NevermindNoMind @ NevermindNoMind @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

309

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well Trump's fucked now /s

As others have said, a like of wood and paper form warmth. The important part though is the person kneeling to light that on fire was not shot first, someone else standing nearby was killed. Then two other people running to the victims aid where then shot. When one of those guys trys to crawl away he gets shot again. Then when the IDF troops get there, they don't seem to give a shit about the pile of wood/paper, they just look at they guy they killed, kick one of the wounded guys on the ground, and then leave without providing any aid.

The IDF's story is they thought the guy lighting the pile was lighting a moltov cocktail. Bullshit, but even if so, why not shoot that guy doing the lighting instead of just some other random nearby guy? Or how do the guys coming to the first guys aid pose any kind of threat?

What's really fucked is nothing will come of this. Just another dead Palestinian.

The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025. Welcome to the mission. By opening this book, you are now a part of it

Fuck.

The point your making is at best that journalists aren't biased in favor of Israel as a country, they are biased in favor of nation-state sanctioned slaughter. When a "terrorist" attacks people in their homes, that is horrific. When a nation-state levels an entire neighborhood, that's a "counterattack." The most charitable version of your argument is that these publications don't just devalue Palestinian lives, they simply devalue all civilian lives when a nation state uses indescriminate force. So long as the people doing the killing are flying a internationally recognized flag and doing that killing in an impersonal way, it is not "tragic" or "horrific" or a "slaughter." The fact that the human suffering that results is on a far greater scale is of no consequence, if a nation state does it it's fine. Your argument is arguably far worse.

But that's not what is happening here. If Russia or China had clustered two million minorities in a small walled area, and then bombed the ever living shit out of them, killing at least 10,000 women and children, displacing 90 percent of the population, cutting off food, water, and power for months at a time, do you think the NYT or WaPo would refrain from calling that a "massacre" or "slaughter" or "horrific"? Of course not, the bad guys killing civilians gets emotionally charged language. The "good guys" killing civilians is just the unavoidable consequence of a "counterattack" after a "horrific slaughter", proportionality be damned.

This article actually does a great job of quantitfying this bias, I encourage you to actually read it.

In conclusion, take your head out of your ass.

I was annoyed, like the OP, then I read your comment and now I'm impressed and have an urge to buy a copy of OED I most certainly will never open. They owe you a commission on my sale.

Tangential but this has been bugging me: hey journalists, why don't you ask Haley and Desantis if they'd pardon Biden if he is charged and convicted of mishandling classified information? Haley and Desantis both rationalize pardoning Trump on the grounds that 1) he's old and putting him in jail would do no good, and 2) it would divide the country and be bad. Seems to me that same rational would apply to Biden too. Maybe go a step farther and ask if Biden loses the election, engages in a misinformation campaign to claim the election was rigged, and then foments an insurrection and is charged related to all that conduct, would Haley/Desantis pardon Biden then?

Of course a Republican candidate for president isn't going to say they would pardon Biden, but maybe it's be good for a journalist to ask the question and call out the logical inconsistency, instead of just chasing "Candidate X would/wouldn't pardon Trump" clickbait for the millionth time.

California passed a law banning caste discrimination, but Gov Newsome vetoed it after Indian backlash. Their argument was that by singleing out caste discrimination, your calling attention to an Indian cultural practice that totally doesn't happen anymore (it does, even in the US), and since your bringing negative attention to and falling out an Indian cultural thing doing so is therefore racist/discriminatory. To me this just sounds like white people being against an anti discrimination law because it makes white people look bad because of their past practice of discrimination, and racism totally doesn't exist anymore. Like if race or caste discrimination isn't a problem anymore, then the law does nothing, so what's the big deal?

It bummed me out that the Indian community in CA was so up in arms about that law, as it not only would have protected people, it would have sent a message to the world, and India in particular, that we're firmly against caste discrimination. Especially if the Indian-American community was vocally backing it. It could have done some real good. Also, Newsome is a coward for doing what is politically expedient for his presidential ambitions, rather than doing what's right.

Tin foil hat warning, but it is starting to feel like Israel knows it's losing US support for the genocide, so is looking to broaden the conflict to force the US to relock arms with them.

Ps. Why doesn't this source mention that Israel is responsible for this strike, it's reported all over the place I didn't even think it was a question. The JP treats it like some rogue weather event that came out of nowhere.

I agree, but it's a hard line to draw when Trump is the likely GOP presidential nominee, and half or more of Republicans in Congress are little knock off versions of him. Take for instance, Trump's Christmas message directing Biden and liberals to rot in hell, that's just a garbage story. But it's the presumptive GOP nominee saying it, so I guess it's substantive? If you ignore it, you normalize it.

Maybe it's not news stories that are at fault, it's just that the US politics itself has reached "tablod-level garbage". Fuck I'm not looking for to this election year.

So you accept that people in NY have gun rights, and thus your initial explanation is invalid.

Crikey!

It really is interesting and of course kind of sad. She was retired, living alone, a world traveler until the pandemic hit but plunged into isolation after that. While we might think it's silly, I can emphasize with the appeal this might have to someone like that:

Then, seconds before a match ended, she'd hit her favorite creator with a $13 disco ball or a $29 Jet Ski — if she planned it right — just enough to push them over the edge and win.

