This isn't a one or the other situation. People can and often are against both AI image generation and private jets/yachts. You're inventing a person that dislikes one but likes the other.
This is a shitposting community, not a political discourse community. This shitpost is about AI usage, not private jets/yachts. You are expressing residual anger in a place that did not earn this anger, on a subject no one was talking about in this thread (at least), and is not logical or useful to (at least) me.
Yachts and private jets are bad. I'd go so far as to say most cruises are bad. The super rich are evil, not just bad, but actively harmful individuals that we should as a society agree to ban. I'd be the first person to say tax every euro over 20 million in wealth and tax 95% of every euro over 10 million, and 90% over 5. I don't want anyone in the world to have more than 20 million in wealth.
I also find it acceptable for people to be upset about AI images. These are not mutually exclusive desires, I didn't forget about jets, I didn't forget about cows, I didn't forget about corn (in the US), I'm just not expressing my full spectrum of beliefs on a shitposting thread.
The crazy thing is I didn't say that. I swear some online commenters have a personal issue they'd like to show horn into every conversation.
If you can agree with:
food is more necessary than AI generated pictures
Then you agree with my point.
I agree with your entirely separate and previously undiscussed point that animal agriculture is not necessary for our societal food needs to be met. Or at least I'm pretty sure I agree with that statement, I guess idk the difference between 0% and any needs for there to still be 10% or something. But still.
Fuckin focus mate, it's not about getting the high ground at any cost. It's about trying to have a discussion with a person you can't see or hear and yet is still a person somewhere in the world.
I think it's an extremely flawed idea to say "you have to speak out against all things when applying a rule, to ever speak out against one thing when applying that rule". It's one thing to expect logical consistency, it's another thing to realize a tweet is only so long and we can't talk about every injustice or stupidity everytime we talk about any one of those things.
I agree people should eat less beef but like... You do know you need to eat. A cheeseburger has arguably infinite more value than an AI generated "art" piece. Comparing food to Ghibli-fied profile pics is not exactly apples to apples.
Yes, I agree people critique things most easily when it doesn't require them to change. I'm just saying 1) you can absolutely critique the system from within the system 2) you do not have to critique all issues when critiquing one issue 3) food should not be a comparison point for wasteful excesses because food, although it can be wasteful, is necessary.
I got flamed on a discord for showing my runtime as like 9 days or something since my last sudo pacman. What is the conventional wisdom for upgrade scheduling? I typically do like once a week but I don't mind if it ends up being once a month. Is that bad?
I was tempted to switch to Nix but the reviews I've seen said it's a lot more work than Arch and there's less compatibility (although i find arch to not really be time intensive but I do have compatibility issues still here and there).
Just to play devil's advocate, everything is politics. If wages were higher, if multi-millionaires didn't exist, if you owned your home and had a larger say in your communities laws and regulations, if your anti-trust agency was doing their job, if you owned a part of your work the AI bubble would look wildly different if not be impossible in its current form. We're seeing the effects of wild wealth concentration and financial markets detached from their underlying financial output.
Im just constantly shocked how many people will come out of the wood work to defend people with Nazi beliefs when you just include one thing they did within society.
Like a post about DHH being a Nazi feels like it would get no traffic, but say "the creator of Omarchy, DHH, is a nazi" and ya I guess the libertarians poor out of the background noise to shout about how someone who made something can't be bad? Like why pretend you're a libertarian if you're actually just a fascist conservative who wishes racist policies were better for the economy. It's cosplaying an enlightened conservative while remaining true to the core identity which is make everything worse for everyone at every opportunity.
