fiat_lux @ fiat_lux @kbin.social

Posts

12

Comments

1,008

Joined

2 yr. ago

so they could be edited out of the episode and then the user could also download said episode where ads are cut out of the final audio file.

This is the part that might be problematic and I can see being part of a civil suit (I am not a lawyer). Depending on how you collect and store the episodes (which you may not actually have to do to achieve your goal, but is the easiest solution) you would likely run afoul of "distribution" precedents in the US that may result in a judgement against you.

But even if you didn't actually break the law, the media lobbies globally are well known for filing huge numbers of lawsuits over anything that even looks a little like it might be costing them money. Defending yourself at all is hard time-consuming and often expensive. It's not something I would recommend going into casually.

https://torrentfreak.com/category/lawsuits/ is a great site for learning about the current lawsuits from a tech perspective, and has helped me out many times over the last decade. It's one of the gems of the internet, in my opinion.

Switching to what alliance? It's not like they're going to join BRICS.

I channel the despair, anger and misery into working on solutions to help marginalized peoples. I don't have all the answers to the world's problems, and I can't solve it all, but I can show the people who might have the answers that there is someone in their corner who supports them in their efforts. Even if those people haven't been born yet, demonstrating the power of empathy and collaboration sets them up to choose constructive paths. If I give up on them, then it becomes much easier and more likely that they will choose the same anti-social self-interested motives that are destroying us all. But, if they are going to be able to make that choice at all, they need to be in a position where they aren't in survival mode all the time.

We're all just organisms who exist for a brief flash of time on a galactic scale, ultimately this is all meaningless. But as someone who identifies as a bit of an existentialist, I make my meaning. You can too.

It also enables me to leave the weed for wind-down time, mostly. Depends on how badly my health is doing, and it's pretty variable.

Maybe enough to make a huge difference. To be clear, I have zero problem with the concept of wealth redistribution to better achieve some kind of equitable outcome (that ideally isn't at the cost of the environment, which is the big reason that the top global richest will need to give up a lot of travel ).

I just think a lot of the people who are keen for "eat the rich", especially in its more violent forms, may not realise they're on the menu themselves when the issue is looked at from a global all-of-humanity perspective. And, I encourage people to really think about who and what is included or excluded in the definitions of "rich", what level of variation is acceptable to them, and what a sustainable living situation even looks like for the world's population if we had total equality. They're all very hard questions that I don't have an answer to either.

To an extent, it's completely understandable. To have a significant proportion of the richest people in the world struggle to pay all their bills or afford medical care is a really hard concept to reconcile. And if you're someone who has never been exposed to a sizable group of people who don't have a reliable source of clean water or the most basic of staple foods, it's very easy to not realise how privileged you might be - even if you're really genuinely struggling compared to everyone around you.

To me it highlights that the problem is much deeper than wealth inequality, even though that's a huge symptom. But that's another topic altogether.

Thanks for understanding where I was coming from though!

I'm using the original definition of the word meme: "a unit of cultural information spread by imitation". Meme as a word doesn't imply that it's a comedic image macro on the internet, but I appreciate that the more modern slang usage might have made that confusing for you.

If the question OP asked was about the origin of the phrase, your reply would be a great starting point as a top level comment.

How is it victim blaming to try to define the scope? Most of the demographic who visit lemmy wouldn't consider fast food workers to be rich, and I certainly don't, but by income they are literally at the halfway point globally. To the billions of people who are below even the 25th percentile, they may well consider a US fast food worker rich. The extreme poverty that exists in this world is a very well hidden atrocity, but the perspectives of those people still matter to me and still should be taken into account.

It's a meme designed to express dissatisfaction with income equality and the desire to fix it. What isn't clear to me is what qualifies as "rich". Because a US based entry-level fast food worker is at the 50th percentile of richest people in the world by income, after accounting for cost of living and other regional inequality.

It's also pretty clear from studies that everyone in the top 30% of the richest in the world will need to give up a lot of our privileges if we're going to address climate change, and I don't think people realise how rich they actually are. https://wid.world/income-comparator/ uses some of the latest research to help you find out, it's definitely worth a look.

