Ottomateeverything @ Ottomateeverything @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

322

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not up on EU politics all that much, so I hope someone more informed comes along and posts a better answer, but...

My distant view + guess for as to why it's different is that they have more than one party. Partisanship is at its worse when there are only 2 of you, as demonstrated by the US system - it's all finger pointing and "us vs them" that just polarized everything.

In the EU there are (at least?) 7ish "major" political parties, and while some are bigger than others, many actual hold seats and power unlike the US Green and Libertarian "parties" that are essentially meaningless.

As such, any "partisanship" seems at least less extreme. It's a lot harder to crucify one bad guy when your time and attention is split between 6 "bad guys". And different parties back different things, so even if 3 were anti-abortion, you'd have to split your slander and hate to three different groups with different OTHER ideas. So it gets a bit lost in sauce.

And on the other side, if you take a strong stance on one issue (such as this one), there are likely multiple parties on your side for that issue since there are unlikely to be 7 opinions, and even if they are, the similar ones can "tag team" a little bit since they're more in line with each other than the opposing sides are.

If you've ever played video games, games with more than 2 teams play very differently than ones that are just one or the other. Dynamics are much more complicated and constantly evolving than they are in a simple "team a vs team b".

As such, my understanding is that all of these extreme takes are severely diluted since there are more shades of gray and more nuance to the conversation and not just a constant "red vs blue".

What? You don't like a little adventure of "where the fuck did that contact go" or "where the hell is that app icon and why has it changed themes entirely again?"

People wanting to read crazy, unhinged, insane, chaotic garbage about how the world is falling apart doesn't mean that they want it to keep happening or that they approve or that they think these are the right people to have in charge.

That... Has nothing to do with what's going on here.

They claimed their "wifi" was the "fastest" because had the highest "minimum guaranteed speed". That speed is no where near 1Gbps. It guarantees 30Mbps.

This is not about having a 1-5gbps backbone, it's about convincing people that basically the same wifi is faster than the competition, which is extremely misleading.

Even if their backbone is faster, that's not even the argument they're making. And even if it was, it's not like people are likely to even notice that difference.

It's so frustrating seeing so many people repost this shit thinking that repeating the same garbage is helpful.

No one gives a fuck about the "legal" definition of why this is "allowed". Looking at this with basic common sense, what Apple is getting away with is much worse than what Google is getting pegged for.

People complaining don't care that there's a stupid loophole in the legal definitions as to why Apple is allowed to do this. If the laws and definitions make that OK, and Google's actions are held to be more "anti competitive" then the laws and definitions need to change.

That's what people are complaining about. Not that "oh what's the legal loophole that allows this". No one cares about the legal shit that allows this. That's why they keep complaining "even after this has been answered".

Even if that is true and the system is perfect at doing so....

This does nothing to refute his point. It's still giving a reason not to pay attention while requiring that you pay attention.

Even if it is accurately able to assess whether you are, and act accordingly, it is still giving you a reason not to pay attention. All your statement does is reinforce that it's requiring you to pay attention, which was part of his point.

There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.

ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.

Yeah... How the fuck is Google action here "monopolistic" and Apple literally refusing to let anyone in at all somehow isn't? What a joke.

Not to mention, Amazon already owns multiple online video services with Prime Video and Twitch. The intersection of those two already cover a bunch of those bases, so you're talking about standing up an entirely new unprofitable service that needs it's own monolithic infrastructure and will end up competing with your own services, in order to try to take a third slice away from YouTube.

It's just no where near worth it. If you think Amazon has any business competing with YouTube, you don't understand A) how the market works B) how much of a technical undertaking that is C) how much lift it would take to get a reasonable number of creators to keep the platform active D) how financially unviable the product is. Even one of those on its own would be a serious dissuasion from doing so, but there are many reasons not to do this.

That's a lot of words to say you're very narrow minded or are drinking too much kool aid.

There's many ways to solve this that don't involve us handing exclusivity to mega corporations.

YouTube purchases also don't work beyond 480p on any desktop except for Mac Safari. These companies are fucking insane.

As if *nix doesn't have file permissions? I see this more on my *nix systems than anything else lmao.

IDK why, but countries are making them bigger each generation

Not my area, but... I'm pretty sure there are rules and regulations on quantities of ships of certain classes in various waters - ie, one country couldn't suddenly float 500 battleships in the Mediterranean. Frigates are the second smallest ship, so if you can shove tons of strength and firepower into the class of ship with the loosest regulation, then you can essentially get more firepower into the same spaces.

Countries have been fucking with the class designations (which, from my very casual understanding, are totally silly) to circumvent restrictions for many years.

I mean, sort of?

We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn't be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.

Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven't stopped, and now a new problem that we don't know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.

So uh, yeah, I'll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don't.

Unfortunately this is one of those things that you can't significantly develop/test on closed private streets.

Even if we hold this to be true (and I disagree in large part), the point is that Tesla's systems aren't at that stage yet. Failing to recognize lights correctly during live demos and such are absolutely things you can test and develop on closed streets or in a lab. Tesla's shouldn't be allowed on roads until they're actually at a point where there are no glaring flaws. And then they should be allowed in smaller numbers.

or other expensive setups

As much as I lost trust in his bullshittery a long time ago, his need to mention the cost of critical safety systems is what stuck out to me the most here. That's how you know the priorities are backwards.

But why not just like... Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You'd be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.

Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It's not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they'd be selecting specific species etc.

isn't this a government for the people by the people, why can't you go and hang out in the building for a bit?

Can't tell if this whole post is actually just a troll but oh well. Maybe this take is just as stupid as it's coming off.

Yeah, you can go and hang out in the building. But there are also rules as to when. Because, you know, you can't just have thousands of people walking in and bothering the government when they're actually doing like, important business. Especially when the literal intention of the people being there is to disrupt the process.

You can't just have every Billy Joe who disagrees with any action that the government is trying take come in and start causing a ruckus. Nothing would ever get done ever.

So yes, you can come hang out. It's open. They give tours. But it's not a fucking "free for all anything goes" because otherwise the government would literally never function.

Boy I can't wait for F9.8 and F11.5 keys!