Then go read DHH's blog before you defend a guy with Nazi beliefs dude. Are you seriously responding everywhere in this thread and you're happy to call MAGA fascists but not DHH?! He's talking about the exact same political hate speech. "Migrants are bad, we need a strong leader, free speech is dying (but actually my only examples are racists and homophobes getting arrested for disturbing the peace)(explicitly not the Palestine speech arrests)" like not a single word about the ultra rich destroying his country and culture. Not a single word about valuing people who don't look like him. Not a single positive thing that would tell someone "oh this isn't a boilerplate nazi". He is nationalist, he is racist, he is afraid, and he is too stupid to point to the source of the problem that every country in the world is facing right now.
And you're defending him. A guy with nazi beliefs. Online, where everyone can write a note next to your username and go "defends Nazi's". And you're saying you haven't even read his blog?!
DHH explicitly calls for a strong leader and that they must be followed. I read ONE of his blog posts to verify he's what everyone is saying he is, and ya in plain English he was parroting the same racist, racist, authoritarian bullshit every sad loser who refuses to go to therapy is spouting. Literally break bread with a black person, get offline and read a book written by a famous dead marginalized person (like Frankenstein or something it's not hard to find an applicable and enjoyable book), and realize poor immigrants can't afford the housing in London and then think about why housing everyone is getting more expensive AND the world has a trillionaire.
It's really not very hard to draw the correct connections vs the wrong one.
I can't imagine someone hearing racist beliefs and then defending them as just opinions someone can have. Like that's fuckin crazy. Corporate media has done such a number on people they can't even recognize the swastika on their fuckin arm.
About which part bud? Use your words. Which part of DHH's blogs do you agree with and which do you think people are saying is racist and fascist but aren't?
That's a ton of assumptions that I think do not hold any real water. The smartest car purchase for most urban or suburban commuters in the US (and likely most other car dependent countries) is a used EV. The best ones have heavily depreciated because of the top 10% churning their cars, they have 80-90% of their battery range (which most people don't even need), and they cost almost nothing to own and operate.
I would argue no one should be buying a car with the intention of selling it later, because all cars depreciate terribly (COVID was a very unique circumstance).
The warranty does not care about the value of the car, it's only for parts and repair so what you said doesn't make any sense.
Your other point is if you buy a depreciating asset with a loan and then lose your income you'll have a hard time paying off that loan. That's literally true for everything in the world. No one should be buying a car they can't afford, and definitely not with a loan they can't safely afford. There's always refinancing which would in your hypothetical would always be a better move as again the ongoing cost of an EV is something like 1/6th or 1/10th of a gas car.
I think you're giving terrible advice and have been given very bad information.
That's a good thing, is the point of this article and general wisdom. Cars last 10+ years so for the used market, the sooner the car depreciates the better. Unless you plan to sell your car, depreciation rarely matters right? You buy a car to run it into the ground, so the cheaper to start the better.
It educates people on the fact 8/8/8 wasn't always a thing and the only way we got it was through unions and activism. I think an intelligent person can easily draw a line between progress being made 200 years ago and how nothing has changed the 8/8/8 agreement since.
To me that's empowerment to fighting for 4/4/4 or 30 hour work weeks or anything better than our current dated set up. It tells us we can fight for a better future and present.
They want to cut welfare by any means, because then they can lower the taxes on the rich and powerful. Starting a war is a fantastic source of both fear for the populace (making them more willing to treat permanent loss of quality of life as a merely temporary set back) and contracts with which to funnel money to the already rich and powerful.
Don't be fooled. Russia is a threat to the sovereignty of Ukraine and other nearby countries and we should absolutely help them defend themselves (and even push the offensive if it means ending the war). But we should absolutely not funnel money into a war machine designed only to ratchet funding further up and eventually demand a foe we can use our weapons on.
We should not start a war because we refuse to tax the rich. This journalist and this outlet should be publicly ridiculed for their pro-warfare, anti-welfare stance. Society should be about progress and strong financial security for every person is a meaningful metric of said progress.
I think your responses to this are taking extreme theoretical positions that aren't true. So for instance, the extreme theory of "I don't support them because one of their (still financially connected) founders is a nazi" is "I must research all company's I support for their political beliefs" and that's not true - that's an extreme stance.
