sp3ctr4l @ sp3ctr4l @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

9

Comments

1,241

Joined

3 mo. ago

What you're saying is true, that not knowing how to pronounce aloud a word you've only ever read is not some kind of 100% surefire sign you're a bigot or anything like that.

It just means, as you say, that you've never heard it said aloud.

But... that also means you never bothered to look up how it is pronounced (its on wikipedia, the actual Godot devs have videos of them saying it, etc)... and it does also mean you presumably are also unfamiliar with Waiting for Godot.

So I would say you are also 'uncultured' in that way, but of course, simply being uncultured doesn't make one a bigot.

You could just not have the time, money, etc, to have seen the play before.

That by no means say anything else really concrete about you, or any other person, if that's like... the only single datapoint you know about them.

In all seriousness, I do strongly recommend seeing the actual play, probably you could find a dramatic reading / radio drama version of it somewhere on the net, or even a full video captured performance of it on a forgotten youtube channel or the Internet Archive.

I... don't know that its ever been adapted as a proper movie, perhaps a film snob can appear and call me uncultured, haja!

So... I actually tinker around in Godot.

Whilst looking around to see if anyone had, or was developing an extension I would find useful...

I discovered 'Redot'.

Basically, there is a small but very vocal group of people who are very, very angry that a Godot community manager made some pro LGBT, inclusive twitter posts, turned that into a culture war flare up on twitter...

And then forked Godot.

To make the anti-woke version of Godot.

Their youtube channel has, as best I can tell, absolutely no descriptions of any substantial differences from... you know, an actual game engine feature set perspective.

Beyond of course being behind Godot now, lol.

What they do have is a bunch of rants about politics and edrama for their 'non-political' game engine.

Also... they pronounce Redot as Re-Dot, hard t.

Godot is Godot as in Waiting for Godot.

Go - Dough. God - Oh.

The t is silent.

... of course these idiots are literally uncultured and have never read the screenplay or seen the stage play, so they have no idea how to pronounce the word.

Could have gone with Re - Do, or Re - Dough, those would have been closer, the first at least an obvious allusion to them being a Godot fork.

But no. Re Dot.

smdh

So basically you don't commonly use loose as a verb, I do, and always have, and this makes apparently me a sealion.

Dialects exist within English.

You are evidently not American, as in USAmerican.

I am.

Where I come from, using loose as a verb is fairly common.

Stop being an intolerant ass.

Was this written by Thor?

My guess is 30 to 40 % Reps leave, 5 to 15 % Dems leave, and a whole bunch of 'independents' join as well, various libertarians and crypto/techbro type people.

EDIT:

Yay, I don't have to do any too much math, they actually did most of the math.

Apologies for shitty cell phone image, here's the whole poll (3rd link in the article, by the way):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R4pZVo0ZnrQyElZQzdNtt7CQ1zwTypuS/view

...

So, ballparking a 50/50 male female split:

Likely to Join Elon's Party:

Republicans

Very likely: 23 + 14 / 2 = 18.5%

Somewhat likely: 34 + 29 / 2 = 31.5%

Not likely: 31 + 30 / 2 = 30.5%

Independents

Very likely: 18 + 11 / 2 = 14.5%

Somewhat likely: 29 + 26 / 2 = 27.5%

Not likely: 35 + 36 / 2 = 15.5%

Democrats

Very likely: 7 + 5 / 2 = 6%

Somewhat likely: 15 + 16 / 2 = 15.5%

Not likely: 54 + 48 / 2 = 51%

...

So, if you say half of the 'somewhat likely's actually go for it, then you get this:

Republicans who join Elon Party: 34.25%

Independents who join Elon Party: 28.25%

Democrats who join Elon Party: 13.75%

...

So yep, my ballpark guess was indeed in the correct ballpark.

...

Worth mentioning:

There are more Dem voters, than Republicans.

But there are also more independents than either.

Roughly 32% Reps, 33% Dems, 35% Indp.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/the-partisanship-and-ideology-of-american-voters/

So, throw that in with those previous calcs, and you end up with:

Reps: ~21%

Dems: ~28.5%

Elons: ~25.5%

Indps: ~25%

or, normalized to remove remaining Indps:

Reps: 28%, Dems: 38%, Elons: 34%

So... theoretically, the Dems are still the largest, Elon is now second behind them, and the Reps are now a third party, less popular than having no solid political affiliation.

... if this actually happened, which it could, Elon has enough money to single handedly start a party, though he'd have to find some actually competent people to... do anything other than spend money...

I think you end up with a good number of corpo Dems leaving the Dems, so the Dems now have an easier time shifting to the left.