The chats would erupt into a frenzy, and the streamer and their fans would shower her with praise. "It's like somebody on TV calling out your name, especially if there's over a thousand people in the room," White said. "It really does do something to you. You feel like you're somebody."

I remember my grandma would lock herself in a little room playing Tetris on the Nintendo for literally 8-10 hours a day. I imagine if she had lived to see tik tok, she'd be worse off then the lady in the article.

I'm curious, how do you feel about being around drunk people while you are sober? Is the problem the children themselves, or is being around someone who is loud, obnoxious, and self centered (which I think describes both children and drunk people).

I'm general, my main advice would be to look into yourself to see what specifically is bothering you and why. That's basically what I assume a therapist would do. Maybe it's something like your own need for attention causes feelings of resentment when someone else is demanding attention. Maybe it's just the loud noises kids make. If it's the kids themselves and not their noise and self-centered attitude, maybe the root is something related to kids resurfacing your own childhood memories/trauma. Once you identify the root of the problem, maybe you can start working toward letting whatever it is go, or at least recognizing in the moment that your not angry at the kid, your angry at whatever issue in yourself you've identified. Understanding what is going on in your own head might at least keep you from screaming at the kid.

I don't know anything though, just a stranger spouting off, so please take this with a giant grain of salt. A professional therapist would obviously be better, but I understand from your other responses that might not be practical for you.

Excuse my ignorance, as a Bing and ChatGPT/DALLE plebe, what are you using that lets you get away with people flipping the bird?

Before everyone gets ahead of themselves like in the last thread on this, this is not a Musk company. This is a separate startup based on the same (dumb) idea, that was later bought by Richard Branson's Virgin. It's IP is going to the Dubai company that is it's biggest investor, so I'm sure they'll actually build one with slave labor and all that.

Richard Branson hates public transit? Cause it's his company that shut down, Virgin Hyperloop One.

All great points, maybe my view of Meta as a single entity isn't a good way to think about them. I wasn't aware of their open source work outside of LLMs so that is interesting. Your right on with your assessment of what they've done in the social media space. I disagree on the point that they want to mine fidiverse user data, just because I don't think they need to do all this work to integrate threads into activitypub to do that, there are easier ways. But I think your right to be skeptical of Metas intentions.

On the other hand, big companies adopting Activitypub could be a great thing for the fediverse. So risks and benefits. I'll keep my neutrality for now. But you make a good argument.

I'm not going to argue Meta doesn't have a profit incentive here, but if they just wanted to slow down their rivals they could have closed source their model and released their own product using the model, or shared it with a dozen or so promising startups. They gain nothing by open sourcing, but did it anyway. Whatever their motivations, at the end of the day they opened sourced a model, so good for them.

I really dislike being in the position of defending Meta, but the world is not all black and white, there are no good guys and bad guys. Meta is capable of doing good things, and maybe overtime they'll build a positive reputation. I honestly think they are tired of being the shitty evil company that everyone hates, who is best known for a shitty product nobody but boomers uses, and have been searching for years now for a path forward. I think threads, including Activitypub, and Llama are evidence that their exploring a different direction. Will they live up to their commitments on both Activitypub and open source, I don't know, and I think it's totally fair to be skeptical, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and acknowledge when they do good things and move in the right direction.

That's totally fair and I knew that would be controversial. I'm very heavily focused on AI professionally and I give very few shits about social media, so maybe my perspective is a little different. The fact that there is an active open source AI community owes a ton to Meta training and releasing their Llama LLM models as open source. Training LLMs is very hard and very expensive, so Meta is functionally subsidizing the open source AI community, and their role I think is pretty clearly very positive in that they are preventing AI from being entirely controlled by Google and OpenAI/Microsoft. Given the stakes of AI, the positive role Meta has played with open source developers, it's really hard to be like "yeah but remember CA 7 years ago and what about how Facebook rotted my uncle's brain!"

All of that said, I'm still not buying a quest, or signing up for any Meta social products, I don't like or trust them. I just don't have the rage hardon a lot of people do.

I personally remain neutral on this. The issue you point out is definitely a problem, but Threads is just now testing this, so I think it's too early to tell. Same with embrace, extend, extinguish concerns. People should be vigilant of the risks, and prepared, but we're still mostly in wait and see land. On the other hand, threads could be a boon for the fidiverse and help to make it the main way social media works in five years time. We just don't know yet.

There are just always a lot of "the sky is falling" takes about Threads that I think are overblown and reactionary

Just to be extra controversial, I'm actually coming around on Meta as a company a bit. They absolutely were evil, and I don't fully trust them, but I think they've been trying to clean up their image and move in a better direction. I think Meta is genuinely interested in Activitypub and while their intentions are not pure, and are certainly profit driven, I don't think they have a master plan to destroy the fidiverse. I think they see it in their long term interest for more people to be on the fidiverse so they can more easily compete with TikTok, X, and whatever comes next without the problems of platform lockin and account migration. Also meta is probably the biggest player in open source llm development, so they've earned some open source brownie points from me, particularly since I think AI is going to be a big thing and open source development is crucial so we don't end up ina world where two or three companies control the AGI that everyone else depends on. So my opinion of Meta is evolving past the Cambridge Analytica taste that's been in my mouth for years.