My real stance is "everyone should strive to be as ethical a consumer as they possibly can be - given their time, energy, and financial situations." It's not my job to research every company and I don't have time/energy to research every provider of every product I consume; but I do what I can. It's the job of the journalist to dig up these meaningful stories and distribute them to their community, that's why that job is so important. And easily getting these stories distributed to me is why I'm on Lemmy (or back in the day reddit).
So no, I do not have to research everyone to reduce my euros from going to Nazi's. If my options are known Nazi or unknown something - I expect a reasonable person to always go with the unknown.
And I do want to live in a society where Nazi beliefs have real life consequences, including and especially at work. The extreme stance is "all beliefs can be held against you at work" and that's wrong. There's a difference between a person wanting their government to tax them 2% less and a person wanting their government to expunge all black people to countries they may have never even visited. There's a difference between being a part of the NRA and being a part of the KKK. You can be in party that worsens your country and your quality of life and makes the world slowly worse (like pre-trump modern republicans in the US or the CDU in Germany). You can't be in party that is actively looking to dismantle civil rights, harm the out-groups, and make society rapidly worse (like Republicans, AfD, reform for britain, or the Nazi party).
Everyone should want to live in a society where, if their coworkers are racist their company does something about it. Because that gets rid of racists at best or at worst it makes them sneakier - more quiet. Their has to be societal consequences for holding societally destructive beliefs. Should they starve? No. We should have Universal Basic Income. Should they be kicked out of their home? No, they should own their home and there shouldn't be landlords. Should they be removed from any position of power and barred from ever holding one again? Yes, absolutely. They should be "tarred and feathered", we should put a badge on them that says "dangerous and hateful" and we should treat them as such - they only get to hold jobs which can't hurt other people they seek to hurt.
There is a difference between ideas destructive to society and most normal ideas and you should want to treat them differently.
As another user said, IVPN or airvpn were the ones that came up in my last search. I have removed proton for them having the same trump supporting tech bros problem.
My understanding is one of mullvads primary owners and creators donates a significant portion of their country's far right party's annual budget. Their policies, last I checked, included things like remigration or the forced expulsion of citizens based off of arbitrary and immutable characteristics (think bloodline or skin color). They're akin to the AfD or Republicans. Theoretically a meaningful % of money spent on Mullvad goes to a person actively trying to make the world worse, like Elon Musk or JK Rowling.
So some people, including me, stopped supporting mullvad until the person is completely financially and influentially disconnected from the company.
Hey, I'm a real person who organically discovered this news and made behavioral changes based on the news.
I am not a nazi. I do not want to support nazi policies or beliefs or people who would strengthen and distribute Nazi policies or beliefs. If someone supports forcibly relocating citizens based off their bloodline history or the color of their present day skin, I think they should be as far away from a position of power as society can possibly manage while still treating them like a human.
I believe, based on the Mullvad news, that one of the main benefactors if mullvad - meaning one of the guys who got a % for every euro I spent on the service - actively and meaningfully supports a national party with policies akin to Nazis. I want as much of my money to go to NOT-Nazis as possible, ideally 100%. So I left Mullvad for... I think it's airvpn. Or ivpn actually, although I considered airvpn.
I don't think this is a crazy response. I also wish it was the overwhelmingly common response.
I wish people would think about the comments they're posting online as independent thoughts.
"Taxes do better good than charties can with money" is a reasonable opinion and one I could agree with.
"The billionaire is right about charities hurting people more than they help" is a stance that sounds crazy on it's own given what good charities do in the world.
Tying them together doesn't make the second one better just because the first one might be true. Imagine saying "charities that spend 90% of the money they make trying to cure cancer or provide food and shelter to kids or provide vaccines to poor locations are bad organizations for society." You'd get boo'ed by your good friends.