The Reps lose 1/3 of their voters, and basically just become a cult of idiot racist nazis, paleocons, theocrats, MAGA nutjobs.

Elon party ... basically becomes the 'centrist'/libertarian/ancap/corpo party.

... and everyone would now have to figure out how to do politics in a much more complex kind of paradigm.

I... don't think a roughly even balanced 3 party system has ever existed in US history with any kind of stability, that endured more than one or two Presidential elections, 8 years.

Two roughly approximate examples:

The Civil War.

Teddy Roosevelt going Bull Moose Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_eras_of_the_United_States

But uh yeah, not stable.

And these numbers are close enough that a 3 party system might not implode quickly... or it also could.

Especially if the President just gets to remain as functionally a dictator as the last months and years Supreme Court rulings have made him.

???

Yes, thats the 'independent voter' cohort the Dems have spent 20+ years making concessions to.

They also grew this cohort by being very largely ineffectual, and allowing education, wealth gap, general quality of life... to all get much worse, such that more people are now more stupid, angry and exhausted.

Ok then, if you're unwilling to be just ever so slighlty more flexible with idioms and general examples of the flexibility of loose in English, and a brief overview of the etymology of the evolution of 'loose'...

...let me be more direct and precise:

...

Loose is a verb, in addition to being an adjective.

Loosing is when that verb is formulated into the present tense.

Loosing as a verb has multiple meanings, including:

1. Expelling something away from you physically.

The archer is loosing an arrow.

2. Letting something escape from you, or move away from you, either temporarily or permanently.

Tom is loosing his dog.

3. Unleashing something from within you, outward, often speech or emotions, but it could be something physically tangible.

Shush! Anna is loosing her real feelings on John right now.

4. Allowing something to affect the world in a broader sense, scope, or scale.

ChatGPT is loosing upon the world a dark age of widespread illiteracy.

5. Making a connection, a binding, a tether, etc, constrain something in a less restrictive manner.

By loosing the knot around the cleat, I am loosing the boat from the dock, but only slightly.

...

I really don't see how it is really that much of a stretch to take some of these uses of 'loosing' as a verb, and see that either one, or multiple simultaneous of these definitions, and interpret the phrase 'loosing my social connections' into something that essentially means... 'letting them slip away'.

I do not really think it is thus 'grammatically incorrect'.

I will give you that usage of loose or loosing as a verb is nowadays fairly uncommon, to the point of possibly being considered archaic...

But then if that is the case, as it is with many words and phrases from 100+ years ago or w/e...

...well then you'd be doing a bit of extra interpretive work anyway, not really that distinct from just being a bit more idiomatically flexible with the range of current meanings of 'loose/loosing.'

...

Perhaps I am simply older than you, and/or have read more older books, watched older visual/audio media where 'loose' is more commonly used as a verb.

I am not trolling.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loose

Go down to the verb section.

Loose is both a verb, and an adjective, and nothing I have said is incorrect.

You can very much 'loose' a friend, as in... to project them away from you, or put more distance or slack into the proverbial rope that connects you two together.

Sure, probably OP made a spelling mistake, but the comment I am responding to is saying that the usage is more or less entirely unjustifiable.

It isn't.

You can loose, or loosen a knot, or lasso, or if you are rather good with ropes nets and knots, you can actually do that to an entire net, give it more or less slack, grid density.

I guess its just become far less common for people to have practical, hands on experience with knots and ropes... its pretty important if you want to moor a boat to a dock, or make your own fishing net as humans have done for millenia...

Same goes for knitting, weaving, making clothes and garments of all kinds.

Ever loosened a waistband, or tightened one?

Less and less people have actual hands on experience with any of this, so I guess the metaophors/analogies aren't as obvious anymore.

Heck, loose, as a verb, just like that, also basically means 'to throw' or 'to project away from you'.

You loose an arrow, or a javelin.

You let loose a hail of bullets, ie, throw them downrange, away from you.

You loose a dog, to set it free, or perhaps to go run off and chase/attack something.

Which is differenrt from losing a dog, which is when it fails to return from you loosing it.

A compelling argument.

I disagree:

The phrase 'tight-knit community' exists, and is fairly commonly used.

A 'loose-knit community' would have... less direct ties, less overlapping ties between everyone to everyone, would be more... islands of people connected by a few inter-island connections... maybe less frequent interactions between members...

A social network is often mathematically/academically/professional ly described as a bunch of points, clustered, with connections between them.

Even the very word 'network' is etymylogically derived from a net, an interwoven mesh.

