- 1 Post
- 40 Comments
If I had a friend I knew for decades that was convicted of some awful shit like this, I’d find it pretty easy to just not write a letter about their good character. Maybe I never saw even a hint of the monster that was convicted, but it’d be pretty messed up for me to just ignore the reality of the present and talk about how good they were to me in the past. Attesting to someone’s character has a limit. They could have very easily just kept their mouths shut on this topic not supported a convicted rapist. My hypothetical friend can go deal with the consequences of their own actions themselves while I try to internally come to terms with the fact that my friend betrayed me by lying to my face for so long.
An ad-free web is definitely a pipe dream. But a targeted ad-free web should be a simple option available to users. I’d guess that the majority of the public doesn’t care too much about being tracked, and may even appreciate having their relevant interests targeted so that they see an ad that is more interesting to them. The problem is that, for those of us who don’t want to be targeted, there is no simple way to disable that. Companies have baked their ad targeting directly into the functionality of their platforms so it’s incredibly difficult to avoid targeted ads if you still want to use the most popular sites. I think this is the reality that is unacceptable.
Every browser should have a simple toggle to enable targeted ads and it should be every site should respect this. I’m not super educated on Google’s Topics solution, but maybe the step away from cookies could theoretically support that kind of reality. I don’t think Google is going to lead the charge on that kind of change, but we certainly need to get away from cookies somehow.
The US has limits on free speech in the name of public health and safety. There’s no assumption of limitless free speech in the US. People who cry “free speech” typically have no understanding of its actual legal definition in the country and just want an excuse to be a bigoted asshole without consequences.
Twitter, not being part of the government, gets to decide what content they allow and doesn’t need to worry too much about the legal definition of free speech. But, despite Musk’s claims, Twitter is not actually a space of limitless free speech. They’ve taken plenty of actions since he took over that limit the speech of individuals he disagrees with. Twitter is just interesting in giving a platform to hate. There’s certainly money to be made in monetizing hate (see Trump), but hopefully it doesn’t work out well in the end for Twitter or Musk.
Honestly, this story doesn’t need to be covered as an opinion piece. The facts that we know at this point are damning enough. There are plenty of articles that cover it better: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193676139/newspaper-marion-county-kansas-police-raid-first-amendment
The paper didn’t initially publish anything. They were following-up on tips and doing some very basic journalism. They opted not to publish some inflammatory stuff because they were worried they were being used in a domestic dispute. The paper only published a story to defend themselves after they were accused of a bunch of stuff by the restaurant owner. Then the raid happened.
I hope everyone involved in authorizing/executing the raid gets absolutely brutalized by the legal system. They shouldn’t hold the positions they have because they’re clearly not qualified and the paper deserves significant compensation. The founder of the paper died the day after the raid; she was 98 and it’s very likely that the trauma of being raided by the police contributed to her death.
My argument is that it’s not surprising that someone would choose to pay $20/mo for 1 service with all the things they want versus paying $100/mo to deal with 4 services.
The fact that Netflix et al pay their creators squat is a separate component. I was just pointing out that saying you want to pay content creators for their work doesn’t really equate to paying for a Netflix subscription. If someone wants to ensure they’re paying creators for their content, there are much better ways to do so. You can pay the $20/mo to pirate stuff, then donate to the Entertainment Community Fund, or buy something directly from a writer’s website with the $80/mo you’ve saved.
what’s the point?
Simplicity and overall cost. Pirating is cheaper and allows you to get everything in one place versus 5 different streaming platforms. I see the draw.
And it’s hard to make the case that paying streamers equates to paying the content creators with the strikes highlighting how little the actual creators get out of the deal. I’m in favor of paying for content, but you can’t say paying Netflix their continually increasing, and more restrictive, subscription fees is actually contributing to supporting creators who make good content.
Please don’t give their statement any credibility without adding the important context. Based in some truth may be technically accurate, but when compared to all the other possible causes of bird death it’s basically inconsequential.
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds
If there’s a solution, such as painting one blade a different color, then great. We can leave it up to the turbine engineers and wildlife agencies to address it, it doesn’t need to be part of any news cycle. Giving their outlandish claim any air at all lends it far too much weight.
