SirEDCaLot @ SirEDCaLot @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

538

Joined

2 yr. ago

Problem is, the status quo of the last 20 to 30 years is significantly different than the status quo shortly before that. Income inequality is through the roof. The middle class is stagnant. There's much less upward mobility than there previously was. And for the majority of the people, that are on the lower half of the income spectrum, costs have gone up and up and up and wages have not. For 15 to 20 years people kind of dealt with it because standard of living was pretty decent before that. But you can only squeeze so much blood out of the turnip. People see boomers who were able to have a house and a family on one average 40hr/week income and they say what the hell we now have both partners working full-time and we can barely afford ourselves let alone a kid. That's why make America great again is such a great slogan, because it invokes those days when the American dream was still alive.

I would say Republicans are much more responsible for the extraction of the nation's wealth, but Democrats happily sat by and fiddled while Rome burned and were eager participants in the extreme offshoring of all American manufacturing type work in the '90s and 2000s. There was a ridiculous idea that this would somehow make life better for Americans, that everybody would get retrained to do computers or something like that, and we would become a nation 'better than' having to build our own stuff. Obviously that didn't work out.

Come to today, and while Democrats I think have better policies for the average worker, none of their messaging addresses the major systemic problems that need to be fixed.
Obama's did. Hope, change, yes we can. That was what the country needed. He won on a platform of radical change. Unfortunately he turned out to be a moderate change president but I think he generally did a decent job. What was Hillary's platform? The only thing a lot of people learned about her is that she's too stupid to hire decent IT people who use encryption, and that she has a private and public position on things, in other words don't tell the plebs what you really think cuz they won't vote for you. Then you have Kamala, magically frocked by some DNC elites to sit in the big chair, who ran a pretty boring campaign that seemed to, like Hillary's, be based on 'I'm not Trump so of course I'm going to win'. Obviously that wasn't good enough.

If the DNC wants to start winning the White House, they need to clean their own house. Get rid of all the status quo dinosaurs like Pelosi and reform the party into one of the people. Find someone like Bernie and put him in charge. Ditch wedge issues like gun control that only cost votes. And make a party platform that focuses on the common man. Not just the blue man, every man. Then you win elections.

Then they will continue to lose elections. Not being Trump obviously isn't enough.

This is exactly it. It's white Trump wins. Why people are willing to overlook all of his craziness- because his platform is one of radical change. He may be crazy and he may be full of shit but at least he is talking about change. And when you're hurting and you see the entire country hurting and you see nobody in charge giving a fuck, or worse telling you this is how it's supposed to be, you want radical change.

They also failed to put forward any real new ideas or new candidates. If you read the room even a little, you see that the American people are pissed off and want change. Obama got elected on a platform of radical change. Trump got elected on a platform of radical change. Hillary and Kamala, no radical change in their platform, both lost to the radical change pushing Trump.

Put forward some younger candidates with new ideas and new energy, put forward some populist policies, stop playing on identity politics and expecting that everybody who's black or female is going to vote for you by default.

Actually do that and you win elections.

There's value investing and there's speculation. If Tesla can make a robot that can mop the floor, even this seemingly ridiculous valuation will look like a bargain. Have to remember, Tesla is not a car company. They are an AI and green tech company. Cars are just their largest activity to date.

I am concerned about Elon though. I think he's a visionary, I think he's valuable, but I also think he's spread far too thin and he's losing it as a result. Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, xAI, Neuralink, and his political efficiency project. All of these are full-time 100hr/week jobs. Even if you assume he literally never sees his gaggle of children, hell even if you assume he never sleeps, there's literally not enough hours in the day. And I think he is thus blind to the fact that his antics are costing him support for the bigger mission.

I think both you and her are wrong. Dems lost big in this last election. So it's time to take a fucking step back and ask why. What needs changing? The party is in trouble. And they are in trouble because they are listening to big business and political consultants and not voters and people like AOC and Bernie. Kamala was supposed to be easy 'safe' candidate to defeat Trump. How'd that work? Hillary was supposed to be the 'safe' candidate to beat him the first time. Safer than Bernie and his 'crazy radical platform' of actually making the country work for the fucking people who live in it. How'd that work out?

