ScrimbloBimblo @ ScrimbloBimblo @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

1

Comments

36

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think the Ford and Apple examples apply, as these companies make primarily physical products. Both of these companies really do want you to use their products for two reasons:

• Most of their marketing is literally just people seeing their products being used.
• Cars wear out with usage, as do computers, so the more you use their products, the sooner you'll buy a new one.

Digital media is unique in that it's not highly visible and using it more doesn't make it degrade.

Oh shit. Yeah I kinda forgot Whatsapp is an international standard of communication. That's still different than requiring you to run it in on your personal devices through.

Any job that forces you to use Meta services is probably exploiting you in other ways and isn't worth whatever they're paying you. Even employees of Facebook don't have to do this.

I don't disagree with this, but it sounds like you're talking less about violent crime in general and more about sexual battery and premeditated assault, which makes up a relatively small proportion of violent crime.

Most violent crime is just regular conflict that escalates into throwing punches, and throwing these people in prison is the quickest way to push them away from lawfulness and down the path of crime. Prison is just networking for criminals.

So I agree with 90% of this, and I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. That being said, the one thing I can't get behind is worse punishments for violent crime. I'm not saying violent crime is good, but basically all of the evidence suggest that worse punishments do nothing to curtail it, and in fact make it more likely. The longer someone spends in prison, the less likely they are to reintegrate into society. If the goal is to reduce violent crime, rehabilitation is far more effective than deterrence.

Based entirely on your comment, I would say the issue isn't the concept of ideology, but the fact that the ideologies that matter the most and the ones that spread the fastest aren't the same. After all, the idea that no one should starve is itself an idealogy.

Personally, I feel like most of the problems in the modern world come down to issues of scaling. We evolved our brains to coordinate in small bands of people, but we try use those same brains to coordinate groups of hundreds of millions.

The larger an organization (corporation, government, npo, etc.) gets, the worse they get at coordinating around a central goal or set of values, and the more likely they are to evolutionarily optimize around something entirely divorced from the values of any individual member.

A company of 100 employees is entirely capable of creating a high-quality product, compensating their workers well, and avoiding anti-consumer practices. This doesn't mean they'll always do this, but it's possible. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation of millions of people, even if run by the most ethical CEO on earth, will always gravitate toward maximizing profit at the expense of everything else. Even libertarians recognize this as a fundamental flaw in unchecked Capitalism.

Similarly, a government of a few thousand people can create a good constitution for an orderly society, but in a massive government of a country of 300 million people, trying to make any sort of effective, positive political change is borderline-impossible because everyone has different goals that gridlock each other. Even proponents of large government recognize this.

It's tempting to believe in some sort of easy action that could fix this, but truth be told, I think any simple solution would be horrifying, and I think any good solution is going to take an incredible amount of thought and be more complex than the sort of thing you'd see every day on the internet.

Who in the actual fuck uses notepad?

From the data, it looks like average lengths have gone down since about 2004, so this year may just be an anomaly.

Whether or not you personally agree with the military's choice of language is not relevant. You're assuming the trainer agrees with your political views, but you weren't there, so you have no idea what they said or didn't say.

You've obviously never been in the military, because it's definitely "females".

In other words, you have the right to be an asshole, but if you do it too much, others can invoke their right be assholes right back to you.

I do, but only if it's built up properly. This is also true of musical numbers and fight scenes. If built up properly, they can be incredibly cathartic and the best parts of the film, but if not, they grind the plot to a halt.

The reason so many people hate these kinds of scenes is that most screenwriters are really bad at creating tension. The purpose of these scenes is to release emotional tension, so without building this, they feel pointless and jarring. The best parody of this is in Men in Tights when Robin bursts into a love song out of nowhere and it scares the hell out of Marian.

I'm trying to provide examples of love scenes I actually like in films, and to be honest, I'm coming up blank. I think it may just be a lot more difficult to generate romantic tension in the average timespan of a film. It's easier in television, where you get more time to tell the story. I think my favorite intimate scene in tv is in Game of Thrones season 3 when John and Ygritte are in the cave.

At least that scene is funny and develops the plot. I think they're talking more about stuff like all those 90s movies that have the plot grind to a halt so two characters can punch each other for ten minutes.

For me, it just came down to how unintuitive and slow Windows's desktop environment is. Setting up the most basic customizations requires going through like 15 sub-menus or dealing with the registry. Also, GNOME and KDE are just so much prettier than Windows's desktop environment.

You're coming dangerously close to re-inventing the kilt

This is the real answer. It's easy to forget that for most people who are famous for their unusual political views, most of their overall content has nothing to do with that. There's something about politics that can turn even the most open-minded of individuals into raging idealogues.

It's hilarious to me that Joe Rogan is now known for his like 3 conservative views when I mostly remember him as the guy who hosted Fear Factor, did every drug known to man, interviewed scientists in every field out there, and did that really popular interview with Bernie Sanders a couple years ago.

The point is that every hobby and niche interest has someone who gets way too hung up on one particular issue and devotes way too much time to talking about it, dragging the whole community down with them.

I feel like it's more about distribution of responsibility. If you have a king, he's either a good king and runs things well, or a bad king and runs things poorly. A King's success is generally measured by the quality of his kingdom, which is at least somewhat tied to the wellbeing of subjects.

In a corporation, even if you have a comparitively "good" CEO, he's still answerable to the shareholders, and thus obligated to raise the stock value by any means necessary, a factor which is not necessarily dependent on the wellbeing of his employees.