I'm glad she has finally been acquitted but I am so sorry that she ever had to go through any of this

Good people are indeed dying now, which begs the question of why we would double down on it with accelerationism in the hope that the remaining humans have a change of heart somewhere along the way. That's the stuff of movie plot lines, not reality.

Some form of radical change is necessary, definitely. But doing more of the current system isn't going to lead to better outcomes. It leads to the same outcome, just faster.

What else do we have? There have been multiple revolutions and regime changes in human history of varying success and violence. We could learn from some of those what makes a revolution more helpful or harmful and attempt to replicate that. It's worth a shot before we just accept the sacrifice of society's most vulnerable in the hopes it somehow increases empathy among those who were always fine with those people suffering.

Spoken like someone who is certain that they won't be the first to suffer and die.

Accelerationism leads to a bunch of good people dying, when we need all hands on deck to fix this broken mess. Especially the people who have the most experience with making something work from almost nothing, and experience in being part of a community. Accelerationism also only keeps around those who are willing to exploit others to get ahead. And then humanity starts the next dark age with neo-feudal warlords and the people who survived as their pawns.

Humans don't even have collectively long enough memory to not repeat the evils of the Holocaust within living memory of its victims, let alone maintain any theoretical level of post-collapse enlightenment. Good thing I'll be one of the first to die!

No documented leadership hierarchy or organisation structure when there's more than maybe 10 people working there. If you have to waste your time fighting out who everyone is and you can't do it in a single meeting where everyone can introduce themselves, then the place is too big to not document roles and responsibilities officially. It leads to closed circles of people who hold the necessary historical knowledge to get anything done.

I finally gave in and watched it after multiple independent recommendations from people who had strong educated opinions on quality nuanced literature and media. The last series sort of declined a bit, but overall I was in no way disappointed. It was exceptionally well done, and importantly for me, not too watered down with tired tropes, stereotyped single dimensional characters, painfully predictable plots and neatly tidied moral threads.

I mean, there were definitely some, but, it's TV. It holds up extremely well even with age.

For sure, but insults are just (nicely crafted in this case) words, and unless the insulter is in a certain position, they ultimately don't affect much. It's not like Simon's statement is going to change Baltimore policy or shipping or things for the citizens, or Greene's actions. And it's not like Greene will be able to make funding decisions about Baltimore or declare war on the city.

Like, I enjoy some dramatic shit-slinging, but I wish "news" were more about objective things happening than someone expressing an opinion on social media that doesn't have any obvious real consequences for anyone.

I don't consider a TV producer insulting a (obviously terrible) politician to be news, but I do enjoy this particular insult. It's nicely crafted. It's a pity he continues to use Twitter.

Go with the standard politician non-answer: "to spend more time with family". I have no idea if German politicians give the same stock response though!

Oh it's less a fixation and more an interest in scale of impact. There's a lot of people out there who talk a big game but when you look at the results, they're clearly underwhelming. Edit: or worse, they're self-serving publicity not designed at all to do good. The blood donor in this thread is a great example of oversized impact, but that's difficult to replicate. It does give good food for thought in terms of things to look for that could use more support.

The multidimensionality is why I didn't provide any opening suggestions; I didn't want to guide the answers. This was so that I might find some dimensions I had not previously considered, and I was curious about what metrics others use to measure "good" in the first place. Unfortunately Elon Musk as always proved to be a topic that generates more opinions.

Thanks for the support though. Honestly, there are a huge number of good choices already, more than I could ever dedicate enough to. I'm hopeful there are some gems out there that have potential to really offset some the vast quantity of suffering the world has to offer, this was just a small experiment in looking outside my own bubble of experience for them.

The world's population is getting significantly sicker and we're blaming the victims for "lifestyle diseases" as a way of dismissing the problem. But research needs money and time, so there will always be better and stronger evidence for money-making remedies instead of the slow and complex research into why people are increasingly experiencing disease.

We're hurting ourselves, and each other, and because disabled people are excluded from huge parts of society, we're also covering up the evidence. It's only when we're wounded that the reality is clear, but by then it's too late - you're just written off as someone who made bad choices.