Maybe having candidates that manipulate the primary process and count on superdelegates doesn't work. Maybe putting someone forward who polled at 2% among Democrats before election season doesn't work. Maybe 'I'm not Trump' isn't fucking good enough to win the White House.

Unfortunately I don't see many Democrats talking about this lesson, let alone taking it to heart. So I am looking forward to four more years of complaining and hopelessly attempting damage control while putting forward no new ideas whatsoever.

It's all about advertising. On a web page, which is cheap to create and cheap to host, the only ad you can really get is a pop-up or similar, and those don't pay very much. On the video, which is expensive to create and expensive to host, you can have 30 or 45 seconds of video ads, which pay a lot more.

19 minutes into a 21 minute video and there hasn't been a drill press on screen yet

And that's intentional. The algorithm rewards them for having people watch more / watch longer, and a 21 min video might have 2 or 3 ad rolls. If someone watches all the way thru, creator gets more money and higher placement in search results.

I like YouTube as a concept but the algorithms are totally enshittifying it.

Can you run Firefox on a Chromebook?

When I'm 'watching a video' I watch it all the way thru. However often I'm looking for something specific, like how to do something, and a lot more tutorials are now in video form than written (which I don't love but whatever). In that situation I'm usually looking for a specific piece of information which often requires scrubbing around in multiple videos. Same thing if I'm doing research on a product, while I might watch a review will the way through I'm more often looking for some specific things like video of the interface or does it have some specific setting or can I set it up without needing a phone app or cloud account. That requires scrubbing around in multiple videos to see bits of the setup UI. Unusable if each video has an ad

While their statement is entirely correct, they're still wrong. YouTube is basically unusable without an ad blocker. Multiple 10 to 15 second long unskippable ads before the video even starts, and unless you watch videos all the way through you end up watching as much ad as you do content. It is damn near impossible to hop around between videos trying to find the one you want because of the pre-roll ads on every vid. On the other hand, with an ad block enabled YouTube is actually quite nice. The engagement algorithm is fucking trash of course but if you know what you're looking for and you go directly to it it's pretty good.

That's assuming raw PCM data, no compression (lossy or lossless) whatsoever.

LDAC can do lossless redbook audio (16 bit 44.1 KHz) at 990kbps. All other modes are lossy.
It's probably doing something much like FLAC- lossy encoder + residual corrections to ensure you get the original waveform back out, but with less bandwidth than raw PCM.

Honestly the more I think about this the more I think that you are not only right, but putting all of our proverbial eggs in one basket with smartphones was a horrible horrible mistake. We have done too many trade-offs for convenience.

Try to buy a digital camera today, pocket digital cameras basically aren't made anymore. And even a mid-range pocket digital camera from the mid 2010s significantly outperforms a modern smartphone camera. It's simple physics, bigger lens captures more light gives you a better picture.

Try to listen to music. Almost all the digital music we are served up is lossy compressed for streaming. And then we feed it into Bluetooth headphones with even more lossy compression. The sound that actually goes in the ears sounds like crap and bears little resemblance to what the artist laid down on their master, but we're all used to it so we think that's what music is supposed to sound like. A late 1990s Discman has significantly better sound quality even with a cheap DAC.

Try to do something online. A whole lot of new sites and services don't even bother making a website, it's just a promo to download their stupid privacy invading app. And if you want to do whatever you are doing on a real computer with a big screen, you're SOL.

And then there is the unintended effect on our kids. I have always been an advocate of mobile technology. But I am looking at the actual effect of growing up with smartphones and tablets, and the result is an awful lot of kids with attention spans measured in seconds rather than minutes. Kids who can edit video and insert images into a document with their eyes closed, but can barely write three coherent sentences.

I have always been an advocate and user and enthusiast of smartphones and mobile technology. I buy this stuff, I use it, I recommend it to others.
But I think maybe I was wrong. I think maybe we all were wrong.
I look at the overall effect smartphones have on society, and I honestly can't say the world is a better place as a result. We take crappy pictures, listen to crappy music, have crappy attention spans, but it's all very convenient so we don't care.

I think maybe we were better off the other way. And maybe some of that inconvenience is a good thing, in the same way that having to do physical work is good exercise.

But that's what I'm saying. I don't want us to be reddit. I want us to be better.

