FriendOfDeSoto

But everyone deserves a threat and if you live in the USA, then tip is required…

That typo is more apt than intended.

Not everything but a lot. The short answer is cost. This will be long and simplified simultaneously:

Ever since the latter half of the last century companies have really loved one way to reduce cost in manufacturing. And that’s labor. Go to a place where the cost of living is low and work those people to the bone for a pittance.

After WW2 a lot of stuff was made in Japan, then in South Korea and Taiwan, and then China. We have since moved on to places like Vietnam, Myanmar (when politically palatable), and India. All of these stories are different and the same. Japan’s industrial heartland was bombed to smithereens and had to be rebuilt, top of the line. People needed jobs, those people were good at it too, and manufacturing jobs went there. The economy grew, wages grew with them, and it became too costly again. Enter South Korea, after successfully democratizing in the 80s (I think). They looked at what Japan had done and did a version of that. The economy grew, wages along with it, and it also became too expensive. Enter the People’s Republic of China in the 90s, ready to blend communist political power with Manchester red capitalism. A billion people who need jobs. So they looked at what the other so-called tiger states had done and did a version of their own. The economy grew, wages grew with it, and they are teetering on the edge of being to expensive again. But their sheer size, both geographically and inhabitants-wise, keeps them in the game longer. Because the policies the communists implemented to grow and steer the economy are quite unique and perhaps the lack of having to explain everything (i.e. democratic oversight) puts them in quite a strong position. And over the last 30 years anybody who is somebody has gone to China. Big market to sell goods to, big labor force to make stuff, somebody else’s rivers to pollute. It was so tempting a deal that both the US and Europe blindly became very dependent on China. Certain base chemicals, e.g. for medicine, were almost exclusively produced there. I think there world’s entire canned mandarin industry is one village in the middle of nowhere. It takes time to change this. 47 is trying to do it the impulsive, not so thought through way (tariffs). But he may yet learn that you cannot make an iPhone in the States for the price suicidal youths put it together in Shenzhen. At the heart is always cost. Labor is expensive in Ohio, cheap in Guangdong. Slightly cheaper in greater Hanoi. If we could just stop the genocide and coups, Myanmar. India has a harder time catching up because - at least for the time being - there is democratic oversight. But the gravy train will move on. Subsaharan Africa will be the next big thing. Capitalism.

We must hang out in very different circles then.

Everybody draws their own vague red lines in the sand. There is no universal law. If you like it and it doesn’t feel icky, go ahead and like it. If it feels icky, don’t. Or make sure they get no money out of your enjoyment.

Flip a coin or start both on Duolingo and see which one interests you more. This is only a hard decision in your head. If you’re not planning to move to somewhere where they speak either, this is just a hobby.

They are both romance languages so you’ll find mental handholds in either language that can help you with the other. Similar conjugations, spellings, irregularities, etc.

The French you’ll learn with internet resources or most text books will most likely be French French. As a learner, that will probably still make understanding the Quebecers an extremely hard task. It’s like somebody from a Louisiana bayou talking to a Scottish highlander. On paper, they are both able to speak English but there are accents and differences in vocabulary that increase the level of difficulty, even for native speakers.

I don’t think it will be a big win for the Palestinians. One reason why this hasn’t happened in the past is that there is no reliable, functional government in place that governs over all of the territory. You had Hamas in Gaza and the PLO in most of the West Bank and they don’t see eye to eye. This hasn’t changed. It will be difficult for these established governments to cooperate with a a fractured non-functional one so the benefits for the Palestinian people will only be patchy and homeopathic.

So I fear recognizing a Palestinian state is actually an impotent, diplomatic gesture - like: “we see what’s going on there, it’s horrible, and we don’t have the resolve to do anything else to bring Israel back to the status quo ante.” It’s finger wagging at Israel more than actual support for the Palestinians. It’s a gesture that can easily be reversed as well, like the orange one moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. And I think that’s why these announcements of recognition fall on very deaf ears in Tel Aviv. It’s political theater for the audiences in the countries whose governments have announced this. “Look, we are doing something! (But we’re doing not that much really, we could do other things as well, isolate the Israeli government and/or cut it off palpably from necessary economic and military supply chain support. But we won’t. It’s a complicated conundrum, that Middle East. And we’re not quite ready to jeopardize the existence of Israel over this.)”

I think it is hard though, legislatively, as the RTBF already proves. It’s a terribly vague set of rules that put search engines in the position where they have to evaluate a claim and then sit in judgement over it with little to no oversight and then only a public form of objection if this somehow ends up in a court. This is not a good process. Adding more reasons to use a bad process doesn’t sound like a great idea regardless of how well intentioned they are.