I think that differentiation is only a difference in how the benefit would be calculated. It would be quite a departure from the current state of things, but it’s worth being part of the discussion.
Assuming we’re all compensated at different rates based on our value to the company, then one person’s time is more valuable than another person’s time. As the employee, commute time and work time might as well be conflated since it’s time spent away from the rest of our lives. It’s different for the company, of course, since commute time is not productive work time, but if we’re talking about this as benefits that companies might offer in order to retain or attract employees then I don’t think the company’s opinion matters.
I think you can factor it in along with all other benefits. Employees absolutely consider commute time when applying for work. If companies want employees in office and are trying to compete with employers that allow remote work, they need to start making a case for why the commute is worth it. Tech companies tried doing that with ping pong tables and beer, but now that remote work is so common that doesn’t carry much weight. Compensating an employee for commute time in some way seems like a reasonable benefit that companies should consider offering.
That seems pretty reasonable.
But also, insurance companies have way too much power here. They serve a valuable need, but the company made 15 years of 100% pure profit by ducking out at the first inkling there was of risk. There needs to be a lot more regulation around insurers of all types to help protect consumers.
Does Chrome Remote Desktop work on Chromebooks?
It doesn’t work for unattended access. I have to coordinate with my dad so that he can open the site and send me an access code, which doesn’t sound that hard, but definitely never goes smoothly. It’s a very Google move for a service they provide on a device they built to not have full functionality.
Annoyingly, unattended access isn’t an option on a Chromebook for Chrome Remote Desktop. It requires the user (my dad) opening the site, selecting the option for sharing a screen, then texting me the code. It doesn’t seem overly complex, but it never goes smoothly.
My mom’s Windows laptop is great since I can just login at any point to fix something as long as she leaves it on.
For some reason, I hadn’t even considered the use of Blokada or similar solution, even though I’m familiar with them and AdGuard-home locally. I’m definitely going to get a VPN or DNS based adblocker in place for them, that should help out a bit.
RSS is also a really good idea, but I’ll admit that I’m a complete newb on that front. I have it on my list to explore RSS options for myself, so maybe I’ll consider my dad’s needs when I’m doing some digging, too.
side note: One thing I noticed they really hated across all devices (and frankly, I hate it too) are pop-ups. Not pop-up ads because I blocked those for them, but app or system pop-ups. If they open an app and they get hit with 15 unskippable tutorial pop-ups, they will just hit the lock button and walk away. They will come back later, wake the device up, see they still have to go through with the tutorial, and then call me and ask how it “broke”. I highly suggest configuring devices to minimize this as much as possible. It makes them feel like they are losing control over the device and makes them panic or get frustrated, and honestly I can’t blame them. It’s horrible ux design.
Do you have any tips for this? This is an issue that plagues all their devices. Not just tutorials, but warnings and update messages, too. From a security perspective, app updates are important, but they always seem to bring some new info pop-up, whether on a phone or a laptop. My parents don’t get frustrated and walk away, but they definitely never read the pop-ups.
I’m pretty fortunate in that my family doesn’t harbor unreal expectations, though I could see how that might happen. They ask me for help, but it’s always based on my availability and they just live with a situation until I get around to fixing it. I’ve set boundaries before, and they respect them. I want to get my mom a smartphone because she loves taking pictures and carries an old Canon camera everywhere. It’d be a steep learning curve for her to pickup a smartphone now, but I’d like to set some guardrails around the experience so it’s, 1) not too intimidating for her, 2) not too burdensome for me to support, and 3) gives her a better option for an activity she enjoys.
- @middlemuddle@beehaw.org to
- •
- 1Y
- •
If the wealthy put in a significantly larger amount while working they will be entitled to a proportionally larger about of withdrawal later.
Why?