This isn't a one or the other situation. People can and often are against both AI image generation and private jets/yachts. You're inventing a person that dislikes one but likes the other.
This is a shitposting community, not a political discourse community. This shitpost is about AI usage, not private jets/yachts. You are expressing residual anger in a place that did not earn this anger, on a subject no one was talking about in this thread (at least), and is not logical or useful to (at least) me.
Yachts and private jets are bad. I'd go so far as to say most cruises are bad. The super rich are evil, not just bad, but actively harmful individuals that we should as a society agree to ban. I'd be the first person to say tax every euro over 20 million in wealth and tax 95% of every euro over 10 million, and 90% over 5. I don't want anyone in the world to have more than 20 million in wealth.
I also find it acceptable for people to be upset about AI images. These are not mutually exclusive desires, I didn't forget about jets, I didn't forget about cows, I didn't forget about corn (in the US), I'm just not expressing my full spectrum of beliefs on a shitposting thread.
The crazy thing is I didn't say that. I swear some online commenters have a personal issue they'd like to show horn into every conversation.
If you can agree with:
Then you agree with my point.
I agree with your entirely separate and previously undiscussed point that animal agriculture is not necessary for our societal food needs to be met. Or at least I'm pretty sure I agree with that statement, I guess idk the difference between 0% and any needs for there to still be 10% or something. But still.
Fuckin focus mate, it's not about getting the high ground at any cost. It's about trying to have a discussion with a person you can't see or hear and yet is still a person somewhere in the world.
I think it's an extremely flawed idea to say "you have to speak out against all things when applying a rule, to ever speak out against one thing when applying that rule". It's one thing to expect logical consistency, it's another thing to realize a tweet is only so long and we can't talk about every injustice or stupidity everytime we talk about any one of those things.
I agree people should eat less beef but like... You do know you need to eat. A cheeseburger has arguably infinite more value than an AI generated "art" piece. Comparing food to Ghibli-fied profile pics is not exactly apples to apples.
Yes, I agree people critique things most easily when it doesn't require them to change. I'm just saying 1) you can absolutely critique the system from within the system 2) you do not have to critique all issues when critiquing one issue 3) food should not be a comparison point for wasteful excesses because food, although it can be wasteful, is necessary.
It was a rowdy crowd, I choose to take it in jest. Thanks for this advice, I appreciate it.
I got flamed on a discord for showing my runtime as like 9 days or something since my last sudo pacman. What is the conventional wisdom for upgrade scheduling? I typically do like once a week but I don't mind if it ends up being once a month. Is that bad?
I was tempted to switch to Nix but the reviews I've seen said it's a lot more work than Arch and there's less compatibility (although i find arch to not really be time intensive but I do have compatibility issues still here and there).
Just to play devil's advocate, everything is politics. If wages were higher, if multi-millionaires didn't exist, if you owned your home and had a larger say in your communities laws and regulations, if your anti-trust agency was doing their job, if you owned a part of your work the AI bubble would look wildly different if not be impossible in its current form. We're seeing the effects of wild wealth concentration and financial markets detached from their underlying financial output.
Im just constantly shocked how many people will come out of the wood work to defend people with Nazi beliefs when you just include one thing they did within society.
Like a post about DHH being a Nazi feels like it would get no traffic, but say "the creator of Omarchy, DHH, is a nazi" and ya I guess the libertarians poor out of the background noise to shout about how someone who made something can't be bad? Like why pretend you're a libertarian if you're actually just a fascist conservative who wishes racist policies were better for the economy. It's cosplaying an enlightened conservative while remaining true to the core identity which is make everything worse for everyone at every opportunity.