I would agree to this but with one caveat Let's try to be better than Reddit. These days, Reddit and to some degree let me also has become a circle jerk of closed minds (on all sides of any issue). When confronted with a position they disagree with, people are far too quick to write the person off as a racist, statist, Nazi, anarchist, commie, etc. Rather than considering the merit of the person statement. Let's be better than that. Let's all be better than that.

Having a closed mind is easy. It's lazy. It gets you to that hit of dopamine faster, you tell someone off and hit post and you feel like you've done good. But most of the time you haven't. You've done nothing to persuade them of your viewpoint, or enhance the discussion for others.

That's not to say nobody's wrong. There's plenty of people who are wrong about every issue. But tell them why they're wrong. Have a little good faith, assume that just maybe the person on the other end of the thread has good intentions, also wants the world to succeed and society to be great, they just think their view will help make that happen better. So rather than calling them an idiot, tell them why you're right and your ideas are better. Engage with them.

That's how Reddit used to be. Not recently, I'm talking way back in the early days before the digg migration. It was a place for intelligent people to have reasoned discussions. Let's make lemmy more like that.

They don't, but that's not the point. Trump has suggested that various members of Biden's family and inner circle I have done wrong and should be prosecuted. This is preemptively heading that off, ensuring that there cannot be a witch hunt.

That is actually not such an unreasonable assumption. Yes there are groups like Pink P who help arm and train LGBT folks. But someone who is LGBT is much more likely to be on the liberal side of things, urban rather than rural, and thus less exposure to civilian gun ownership.

There is also a lot of stigma among liberals. I have heard from a number of LGBT folks that it was far easier to come out to their Republican friends as gay than their Democratic friends as owning a gun- Republicans disapprove of gay people a lot less than Democrats disapprove of gun owners.

What you call unreliable voters, the rest of us call the American people. If you think you can rely on a voter, you've already lost. You are taking your supporters for granted, just as Hillary did, just as Kamala did. Didn't work out well for either of them.

'I'm not Trump' is not a winning strategy. Not for Hillary, not for Kamala, not for the DNC.

If you want to win elections, you have to look at what VOTERS actually WANT. And voters want radical reform. The unfortunately aren't informed enough to realize they'll get more reform for their vote in congressional, state, and local elections than in a presidential vote. But they still want radical reform from their presidential candidate, for better or for worse.

There are an awful lot of valid reasons not to like Donald Trump, but lack of reform in his messages not one of them. His very slogan, 'Make America Great Again', implies change.

People are angry. People see a system that works very well for the 1% and tolerable at best for the rest of the country, and they want that to change. They want a country that works for them. It's a reasonable ask. And since they aren't getting it, they want reform.

If DNC wants to win elections, they need to put forward some new ideas, which won't necessarily be popular with big business but will be popular with voters. Bernie would have mopped the floor with Trump had he not been squeezed out. There's a few younger more charismatic Democrats who could bring about some real positive change. They always get sidelined in favor of the milquetoast boring status quo candidate.

Look at Obama as an example. Young, charismatic, and a campaign based on reform. He didn't deliver nearly enough reform but he generally left things better. It was enough to get Biden elected...

A lot of their hydrogen tech is very cool. Simple fact is though, in the United States we do not have and "are not going to have" a major hydrogen infrastructure. There was at one point a thought that we would, before battery tech improved and it looked to everybody like hydrogen was the future. Now basically the entire world minus Toyota knows better.

We already have an electric infrastructure. In most cases it can support a large transition to electric vehicles with few or no upgrades, because electric vehicles charge at night when demand is low. A hydrogen infrastructure, to create, transport, distribute, and dispense hydrogen to the population at large would cost hundreds of billions. Trillions perhaps. And so you have a chicken and the egg problem, nobody will buy a hydrogen car if there aren't hydrogen fueling stations and nobody will build hydrogen fueling stations and the required infrastructure if people don't have cars.

Electricity is everywhere though. Buy an electric car and worst case scenario you plug it into a 120 volt wall outlet and it will charge slowly but charge it will.

I'm in the same boat. Keep getting android popups like IMPORTANT ACCOUNT NOTIFICATION YOU HAVE TO ADD YOUR BIRTHDAY no I don't fuck you swipe away.