You very much can literally loosen or tighten a net, make one that is more pourous or more dense in terms of threads in any given surface area.

Hey there ya go, even Threads is an actual name for a social network.

I think the metaphor or analogy of social networks being described by other terms that literally apply to an actual net or fabric is... actually incredibly common.

... You've never heard a person being described as having 'loose ties to (other person/group)?

Have you never watched any kind of detective show, a 'stop the terrorists' political action thriller?

(with that inane, corpo, fake-happy whistling song)

The word 'standard' does not appear in the article.

What are you talking about?

This is what is in the article:

The Trump package does, however, include a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors ages 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors.

But this only even affects people who have both SSI/SSDI and enough additional income to get over that standard deduction + the additional deduction.

https://smartasset.com/retirement/is-social-security-income-taxable

Combined Income = Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) + Nontaxable Interest + 1/2 of Social Security Benefits

If your combined income is above a certain limit (the IRS calls this limit the base amount), you will need to pay at least some tax. The limit remains unchanged in 2025 from 2024 – $25,000 if you are a single filer, head of household or qualifying widow or widower with a dependent child. The 2024 and 2025 limit for joint filers is $32,000.

The average social security payout is ~$1980 a month, or $23,760 yearly.

(not sure if thats before or after your $185 medicare deductions, ie premiums, probably before, but w/e)

So... if your only income is Social Security, chances are you never had to pay any taxes on it anyway.

What bumping the deduction does... assuming it is actually as described in the article... means that if you have another source of income, a pension or 401k, a trust paying you out, part time employment, whatever...

Well now you can take more of that money, up to I guess $31k for a single person, before you would start to get taxed.

...

So... woohoo, a fairly small amount of people can now live a life of poverty, instead of abject poverty, until taxes kick in.

For the record, with a 1/3 rent to income ratio, thats uh... now you can move up to $860 from $660 rental.

Or you can factor in that additional $200 a month as the cost of losing your food stamps (whole lot of social security recipients on that) and the just increasing cost of food now that no one is working the fields, because they're scary bad icky brown people who need to all be fed to alligators, apparently.

Oh right and Section 8 was gutted, so a whole lot of Social Security recipients will either be getting kicked out of their housing (section 8 is a subsidy to landlords, many low income land/slumlords will go broke without it) or seeing their rents jacked up.

...

Oh right, theres also the whole... substantially gainful income thing.

If you're on Social Security, see this tax deduction cap being raised, and then go get additional income?

Well, now you may not qualify for any payments from Social Secuirty anymore, at all.

SGI calculations and codes are waaaay too complex for me to summarize here, but arguably thats the point, to confuse the shit out of people and then either discourage them from economic activity, or just kick them off the benefits.

...

Also also, just for fun... that average of $1980 a month, average Soc Sec payout?

Assuming a month with 4 solid weeks, 40 hrs a week... thats $12.38 an hour, thats what you're living off of.

I don't even think you can get a full meal at McDonalds for one hour of that anymore.

I'm on SSDI, I got this email.

Here's the full text:

Subject:

Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors

Body Text:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.

The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy.

“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned."

The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.

Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public and will continue working closely with federal partners to ensure beneficiaries understand how this legislation may affect them.

It is probably only true in the sense that... ~90% of Social Security recipients have Social Security as basically their only source of income, basically for a single person if you make under ~$25k a year, thats under the threshold, and your benefits are not taxed.

So they're just restating the status quo, and claiming it is actually a massive improvement because of this wonderful thing they did not actually do.

1984 shit.

I quite literally yelled at the introduction of 'the cloud' as yet another stupid corpo buzzword.

...

I was working at MSFT the first time someone hsd ever asked me if I had a 'cloud' backup.

What? Do you mean a remote server, offsite?

No, no, in the cloud!

5 minutes of research later.

Oh, so yes, you do mean on a remote server somewhere.

No, no, in the cloud!

head_desk.jpg

I thought so too untill they threatened to call the police.

Or playing League.

It is extremely easy to use the internet without using google.

I've done similar things in a coffee shop before, just working on my own code, and I have actually been 'politely' asked to leave by the staff.

The staff evidently being a bunch of morons who thought I was... hacking into ... something?

They didn't know what, but they were very concerned.

I was unable to convince them I was not, because 'terminal' = 'hacking' to idiots who only know anything about computers via movies and tv shows.

quite ironically, they are using syntax, specifically / , to indicate a specific kind of meaning afterward.

/sarcasm

/s

/joking

/j

I've seen all these used to more explicitly indicate that the previous statement was sarcastic, or a joke, due to irony being largely dead, but also to help with people may not natively read/speak/write english.