Then go read DHH's blog before you defend a guy with Nazi beliefs dude. Are you seriously responding everywhere in this thread and you're happy to call MAGA fascists but not DHH?! He's talking about the exact same political hate speech. "Migrants are bad, we need a strong leader, free speech is dying (but actually my only examples are racists and homophobes getting arrested for disturbing the peace)(explicitly not the Palestine speech arrests)" like not a single word about the ultra rich destroying his country and culture. Not a single word about valuing people who don't look like him. Not a single positive thing that would tell someone "oh this isn't a boilerplate nazi". He is nationalist, he is racist, he is afraid, and he is too stupid to point to the source of the problem that every country in the world is facing right now.
And you're defending him. A guy with nazi beliefs. Online, where everyone can write a note next to your username and go "defends Nazi's". And you're saying you haven't even read his blog?!
DHH explicitly calls for a strong leader and that they must be followed. I read ONE of his blog posts to verify he's what everyone is saying he is, and ya in plain English he was parroting the same racist, racist, authoritarian bullshit every sad loser who refuses to go to therapy is spouting. Literally break bread with a black person, get offline and read a book written by a famous dead marginalized person (like Frankenstein or something it's not hard to find an applicable and enjoyable book), and realize poor immigrants can't afford the housing in London and then think about why housing everyone is getting more expensive AND the world has a trillionaire.
It's really not very hard to draw the correct connections vs the wrong one.
I can't imagine someone hearing racist beliefs and then defending them as just opinions someone can have. Like that's fuckin crazy. Corporate media has done such a number on people they can't even recognize the swastika on their fuckin arm.
About which part bud? Use your words. Which part of DHH's blogs do you agree with and which do you think people are saying is racist and fascist but aren't?
If you're gonna defend Nazi beliefs, defend them.
That's a ton of assumptions that I think do not hold any real water. The smartest car purchase for most urban or suburban commuters in the US (and likely most other car dependent countries) is a used EV. The best ones have heavily depreciated because of the top 10% churning their cars, they have 80-90% of their battery range (which most people don't even need), and they cost almost nothing to own and operate.
I would argue no one should be buying a car with the intention of selling it later, because all cars depreciate terribly (COVID was a very unique circumstance).
The warranty does not care about the value of the car, it's only for parts and repair so what you said doesn't make any sense.
Your other point is if you buy a depreciating asset with a loan and then lose your income you'll have a hard time paying off that loan. That's literally true for everything in the world. No one should be buying a car they can't afford, and definitely not with a loan they can't safely afford. There's always refinancing which would in your hypothetical would always be a better move as again the ongoing cost of an EV is something like 1/6th or 1/10th of a gas car.
I think you're giving terrible advice and have been given very bad information.
That's a good thing, is the point of this article and general wisdom. Cars last 10+ years so for the used market, the sooner the car depreciates the better. Unless you plan to sell your car, depreciation rarely matters right? You buy a car to run it into the ground, so the cheaper to start the better.
It educates people on the fact 8/8/8 wasn't always a thing and the only way we got it was through unions and activism. I think an intelligent person can easily draw a line between progress being made 200 years ago and how nothing has changed the 8/8/8 agreement since.
To me that's empowerment to fighting for 4/4/4 or 30 hour work weeks or anything better than our current dated set up. It tells us we can fight for a better future and present.
They want to cut welfare by any means, because then they can lower the taxes on the rich and powerful. Starting a war is a fantastic source of both fear for the populace (making them more willing to treat permanent loss of quality of life as a merely temporary set back) and contracts with which to funnel money to the already rich and powerful.
Don't be fooled. Russia is a threat to the sovereignty of Ukraine and other nearby countries and we should absolutely help them defend themselves (and even push the offensive if it means ending the war). But we should absolutely not funnel money into a war machine designed only to ratchet funding further up and eventually demand a foe we can use our weapons on.
We should not start a war because we refuse to tax the rich. This journalist and this outlet should be publicly ridiculed for their pro-warfare, anti-welfare stance. Society should be about progress and strong financial security for every person is a meaningful metric of said progress.
I think your responses to this are taking extreme theoretical positions that aren't true. So for instance, the extreme theory of "I don't support them because one of their (still financially connected) founders is a nazi" is "I must research all company's I support for their political beliefs" and that's not true - that's an extreme stance.
