I will never be able to read a sentence starting like that without Gabe yelling at andy as my inner voice

Now that’s something I’m gonna save. And pray that you’re not an agent trying to spread misinformation

Or just 10 billion into the school system? Please? Anything?

If I ever come home to 2.3 kids I’m gonna be so mad. Where is the 0.7 kids I’m missing?!

Yeah but the goal here is to escape the algorithm deciding what you consume

There’s a big difference between alone and lonely, at least for me. And I quite enjoy being alone for extended periods of time. So that’s not a con for me.

That aside, it’s what I’m good at. And it feels good to do something for a living that I’m good at.

Do have any idea about the engineering required to remove all of the bloat?!

/s

In this case, your debt is the investment

Yes the workers are generally poorer than the investors. But that’s not the point here, the point is that it’s in its essence an unfair system where you are forced to work for someone else’s profit unless you are wealthy enough to yourself be an investor that can live from their investments returns.

Getting monetary benefits should come from work and not ownership.

Again, this isn’t really about low or high wages it’s about the extraction of money from the workers towards owners without any work being done by the owners.

The common image people conjure to justify this are the small shops built by someone and then being employing some staff. You must realize though that that isn’t the biggest chunk of wealth and not the really problematic part of the system.

The biggest chunk of wealth is concentrated on a few percent of the population and it’s mostly inherited not built up by themselves. And it’s here where we actually see wealth being extracted from the workers.

The money investors get, just by owning the stock, is produced by people working with the stuff the investors money bought. The money isn’t supposed to go to “poor people somehow” it’s supposed to go to the people doing the work.

Als I hate this doubly for the kid. Your mom getting arrested for your slightest sign of independence will fuck you up.

This so much. So much bullshit is being done to “protect children” and it actually hurts them.

I think that is a bit disingenuous. They apparently asked for passports to find Israelis not just any Jews. As deplorable as this still is, it’s different from “any Jews”.

Also: If russian hools started to openly endorse the war against Ukraine in a region where a lot of Ukrainian refugees are located I would absolutely advise caution for every russian visitor in that region no matter their stance and especially if they want to express their fandom to the same football team as those hools.

Imagine putin started setting his trolls on the agenda of whatever kompromat they have on trump. I imagine it’s a lot. That would definitely make trump mad. First and foremost he protects his ego.

I’m not sure if that’s how posting things to the public works. Optics will always be a part of that.

Isn’t there value in niche projects? If we just had freebsd it wouldn’t cover all the usecases there are and it shouldn’t. Niche usecases sometimes need niche software

I’m curious, doesn’t WhatsApp require a phone number to be attached to an account? As in, I thought activating it doesn’t work on devices without a SIM card?

Hm yes, but if someone takes a picture of me without me asking for it that’s different

For background, Kristall is obviously cristal in German, which is associated with cleanliness and purity and high value. The name plays into the idea of “cleaning” Germany from the “dirty” parts of society

It’s actually uncommon to refer to the November pogrom as Kristallnacht in German because it’s the positive spin the Nazis put to that. It’s not outright taboo but it can be a dog whistle

and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.

I do agree with that, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying that there is a difference between political information and calls to action. And I don’t think making that separation and acting on one but not the other is not harmful but rather helpful for democracy as it allows more people to participate, namely those that would otherwise have to fear calls for violence against them.

That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.

The point of this law is that having to deal with calls to violence towards a group will likely alter the behaviour of that group in a negative way as well as create direct risks for that group. There is a benefit towards more diversity to restrict some speech. I think this is a good tradeoff.

Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.

Nope that is basically what’s happening here, but it is not really the fault of the people that got elected. We elected a very diverse mix of parties and it is hard to make coalitions in this political climate. This has been the case for a long time but for a lot of the past decades it was enough for two parties to form a coalition for a majority. With the right-wing extremists getting this many votes this has changed towards three or even four parties being involved for majority talks. It’s just honestly a big mess leaving no-one satisfied which in turn only feeds the populists that paint the picture of germany as a failing state.

I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.

I’m not sure I’d say it is close to autocracies, it is more a plutocracy where the money gets you more political influence, similar to the times when voting rights depended on your wealth but less direct making everything looking more shady in the process. This just fuels suspicions and undermines trust in the institutions which is how you get at least minority support for parties that want to openly destroy the system.

A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).

I’m not a big fan of direct democracy on large scales mostly because I honestly don’t think I have the time and energy to have an informed opinion on everything that needs to be decided on in a functioning state. Which makes me assumes that that is probably true for at least a lot of other people too. I like the idea of randomly selected representatives that get compensated to pause their jobs for a period of a few years. It gets rid of some of the bad incentives the party systems have created with people focusing on political “careers” making themselves dependent on being popular.