TonyOstrich @ TonyOstrich @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

296

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not OP, but absolutely.

You are bringing a human life into existence a decision they have no say in.

X to doubt

Depending on your PoV number two sounds like a win-win. You either get an employee you want, or you at least know that you were able to help someone obtain an actual job/offer. That's pretty cool actually.

That's the point of GSM standardizing the encryption method. Progress is slow until it isn't. We have to start somewhere.

But RCS is intended to be an industry standard. A user doesn't install the internet on their phone, they install a web browser that is able to interact with the various standards that make the internet. In the same way RCS should make those other messaging apps either irrelevant or force them to become somewhat more interoperable while potentially making it easier for open source solutions.

That being said, Google are being absolute cunts when it comes to RCS. They bitched about Apple not supporting it while simultaneously making it nearly impossible to have any app other than theirs that can do RCS messaging.

The immigration process isn't exactly super easy though.

But why should they have to? They had nothing to do with it.

Wouldn't that be unfair to the developing country?

This is what around half of the voting public wants. I'm going to be doing what I can to try to fight against this (for as long as I remain anyway), but the rest of the world needs to plan as if the U.S. is an enemy state and an active threat. We should be given no benefit of the doubt. No trust. Assume the worst and then try and think about how it could be even worse and go with that.

Anything that results in more human suffering than the alternative. Like I said before one is demonstrably worse than the other. We don't live in a movie or book. I'm going to keep fighting the same I always have, and I can do that WHILE choosing the option with less suffering.

Do you actually think the same number of people would die under Biden or Harris? Assuming your comparison is entirely correct the conclusion implies a singular choice. Fighting the entire system can happen in every scenario. If voting for the lesser of two evils is able to reduce the harm to a few people or buy time to fight the system then that seems like the better choice. Mussolini only caused the deaths of thousands, not the millions Hitler did. Maybe at that level those are just statistics, each and every person between those numbers has friends and family that would disagree.

"While evil triumphs and your rigid ideals crumbles into blood stained dust the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns".

I despised Biden and Harris. Voting for them brought me no joy. However I can say that I am already seeing additional harm being done that was not before Trump won.

That's all well and good, but it's also not the question I am asking. Assuming your statement is correct, are you saying everything would be just as bad as it is or is going to get with Harris or Biden?

Hell yeah. Halo Custom Edition will run on a potato. We played it in highschool off of flash drives on Pentium 4HT desktops with integrated graphics.

So you are saying things would be exactly as bad had Harris or Biden won?

*than

You joke, but I have absolutely created an ad-hoc wireless network and gamed with people I'm traveling with on a flight before.

I'd rather bet on the bear if it could vote.

There was similar energy in the mid terms after RvW was overturned, but it seemed to have dried up by the time of the election. I'm always hopeful, but it's not a bet I would take.

That's the issue I have with a lot of talk about equity or equality even from people on the left. They will practically make it their entire identity, but then when faced with a scenario where they could improve the situation overall for the group at the cost of sacrificing or giving up some amount of privilege or prosperity they pull the latter up. Everyone is about equity and equality when they stand to gain, but they won't go much out of their way to help things

Note: I am very liberal in a lot of my social beliefs and have a very strong sense of or drive to achieving equity, fairness, and justice. Which often results in making a lot of the people I mentioned above seem kinda phony to me.

My personal experience with this is that I am mildly on the spectrum. Most wouldn't notice or guess it though due in part to the fact that I somehow managed to balloon animal a lot of the social interaction and language abilities to the problem solving analytical part of my skill set. What this means is that I am always having to "translate" what I'm thinking into normal people talk and normal people talk into how I think with every conversation and interaction.

I don't even have much of an issue with that aspect perse. I know I'm the odd one out, and while not fair it's understandable. What is frustrating is how little effort others seem to be willing to put forth. This obviously manifests in relationships the most acutely. I'm not usually even looking for 50/50. I'm more than willing to do the bulk of the work. All I want is for them to meet me somewhere on that bridge. Give me 80/20, 90/10, fuck I'll take three or four steps onto the bridge, but no. Anything that requires they actively engage in thinking rather than doing everything off of vibes and they nope out so fast. I have had so many conversations where I essentially point out blatant inconsistencies between what they say they believe in (like equity or DEI) and what they actually want said either explicitly or through their actions and they inevitably end up saying something like "it's just my preference".

Having a preference doesn't just absolve a person of hypocrisy, bigotry, racism, or any other belief that disenfranchises or puts down the marginalized and outcast.

We didn't deserve her, but I am honored and grateful to have had her working for my interests. What she was or wasn't able to accomplish wasn't for lack of trying.