The wealthy put in more money towards taxes that go to other things which everyone benefits from equally. The wealthy don’t get better roads just because they pay a higher tax rate. Why should they have uncapped benefits from social security? Retired folks being able to live off social security is a benefit to all of society, it’s not meant to keep people at a high income with no other inputs. The wealthy can benefit from social security just like everyone else, and payouts should be capped, but they’re currently benefiting from society at a greater rate pre-retirement so that should be reflected in their contributions today. If they want to be wealthy in retirement, then they have the means to invest and supplement their future social security earnings.
Edit: I just realized some of my statements conflicted a little. My point is just that tax contributions are not expected to deliver a 1:1 benefit to the contributor for the service that is collecting tax. You don’t put in $1 towards roads and get $1 back of road use, or $2 towards schools and get $2 of education back. We all contribute for the betterment and support of society at large. The wealthy can afford to contribute proportionally more. They are getting the benefits of their taxes back in greater proportion than the rest of us by way of their wealth, they do not make that money purely off individual effort. Supporting retirees ensures they are not a drain on society’s resources and it’s important that the wealthy contribute enough to make this possible.
Do you need Prime for that? I’m not in your same situation, but I used to be very reliant on Prime shipping. Since I cancelled Prime, I still sometimes buy stuff from Amazon, but I realized I don’t have a need to get things so rapidly. Free shipping is still an option on most items, it just takes a few more days. When they’re small items that don’t qualify for free shipping, then I just add it to my cart and wait until I have something else to add that makes it cross that free shipping threshold. And I also generally don’t feel the need to use Amazon as much since so many other companies offer free shipping these days.
In my circle, I’ve seen that people are just so expectant of rapid shipping, but they don’t actually need it. I’ve learned how instant gratification isn’t actually valuable to me, but I know that’s difficult for a lot of people to accept.
I live in a blue state I love and my immediate family lives in a red state. I’ve seriously considered moving to be closer to them even though it would be a bit of a downgrade, geographically. However, I’m not going to move somewhere that my wife won’t be able to make her own decisions about medical care. We’re not sure whether we’re going to have kids yet, but there is no way we’d do it in that red state. And even if we decide not to go the kid route, things don’t always happen as predicted and I want her to be able to get all necessary medical care without having to drive to a different state.
I’d be okay with being blue in a sea of red, but not at the expense of my family’s health and safety.
I could never get into Bioshock for some reason. I started playing it twice, but just never felt super engaged or intrigued. Which seems really weird to me because I love a compelling story and that game has a reputation for being a great story. Maybe I just haven’t been in the right mood and need to give it another shot.
IMO, it keeps our those that wouldn’t be contributing anyway.
I disagree strongly with this view. One of the truly valuable elements of reddit is/was the shared knowledge for a lot of things that are not techy. As a somewhat recent homeowner, the r/homeimprovement subreddit and the mildly related ones have been invaluable. It’s populated by random homeowners of all types and experts in various professional and DIY fields. These are not people who are likely to migrate to Lemmy in droves and that’s a loss, as far as I’m concerned. Maybe some will make it and smaller communities might grow to have similar knowledge wells, but they won’t be as deep.
I’m all-in on the transition away from the social media giants, but there’s a lot about the simplicity of a non-federated platform that won’t carryover which will make the barrier to entry higher than many people want to navigate, and that is definitely a shame.
undefined_one> It’s the same principle.
It’s really not. The system is broken and student loans are extortionate. Borrowers were promised something that was not delivered.
I paid for my loans, too, but I don’t think the next generation should suffer because we bought into a broken system. It’s been shown that student loan forgiveness will have a hugely positive impact on the economy. I’d much rather we make decisions that benefit society as a whole versus holding on some misplaced idea that it’s more important we punish a group for believing the lies they were told.
Also, “most entitled generation ever” is such bullshit, pure and simple. Wage gap, American Dream© being a lie, housing crisis, etc., etc. This generation was led to believe they had a future, but they just can’t afford it.>
She’s apparently made it her life’s work to abuse the vulnerability of both bio and foster parents by leveraging her “knowledge” in a way that favors kids being permanently separated from their bio family. There are certainly circumstances that warrant that kind of separation, but she and that lawyer’s office seem to be leading a campaign of child separation. That’s pure evil.