Just bang Hitler's mom
ritswd @ ritswd @lemmy.world Posts 2Comments 93Joined 2 yr. ago
ritswd @ ritswd @lemmy.world
Posts
2
Comments
93
Joined
2 yr. ago
Even if it’s the wrong decision in your case to trust your gut, I worry that if you don’t, you’ll spend the rest of your life wondering what it would be like if you did.
I don’t hate it, but every time now that I get linked to a Reddit post, I look at the comments, and every time I get a little more shocked at the amount of low-value, hateful comments over there compared to here.
In other words, I don’t hate it, but I feel like it hates me.
My wife has been telling me for years that research was still ongoing about aspartame being potentially carcinogenic, so I should be careful with my at most one diet soda a day. When the news first came up that the WHO was about to classify it as such, I was like “oh shit, it’s happening?”
And then the details came a few days later, and I couldn’t stop laughing about it. 😆
Maybe it extended it, maybe not, my understanding is it’s hard to say.
One thing for sure: slavery lived on quite a lot more than 20 years. The abolition of the Atlantic trade was later voted to be in effect on Jan 1st 1808, the very day that it was constitutionally possible to abolish it; but that didn’t free the existing slaves quite yet. 50+ years went by to attempt to resolve the issue diplomatically, which eventually failed and gave way to 4 years of Civil War. So, that’s almost 80 years total.
But on the other hand, my understanding is no one really knew clearly what the King had in mind to do about slavery, and it was not in his interest to be too clear about it and risk to alienate either side, before actually taking action. Maybe he was planning to quickly abolish slavery indeed; or maybe just to limit it, or maybe to tax it. The Southern states were very worried they he may abolish, but I’m not sure it’s well known what his actual plan was. So, maybe he would have stopped slavery earlier; or maybe he would have regulated it the way he wanted to and then let it happen, and slavery could very well still be active to this day. No idea.
I’ll gladly trust you with it, I have no idea. Hopefully they knew it and found a way to do it safely. I think they contracted a professional for it, so hopeful the professional knew what he was doing.
In my area they’re alongside roads a lot, and we get the occasional post on NextDoor that shows a picture of a kid with a red and swollen face, and the parents says “OMG my kid was playing with those pretty plants by the road, beware!” It really is not fun. Thankfully, as far as I know, all symptoms eventually recede.
They’re not just by roads though, a guy I know has a decent amount of land and there was a fairly massive poison ivy bush on it, that he burned in a controlled burn. I wasn’t there, but he showed me the video, it’s quite impressive. There’s also a satisfying feeling to it, it feels like payback against those fuckers! 😉
Me too!
When my wife offered it to me for my birthday, I hadn’t seen a real one in my life. I already had been playing the guitar and the ukulele (on top of other non-string instruments) for a while, and I said: “I hope it’s not yet another tuning to learn chords from scratch on, a friend tried to teach me the cello’s tuning once and I found it so needlessly confusing”.
Oops… 😂
But it’s all good, I got over it. 🙂
Yup it’s been real. https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/must-reads/bc-government-hit-tweet-limit-amid-wildfire-evacuations-7268169
The rate limits are because serving such a service at scale without the user noticing requires continuous innovation to get through scale bottlenecks; but with the engineering team greatly reduced, a lot of that work isn’t happening anymore. Typically, you’d get through those bottlenecks by coming up with some heuristics that make it seem like the service is doing a ton, when really it only needs to do little (like by sharding data, or by pre-caching a bunch of stuff). Without anybody to work on those heuristics to fake things, you gotta restrict with real restrictions.
Source: that’s what I do for a living. I’ve been working on some of the highest-scale services out there for over a decade.
No idea. I think they’re focused on being a newsletter, so my guess is probably not.
HackerNews being a bit of a time-suck, I’m subscribed to HN Digest, the daily newsletter of only the top links of Hacker News.
Somebody posted another comment with the exact same idea, and I think y’all are under-estimating the amount of people who live under the poverty line (11%/~4M people in the US for instance), and the even larger amount of people who live below a living wage, and therefore all have zero buying power for consumer discretionary items, let alone having $100 to spend.
That’s an excellent point.
I’m not too surprised; but to take the example of one country, in the USA where I live, 11% of the people (that’s about 40M people) live below the poverty line, and that is even much less money than a livable wage where you can afford rent, food and nothing else. I’m speaking of the US as an example, but I’m sure it’s not an uncommon situation in other countries either.
My point is: a massive amount of people can’t afford to spend $100 on entertainment, ever. I spent some time with such families, and I can tell you it is not at all an uncommon thing. If they have a TV today, they probably got it for free from somewhere (possibly a dumpster), and it looks exactly like they did. That’s a massive amount of people who would desire this kind of upgrade.