An issue I see are massive Streisand effects. One is occurring if you need to take a Google to court for not following up on your RTBF claim. Nobody really cared about your drunk driving incident from 2019 until you fill the headlines with your court proceedings. Now everybody knows. The other is this: let’s say Roberta became Robert. Calling him Roberta would be dead naming him. But if every time I framed it as “Robert Streisand (known until 2023 as Roberta Streisand)” I’m merely stating fact and I don’t see how many courts will intervene against that. Why can virtually everybody still dead name Chelsea Manning? Because every time her name was mentioned post transition they added this factual context. So all you will achieve in the end is that all trolls and dickheads will just use the legally defendable boiler plate phrase. And hang a much brighter lantern on the issue.

Just to be clear: I’m not defending anybody deadnaming somebody else. I’m just looking at this issue, the RTBF, and I’m thinking of that road to hell and with what it is paved.

I don’t think the people who do the happiness statistic could see past the “forcibly inject” part.

It turned out to be a Twitter clone from ten years ago and I realized I didn’t need that any more. If I didn’t need to reach some people who cannot overcome the hurdle the fediverse proper puts up before being enjoyable, I would not be using it today. But media popularity post-Elon-Twitter and relative ease of setup have given the platform relative heft. But it’s not open and not really federated so it’s masquerading and we don’t really want you know whose money is paying the bills behind the scenes either. If anything, the fediverse can learn from Bluesky a thing or two about onboarding people who cannot be asked to invest the time to make Mastodon enjoyable. It will take time, much more time, to get people, especially non-techy ones, to the new normal of being your own algorithm. I see Bluesky as a stepping stone in that direction that will survive in its own niche.

I think it’s safe to say these thoughts weren’t necessarily factored in in the first beliefs in reincarnation. A lot of this stuff is about thinking horizons. If you don’t know about the vastness of space, you think everything happens around you. So you must be reborn close as well. And then the universe is being revealed (still) bit by bit. If your science isn’t great, you could be forgiven for thinking the world is 6000 years old and maybe created in a week. But then your horizons broaden and there is a lag in how the new knowledge filters into these established belief systems. So if you tried to argue logically about a reincarnation system, yes, it would be likely that you could become a rock near a supermassive black hole or a slug on a planet far, far away just as much as an ant on Earth (depending on how you fared in life). But logic and belief are natural opponents. I think all the Dalai Lamas were reincarnated on this planet. So that’s odd then, isn’t it? Doubt lengthens the lag.

If either one says anyways here’s wonderwall and launches into the song I’ll be ready to shoot them into the sun.

I fear as the number n of the repeated day approaches infinity, any day would be horrible to have to relive again. And again. And again.

I mean by normal people standards, you are correct. He’s had to replace a golden spoon up his royal posterior with a silver one. But he still lives in a big house and will never want for money in his life. His involvement did cost him his representative job. He’s been royally demoted. So there were consequences for him although I’d be the first to agree they weren’t sufficiently punitive.

In my house, I have a no dumping on the couch rule. If you come in and take a dump on my couch, I don’t care how insightful your thoughts are, you’re out the door. In terms of the fediverse, you merely seem confused about what constitutes taking a dump. These rules are available though, you just have to read them.

If you have spare time while developing your Don Quiote complex, give a passing thought to what censorship means. Nobody is banning you from having your super intellectual thoughts about government on the internet. Start a blog, your own lemmy instance, and fire away. But nobody has to listen to your thoughts; we’re free to go seek out other bullshit if we so please. That’s not censorship, that’s how the free exchange of ideas works. You don’t have the right to be heard on your terms in somebody else’s forum. And who knows, maybe modding your own would teach you a level of empathy that might make you feel embarrassed about your comments on this thread.

And those folks aren’t on here because they already do their socializing in person. A frightful thought.

Are you beginning to feel a narrowing of your throat?

Das war Englisch.

No.

The rise of progressivism has nothing to do with corporations decorating themselves with the relevant messages where it suits them. That’s just marketing. You see that in companies who championed the marginalized during the previous administration and dropped it near instantly when 47 came in. That’s corporate opportunism.

We have seen the rise of representative democracy, of fascism, the rise of communism in the past. I don’t think we have seen anything that deserves a similar label with regard to progressivism. There is a general sine curve thru the ages of left-leaning and right-leaning politics. And thru the swings from one side to another we have still abolished slavery, enfranchised women, built social security nets, decriminalized abortion (or at least permitted it in some cases) and same sex relationships, etc. A lot of it was built on political movements but I dare say none that rose to the top and stayed there. So a rise of progressivism is as non-sensical to me as a rise of conservatism. They are just opposite ends on the political scale and we dance from one side to the other and back again.

Let’s not call it psy op then. We need a new term. BS op maybe?