Kinglink @ Kinglink @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is making me think...

3010. Some guy hates his job, which is to fly to Voyager from Space station Gamma 32 and clean it off, because kids like to take their spacecraft out and tag it with rude names. Voyager still continues on it's trek. The guy hates his job, it's just what was known as a Janitor on Earth, which has almost no purpose in the post-consumption society.

And yet we sit here in 2023 and would be utterly fascinating with every single part of that idea. I don't know if we'll ever reach it, but I could see a future that is so far ahead of where we are today, that it would be unrecognizable.

I hope we have a chance to get there.

You'd like to think that, but there's a lot of people who got into gaming for the wrong reasons (making a lot of money. Fame) and not the right reason (I want to make something awesome that people enjoy).

There are definitely good people in the industry, but there are a number of devs (designers and managers) who only care about the bottom line or money. They'll think huge profits mean they'll get massive bonuses, and ignore how the product will be received. It's not the investors, but involving the wrong people in the process.

There's definite forces, but I don't think Star Wars vs Star Trek in the 1970s and 80s were driven by those market forces, I don't think that push was really understood back then. The same with Munsters vs Addams family (Yeah people liked one or the other).

But that tribalism is definitely being pushed now and it's something we have to try to back away from, or at least be better about. If you love Playstation for instance that's fine.. Just don't spend your day putting down Xbox, enjoy your system, let them enjoy theirs, it's not a zero sum game.

Education of others, voicing dissent, explaining valid cases why people legally want these devices, and also reminding people just because something CAN be used for wrong, doesn't mean we should ban it. Equating freedom of speech with it too is important.

In general though my opinion is governments shouldn't try to legislate technology because technology is faster moving than it, and overall the understanding of the technology is foolish. It's why SOPA was such a trainwreck because it wasn't written by an unbiased party, but it also was written as a way to grab power, but wouldn't actually be able to stop Piracy.

Also donating to good charities is a good thing, groups like EFF do well in trying to fight against these bills (And I'm sure there's jobs you can do with out a computer degree if you're willing to volunteer time as well.

Also learn programming if you're interesting... It's fun... Where fun is defined as soul breaking half the time but orgasmic the rest :) ... Orgasmic not guarenteed.

You're not on Beta? Trust me, it's coming back.

About half the people who completely demonize this will still call for some form of it in America. "We won't abuse it unlike them." "We need to stomp out hate speech" "Think of the children".

This is disgusting no matter what, and even if you somehow think a current government won't abuse this, what happens when someone else runs the government?

It's in our nature to move towards tribalism, we've been doing it for millennia even if you think "Oh we can do better"... look at the console wars, look at Marvel vs DC.. look at Star Wars vs Star Trek. We'll invent our own dichotomies to pick sides over. Edward or Jacob, Twilight or 50 shades of grade. Harry Potter or Not Harry Potter.

I wish I could say we could be above that... but we can't.

Judicial Bias. A judge shouldn't be taking a side especially in decision. If she's shown to have show favoritism in her words or actions, that's pretty much an easy appeal... It's usually held until after the case (If the case goes in Trump's favor, they won't push for it, if it doesn't they can over turn it with a simple appeal).

That's a great way to get a mistrial for judicial bias... I know you love the sound bite... But God damn that sounds stupid for any judge to say. It's almost like she is trying to be as impartial as possible.

It doesn't on mine....

But honestly Youtube needs to make it optional if people get shorts, it's ruined too many channels, and is just a worthless waste of bandwidth. If I wanted shitty clickbait content I'd just go to tiktok in the first place, I'm on Youtube because I'm expecting some quality.

It's one of the reasons I won't let that bullshit touch my main channel. Other Youtubers have said they have had massive growth (usually counted in "Views" which they can't understand isn't the same thing for both categories) but in general shorts have made me unsubscribe from too many channels for me to even consider it.

It should be VIM

No one comes back from VIM.

Those who say they have are dirty liars... or have it paused in the background.

"It was 10 am on a sunny weekday"... supply and demand. Take the number of people wanting a ride and divide by the number of drivers available, and in some way that number will be the multiple.

Area will matter (Apparently NYC), but Uber is a gig economy, people use it as a side hustle, so during the day, many of them are probably working another job. Not to mention 2.9 miles in NYC isn't like 2.9 miles in Champaign Illinois, that can be a long ride.

But there are a ton of factors, maybe there was no drivers in the area, maybe everyone was busy, but you still took the ride, so obviously it wasn't too crazy. Uber will continue to charge what they can, but I'm sure the number of available drivers willing to take a fare for that price (The price Uber offers them, not the end user price), will always matter.

