I think going from the relatively peaceful period of the 90s in the west to living through the Bush administration, 9/11, racist fear mongering and alarmism over terrorism, mass erosion of rights and privacy, jingoism and wars in the Middle East under false pretenses, the Bush adminstration’s connections with the military-industrial complex getting exposed, seeing stuff like Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly start to mindrot the boomer generation into unrecognizable husks of their former selves, the 2008 market crash due the effects of all the failed conservative economic policies and deregulation that occured the past few decades — coloured Gen Xers’ and Millennials’ perspectives in a way that I imagine would be difficult for Gen Z to grasp.

They have no point of reference to see how badly things changed under the Republican party because they already grew up in the shit, and due to Republican obstructionism they may think that it’s Democrats faults because Obama and Biden were in the White House, but much of the fixing actually needs to happen in the house. But even that may not be enough because of the partisan Supreme Court.

And honestly, in a case of a lot of cis Gen Z boys who’ve been sucked into some shoddy conservative ideas, I feel like we failed them if guys like Andrew Tate, Trump, and other such garbage heaps of human beings were the ones getting through to them.

Are there modded clients for mobile?

My high school never had math competitions so I’ll never know how I’d do. :(

I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻

I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures in place to enforce people’s freedom in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.

I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. Basically enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference.

Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):

"Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types o**f freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in the discussion around freedom.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Outrage is a social media staple, it’s not just Lemmy.

Daddy Druckmann must subsist on meals of mainstream praise and developer crunch, how else would Daddy Druckmann survive.

In-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.

When it shows that potential, maybe more people will get on board. Until then there are a host of problems that make a ton of people not want to touch it including but not limited to:

1. Capitalists and scammers are already exploiting it the way they do with traditional currencies, except in sometimes new creative ways because of either the lack of regulations or because the technology inherently makes it impossible to trace.

2. I don’t see the involvement of predatory capitalists or financial institutions changing in a fully crypto world either, because people are always going to need financial services like loans and insurance on their savings and the financial institutions will always have the imbalance of power.

3. The currencies mostly benefit people with a ton of capital to handle consensus, which further entrenches the power imbalance found in (1) and (2).

4. Insane amounts of resources are needed to reach consensus in a way that is not good at all for the environment, whether that be electricity, computer hardware, or whatever other resource. Sure we already use a lot of power to make our society run. But crypto is asking for more ON TOP of that, compounding the issues. Saying the financial industry already uses a lot of power is not a good argument when I don’t think anyone is reasonably convinced that they’re going away even after crypto were to take over, and now you’re adding an insane power or pollution requirement to run the world’s currency system.

5. Relying solely on crypto leaves people destitute if their wallets got hacked, unless they decide to utilize traditional banking with insurance (hint: people like stability and a lot of people will choose to do this over having their life savings wiped out).

6. Chucklefucks are using the technology to commodify and break the best part of the digital world which is the ability to have bit for bit reproducible copies of information.

I’m serious. Fix all of that and you absolutely would get people on board. Not even kidding. Crypto would be taken seriously. But I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.

Larian has had several massively successful Kickstarter

Well that’s the thing though, right, the genre actually literally had a major revival when Kickstarter became a thing. Before Kickstarter existed no one really understood the power of crowdsourcing.

The math only really works for 18+ inch pizzas though. The pizza places around me don’t even offer 18 inch pizzas. 14" large or 16" XL are the highest they go. In that case at most places near me, two twelves is often cheaper per square inch and does have more area than one 14" or 16". Especially since Domino’s usually has coupons for two 12s that make it significantly cheaper than 1 L or XL.

The weird thing is, I’m not sure any customers actually do care. it genuinely just feels like engineers finding ways to masturbate over how thin they can get something.

Oh absolutely. I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that something about it needs to change. Even given that things cost money to run, for profit journals that can basically act as gatekeepers means there’s also going to be excessive price gouging and profiteering and that needs to change.

Surely there has to be a cost to the infrastructure of publishing and curation though. And possibly all the work of setting up and organizing the peer review process. So they probably charge the institutions or authors submitting the paper instead of their readers. But perhaps we should treat scientific journals as a public good, like libraries, or at least have a publicly funded option. Or have universities and institutions fund it for the public good.

Wait I thought Christmas was a month away but we’re already getting presents?

Haida Gwaii taking up the entire coast and interior yet isn’t even in the map gave me a chuckle.

How often are you dudes changing SIMs? I only ever do it when I get a new phone, and they always come with one.

🙏🏻

Chris Jericho has never been happier

I find it hard to ignore the text as my eyes always seem to want to gravitate towards it, so prefer to turn it off so I’m more focused on the scene itself. So yeah, I usually turn em off.