… Are you aware that in 2021 you still need… factories… and land… to produce things? You know,… the means to do that that only a select few can own?
How do you even come to the conclusion that the means of production of all things are no longer existant? Since when have we stopped relying on workshops, factories and agriculture?
The idea of blaming consumers for entirely industry made issues, of antagonizing working class people based on the commodities they own and making them out to be the real enemies in various capitalist-made issues like the climate catastrophe and lack of road safety.
This is all a tired psyop to shift blame for climate change on random proletarian car owners, instead of the circumstances making these cars necessary or attractive or viable or producable. Good ol’ infighting, divide and conquer.
Thing is just that “Latinx” is usually a moniker created by people on the spectrum of liberal identity politics — people who essentially think that critiquing and controlling language will fix racism and other ills by ‘changing the way people think about experiences and identities’, which is of course something Marxists identify as counterproductive as language is not the driving force behind social dynamics.
There’s nothing wrong with the word per sé except that it can even seem a bit patronizing towards actual Latine people, but not much. It just usually symbolizes a certain adherence to made up respectability language that is meant to fix racism with words instead of actions. It’s not like Latino/Latina or the better gender neutral Latine were in any way offensive anyway.
Honestly sounds kind of disappointing. No umlauts, no emoji support (meaning ugly boxes), a fairly cheap looking UI, unusable heart rate monitor, wonky pairing, and all of it just to see notifications on a device about as accessible as a phone.
This works more like an anti-ad for me. Sounds like typical libre lack of polish, sadly.
Wikipedia right now is mostly controlled by a clique of hardcore admins who through dedication achieved an “unquestionable” rank among the community.
They won’t outright throw in lies into articles, but they definitely will deny edits that are against their personal agendas on nebulous reasons such as “untrustworthy source” (without explanation) or ".
Additionally, there is no objectivity when it comes to science. It seems counterintuitive to say that, but what really is a trustworthy and untrustworthy source? If you are an anticommunist, you surely will deny Chinese state media reporting Coronavirus statistics, but at the same time use the CDC of the USA as a gold standard for your reporting, while if you are anti-America, you will see the latter as the same kind of “state sponsored propaganda” as the other does with Chinese sources.
They selectively apply rules based on perceived bias and their “common sense”. “State-sponsored media is a trustworthy source only when it comes from the West.”. “An article is worthy of creation if it relates to something I have heard of, otherwise it’s irrelevant”.
Even word choices are things you cannot really contest. And what about source choices? Some Wikipedia articles quote highly controversial studies as fact. Some quote far right news papers simply because they are newspapers.
All of these problems are even more apparent in the non-English variants of Wikipedia simply because a lot of the pages only have had one or two contributors in their lifetime. I remember reading a German wikipedia article (which, by the way, the German wikipedia is AFAIK the largest non-English one) where the author was just, without a source, talking about how the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic gave rise to “conspiracy theories such as Marxism”, and then locked the article.
And if you try to introduce an edit to make an article more neutral (not even pro-the other side, just more neutral), they accuse you of a politically motivated edit.
In short: Wikipedia pretends to be objective, but is ruled by a hegemony of people who nebulously reject and accept edits based on rules they selectively apply. There is no way to be objective because sources themselves aren’t – so facts can only be presented in a certain light. Because of the faux objectiveness, which light they choose is totally up to the admins themselves because Wikipedia denies taking a political stance.
Usually if I get something fun in return like stickers or merch in general. That makes me show off the project to others in my real life and it’s a fun satisfying way to support the team.