Infinitenonblondes in the comments talks about a 3 mile ride, 8 bucks to go there, 60 bucks to leave, because it was a concert. The demand for a ride right after a concert is going to be at record level peaks... of course it's going to go through the roofs.

Hey I didn't say they WILL, I said IF.

Maybe I'm not understanding it, I thought the UK had an election for parliament, and parliament was divided by the percentage of votes each one got. You don't for a specific representative, but rather a party. So if 49 percent of people voted for party A, 39 percent voted for party B, and 10 percent voted for party C, even if they aren't all in the same area, 10 percent of parliament would be party C (and thus party A and Party B has to cater to party C's desires).

Maybe it was the EU, but I thought the UK also worked like that, and at the very least in that situation party C has more power, but also both Party A and Party B could enact things for the public good as long as party C could be persuaded.

But a non Trump candidate wouldn't fire up the Democratic base either, and steal some of the voters away from Biden at the same time.

There's many democrats that even today say they didn't vote for Biden, they voted against Trump and that was who the democrats picked. They might be saying that, but I think even someone like Ron Desantis might have good odds of winning. Basically it's probably going to be a tight race if the Republicans don't nominate Trump... And yet Trump's the most likely nominee right now.

Talking about different reforms, the tv show QI was talking about the best system for election... and they suggested choose someone at random from the populace. It would make bribery to get elected impossible, it'd eliminate the contentious elections, and a random selected person is likely more moral and a better leader than someone already in power now....

Not going to say it's the best system, but I wouldn't mind seeing it attempted once or twice, I do honestly believe it couldn't be worse than the current systems.

When people get older they stop caring about their current life and start thinking legacy. Tom Brady didn't play his last two-three seasons in the NFL because he needed the money, or fame... he did it to prove a point/build his legacy/brand.

Bill Gates is a massive piece of shit, but there was a point he left Microsoft and started to care more about his legacy. He gave millions to fight diseases in Africa, and pretty much white washed his image... if it wasn't for Jeffery Epstein... (but seriously Bill Gates is pretty horrible person his time at Microsoft show who he really was, also there's a history of sexual harassment, as well as just adultry with staff under him, there that people forget about). This happens to almost every person over time, but it's the truly rich who have the ability and luxury to realy decide their legacy.

Trump is pure ego.... But I almost guarantee that he wants books to be written about him as a great president by someone. He doesn't want to be seen as Nixon and vilified by almost everyone.

Piss off the Republicans, and he'll have no one singing his praises.

I fear the reform. Mostly because most reform won't really change what people expect and we'll just have a big upheaval to be back in the same place.

Let's say we get rid of First past the post. But still the people with the most money will still win the presidency. Libertarians constantly talk about "Well if ranked voting had a "... What happens when people vote only for their favorite and don't throw a vote to the libertarians? I imagine it'll still be mostly two parties.

I love looking at Britain's parliament. I love hearing about the "Pirate party" got a seat or what not. But yet when you hear talk of them, it always seems like the Labour or Tories are the only ones who have real power. I know the theory, and how the smaller groups get SOME say, especially when one group isn't holding 50 percent of the house, but it's still MOSTLY the voice of two parties... so what's the major difference?

I mean we'll progressives, and liberals, and they'll form a coalition and get power... and it'll be different than the modern democratic party because..... umm?

(There are probably reforms that may make a major change, but I do feel like we'll see the same system evolve quite often)

I don't know, and honestly it's a long ways away still. However I don't think he is that stupid. A lot of people make swipes at him, but people really underestimate him. The dude won the presidency in the first place, it's like people calling George W. Bush a moron because of his verbal mistakes when public speaking. They may be dumb for presidents but they are presidents.

If the Republicans nominate Desantis, Trump could burn that bridge and fuck him over, or get behind him and play the "I helped him win" card and make him look like a "Kingmaker" whether he did anything or not. But I think completely screwing a Republican nominee over will harm his following a lot, as well as his legacy, and I imagine both of those are things he still cares about.

Or maybe he'll go Scorched Earth because he really is that stupid... who knows, but I don't think he's really THAT crazy.

I originally said "not Trump" And probably should stick with that. Basically that election was a 4 year referendum on Trump. That energized a lot of the Democrat base, and got the vote out. And Biden still struggled, when he probably should have destroyed him.

It honestly feels like both parties are choosing the weakest candidates over the last eight years.