My real stance is "everyone should strive to be as ethical a consumer as they possibly can be - given their time, energy, and financial situations." It's not my job to research every company and I don't have time/energy to research every provider of every product I consume; but I do what I can. It's the job of the journalist to dig up these meaningful stories and distribute them to their community, that's why that job is so important. And easily getting these stories distributed to me is why I'm on Lemmy (or back in the day reddit).
So no, I do not have to research everyone to reduce my euros from going to Nazi's. If my options are known Nazi or unknown something - I expect a reasonable person to always go with the unknown.
And I do want to live in a society where Nazi beliefs have real life consequences, including and especially at work. The extreme stance is "all beliefs can be held against you at work" and that's wrong. There's a difference between a person wanting their government to tax them 2% less and a person wanting their government to expunge all black people to countries they may have never even visited. There's a difference between being a part of the NRA and being a part of the KKK. You can be in party that worsens your country and your quality of life and makes the world slowly worse (like pre-trump modern republicans in the US or the CDU in Germany). You can't be in party that is actively looking to dismantle civil rights, harm the out-groups, and make society rapidly worse (like Republicans, AfD, reform for britain, or the Nazi party).
Everyone should want to live in a society where, if their coworkers are racist their company does something about it. Because that gets rid of racists at best or at worst it makes them sneakier - more quiet. Their has to be societal consequences for holding societally destructive beliefs. Should they starve? No. We should have Universal Basic Income. Should they be kicked out of their home? No, they should own their home and there shouldn't be landlords. Should they be removed from any position of power and barred from ever holding one again? Yes, absolutely. They should be "tarred and feathered", we should put a badge on them that says "dangerous and hateful" and we should treat them as such - they only get to hold jobs which can't hurt other people they seek to hurt.
There is a difference between ideas destructive to society and most normal ideas and you should want to treat them differently.
As another user said, IVPN or airvpn were the ones that came up in my last search. I have removed proton for them having the same trump supporting tech bros problem.
My understanding is one of mullvads primary owners and creators donates a significant portion of their country's far right party's annual budget. Their policies, last I checked, included things like remigration or the forced expulsion of citizens based off of arbitrary and immutable characteristics (think bloodline or skin color). They're akin to the AfD or Republicans. Theoretically a meaningful % of money spent on Mullvad goes to a person actively trying to make the world worse, like Elon Musk or JK Rowling.
So some people, including me, stopped supporting mullvad until the person is completely financially and influentially disconnected from the company.
Hey, I'm a real person who organically discovered this news and made behavioral changes based on the news.
I am not a nazi. I do not want to support nazi policies or beliefs or people who would strengthen and distribute Nazi policies or beliefs. If someone supports forcibly relocating citizens based off their bloodline history or the color of their present day skin, I think they should be as far away from a position of power as society can possibly manage while still treating them like a human.
I believe, based on the Mullvad news, that one of the main benefactors if mullvad - meaning one of the guys who got a % for every euro I spent on the service - actively and meaningfully supports a national party with policies akin to Nazis. I want as much of my money to go to NOT-Nazis as possible, ideally 100%. So I left Mullvad for... I think it's airvpn. Or ivpn actually, although I considered airvpn.
I don't think this is a crazy response. I also wish it was the overwhelmingly common response.
I wish people would think about the comments they're posting online as independent thoughts.
"Taxes do better good than charties can with money" is a reasonable opinion and one I could agree with.
"The billionaire is right about charities hurting people more than they help" is a stance that sounds crazy on it's own given what good charities do in the world.
Tying them together doesn't make the second one better just because the first one might be true. Imagine saying "charities that spend 90% of the money they make trying to cure cancer or provide food and shelter to kids or provide vaccines to poor locations are bad organizations for society." You'd get boo'ed by your good friends.