be llm based or otherwise; they just think it’s magical, knows everything, and they should use it for absolutely anything without any discernment.