gusgalarnyk @ gusgalarnyk @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

386

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's how I felt/feel, but couldn't/can't refute a native speaker because I just don't know enough. Thanks for the comments!

This is definitely something that has left me confused. My past comments have been replied to with the explanation that written German is so precise but verbal German, because of the lack of precise tenses, often leaves me having to make assumptions. I chalk it up to my elementary understanding of German, but you explaining the difference a bit helped me pin point what I mean.

I don't know if I'd say I'm complaining, and I'm definitely not rating the languages against each other. But to be clear German also has variable pronunciation and loan-in words that are pronounced differently. They also have dialects and I have struggled to get consensus on several language related topics with small groups of native speakers before - so like... It is for sure random in many ways, including pronunciation.

Again, no issue with the language any more or less than others. I personally all wish we could like scientifically conlang our way into a less obtuse communication medium. But I'm also a DM so like of course I would like someone to make a conlang for humanity :D

Much appreciated. I'll do my best! I want to be here for life, so I need to learn.

As someone learning German right now, I guess it's hard to argue with relative terms but I find the German language to be built with a ton of traps and abnormalities for seemingly no explicable reason.

For instance we conjugate every verb but we maintain the subject, unlike in Spanish where we would conjugate and drop the subject. I don't see any reason why we would do that except to make the language less efficient and more obtuse.

That being said, it hasn't been too hard and I agree with the general sentiment that learning any language is a good hobby to have so I don't want to discourage anyone.

Genuinely funny comment, thank you.

I'm not debating magnitudes dude. The question is should a functioning society allow for someone to accumulate 12 billion USD in networth? Now answer that same question for 1 billion? Now again for 500 million? Now again for 100 million? Now again for 50 million?

The answer is no. Plain and simple. I don't care that I'm closer to 100 million than 100 million is to 12 billion, to simplify your point. Idgaf. The reality is neither 100 million nor 12 billion should be allowed. So why are you not advocating for a lower boundary value? You're saying it's because we need the 100 millionaires to make this work. I'm saying no we don't. I'm saying we can get more support from people if we pick a value that actually makes sense. Letting anyone own a 100 million dollars is still letting someone play king to an unbelievably large group of people. That shouldn't be allowed.

Look it, you can defend them as much as you like, I'm not here to debate the granularity about which hundred millionaire is less awful for remaining a hundred millionaire or judging them individually based on their human woes and vices.

I'm here to say the largest tent pole and the simplest message is constructed by being honest and effective. The honest and effective truth is when someone gets more than some tens of millions, let's say 20 or 50 if you're worried about the millionaires, they become a danger to society and to their communities. Any number of billion is so far removed from reality that I don't think it will actually interest most people. If I had heard that just 6 months ago I would have chalked it up to just another fake effort that won't change anything. And even if now I see the value of putting aside these nitpicking differences when it comes to the movements overall health, I still feel obligated to say dream bigger.

We don't need hundred millionaires, we need neighborhoods and family and unions and community and if we have to guns.

I don't think appealing to the worst people in the world will ever work, hence why I recommend lowering it to a good value and not a possibly feasible but less meaningful number.

I agree my suggestions are not based on data, and ideally they would be, but the goal is that no one accumulates enough wealth to influence whole cities let alone countries. 1B is still too much.

I think change will only come when the vast majority of people want it, and what motivates the vast majority of people is not a slightly better value but an actually good number.

This doesn't really add anything to the conversation. I, and I assume anyone here interacting with this content, know that things don't just change based on Internet conversations. So... What's your point? Are you offering levers to pull within legal boundaries? Or are you just stating "we need to change society by changing society or we'll never change society!", cause again I don't think that's useful.

I feel like we should be anchoring our numbers far lower. Net worth of more than 100 million or 50 million or 20 million should be impossible.

I agree with your policies and I'd support them as is, I'd be happy to get anything improved. But I'd love to suggest a lower starting point. 1 billion is more money or net worth than any dynasty needs let alone a single person.

"we can't afford all the things that make our society great"

Lowers taxes on the wealthy and corporations

*Worsens the quality of life for all Germans"

"we can't afford all the things that make our society great"

...

I'm not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn't "more than most people could imagine" kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes... but imagine?

Ask any 10-year-old what they'd do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.

^ The person I responded to said "maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetime." And then referenced $1M. I was simply anchoring to their value colloquially like you would in casual conversation.

I'm not trying to come off as defensive, I apologize. I responded to a comment that felt like it laser focused on one sentence within the article, only to be responded to by you with again what felt like a laser focused comment about one sentence. You weren't like "by the way, the median lifetime earnings of an American is badadadada. [Insert your thoughts on my comment], but I just wanted to correct your quoted value." Which would have made your comment's point more clear to me, you just dropped a random correction that wasn't super relevant to the point I was trying to make or even the point of this thread.

I praised you for correcting that value in the thing you responded to.

... although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It's good to recalibrate statistics, "US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime".

Again, I apologize for coming off as defensive that was not my intention. I appreciate the calibration of casual figures, that's good for everyone (and something I particularly appreciate).

Would you like me to change the number in my reply to 2M? Again, this feels like semantics - although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It's good to recalibrate statistics, "US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime".

But it doesn't change the fact that this article brings up a useful thought experiment, the top reply in this chain added nothing of value to that conversation which I think can be destructive, and I was attempting to point that out in the hopes of improving comment culture on Lemmy.

I'm in Europe. I would like to buy a folding smartphone as I want more screen space. They're still too expensive and have too short of lifespans as far as I can tell.

When they're... Oh idk... $1300 and last 5+ years I'll pick one up.

If I could speak directly to the phone makers I'd also say I don't want a front facing camera if there is a nicer camera on the back and a screen of almost any size. A front facing camera just feels antiquated for that design.

Sure, I guess you're arguing semantics in which case have at it. Yes, people can imagine a lot more than what 1M would buy. Yes, most people won't realistically earn 1M in their lifetime. Sure, the article had at least a single line that should be reworded.

I'd argue if all houses were redistributed to their rightful owners the price of all housing would go down - but that's outside of this thought experiment I guess.

Remember though that that's ~500k per person. So every kid, every SO, every parent. I think on average it would equate to more than just getting to own your home, even if we ignored the likely change in wealth valuations that would follow.

Elon should not be welcome in the EU. He should be seen as antithetical to what the EU should be striving for and it's common values.

Anyone who says this should be removed from politics because they're clearly willing to make a deal with the devil if it means a quick influx of cash.

The technical alpha slapped and I'm fuckin dying to get back in. I was really hoping for them to open up a beta but now I'm just sad I have to wait till October to play this.

I understand the delay to get things right, but there's almost half a year where no game is satisfying this itch which is a shame. Marathon hasn't been delayed yet and I know Hell Let Loose guys are making an extraction shooter that looks sick as hell that's due to release this year as well.

All I'm saying is I would have paid €40 for that alpha it was so good, October will be a slam dunk, but the genre will be more crowded by that time.

Lol. For context, it took me maybe two weeks to get back up to full speed on a new typing layout. When I moved to Germany they moved some keys around on standard qwerty and it took me a couple of days.

If you're already touch typing I think most changes are easy to adapt to and don't overwrite previous muscle memory. Your brain is powerful, believe it is and it will work.