Now is it the right population to serve ads to, that’s a different question.
That’s exactly it. When I was dirt poor, basically half of the people around me had a phone with a cracked screen, and a good amount of that also had batteries that didn’t last much at all. Not only was it a constant game of finding a public power outlet whenever you’d be out for a while, but even staying home, you couldn’t do much of anything that would drain your battery too hard. There was a thing at the time where some phones had batteries that kept turning off unless you hit them on the side until they worked again, but it was a while ago so maybe that was solved by manufacturers since.
It’s incredible now that I live in a middle class neighborhood, how literally every single phone is perfectly functional. It really does change everything.
Anyway, that kind of population would happily get a free TV with ads. Now whether it is the kind of population that those ads would be most effective on is another question, since they basically have zero spending power.
If you’re too broke to afford a TV, just watch on your phone or laptop.
Tell me you’ve never lived in poverty without telling me you’ve never lived in poverty.
Honestly, if I was broke, I’d consider it. If you can afford anything else, then yeah, take that something else. But not everybody can afford stuff.
I have a less impressive, but similar story to yours. I’d say it’s fine to work hard and do work that’s not your job, but the key is to follow through by demanding the proper acknowledgement and gratification for it. Like, doing it for free a couple of times to be nice is fine, but after that, the value you bring with this has to be properly acknowledged and compensated.
If you’ve been working hard and helping out, and an employer doesn’t gratify you to that value, the proper response is not to give up and pin it on hard work being the problem. That employer is being the problem. Try to change that if you can at all.
I don’t know enough to know the answer to this question, honestly. I know some stuff about the cultural state of slavery at the time of the founding of the US, and how much it already was on thin ice at the time; and that it’s actually very likely that it would have been ended or at least severely restricted by the King of England earlier if the US hadn’t actually won independence (or at least so thought the Southern states). But I don’t realize what was going on elsewhere in the world too, in a way that it would have been abolished there, or not.
What I know: the reason for slavery in the South specifically is that those colonies were funded with much more of a “get rich quick” mentality. Sustainability wasn’t initially the goal, the goal was finding tons of gold and bringing it back to Europe. When the tons of gold didn’t materialize, people had to drastically cut costs to keep those colonies going on other resources; and that’s how, before slavery, indentured servitude was introduced. It initially was a temporary and voluntary state: you’d sign yourself into indentured servitude for a plantation for X years, as a way to pay for your trip to the new world, at the end of which you were free to build the life you want there. Eventually, the plantation owners wondered what it would be like if they didn’t have to set all those people free at the end of the agreement, and obviously it was quite financially successful for them. Eventually, the slave trade and abductions, and all the related horrors, got set up to feed that system.
Anyway, fast forward to the Revolutionary War, and the English crown is showing signs of wanting to regulate that madness. Maybe not abolishing right away, but at least putting serious limits to what people can do. The war starts in the North, with most Southern states not being very interested to join, but what sets the keg on fire was, after the war started, when the King proclaimed that any slave who would escape to join the war effort on the redcoat side would thereby be free. That sent Southerners the message that slavery was on its last leg if the colonies remained English, and is what convinced a number of Southern states to join the rebellion after all.
Eventually, independence is won, but in the 1780s, the King violates the peace treaty of Paris by placing an embargo on America, in order to squeeze them out of money and force them all to join the English empire back (which obviously didn’t quite work!). At the time, the South has most of the remaining funds after a very difficult decade, and little debt (I wonder why!), but if the North goes back to being English, they see the writing on the wall that the South would also eventually be conquered into the English empire again, and therefore slavery would probably end. As a result, the Southern states demand a clause in the US Constitution that forbids the future new US Congress to abolish the Atlantic slave trade (and therefore slavery) at all for 20 years (until 1808). So with that, they have a choice between being sure to keep slavery for at least 20 years, or going back to being English and having it abolished or severely restricted basically any time. That was a key motivator for the Southern states, which tended to be against centralization of government, to still agree to ratify the Constitution.
So to hit it on the nail again: they knew so well that slavery was on its last leg regardless of what they’d do, that they agreed to a very temporary 20-year break to still be sure to stretch it for that time, even if it meant agreeing for the very long-term to something they massively didn’t like the idea of: a federal government. The rest is history.
Anyway, that’s just the US, and even with that knowledge, I don’t know when emancipation here would have occurred if different events had happened; and even less so the rest of the world, of course.
Sounds like the plot of Terminator, but told wrong.