Also good for the environment, mostly the not eating meat part. Especially if you buy them dried in bulk you can cut down on your food and packaging waste. Even the lack of fruits and vegetables is good for not drying up California, probably not good for your long term health though. Also fuck billionaires

Probably cause he thinks he'll spoil the Democrats campaign. Probably doesn't like his politics since if he ever did get in his policies would liquidate people like crow. West did return the money though

Meanwhile Harris' donors are just as sus and are expecting something for their money. Whether that be AIPAC and getting her to continue the genocide or health insurance companies getting her to flip on Medicare for all. You don't see her returning or rejecting any money from them.

As a west supporter I'm fine with this. Though I'm not fully convinced on the magnitude of the spoiler effect, eg. If 2% want to vote for west that doesn't mean that those 2% vote for Kamala if he's off the ballot, they'll most likely just not vote. The race in Penn seems really tight though so anything to get Harris over the line is good.

If you arent in a swing state ( eg. Margin bigger then 10%) and think Kamala's tacking too far right then id recommend looking into west. He and stein get a lot of slander on here because people are deathly afraid of spoilers but his platform is actually pretty good if you want to do a protest vote. Again in a non-swing state so everyone doesn't come after me for "helping trump"

I mean you're gonna find a lot more plutocratic ghouls on Harris' donor list then his.

Yeah it probably wasnt modeled after a domesticated cat. Looks like there could've been leopard cats in Japan around then, or could be a weasel or fox or something , a lot of carnivores have pointy ears like that.

That's an imperial war where local knowledge is extremely limited and your relying on sympathetic locals to let you know the terrain and who the enemy are. If that sympathetic population is low like in Afghanistan or Vietnam then you'll walk into every ambush and never root out the enemy. In this environment guerilla war with small arms can work

If tyrrany comes to the u.s. though it'll come with at least 30% support if not more, ironically most likely by the 2a nuts. They'll happily point out every enemy of the state on there block and warn you about every ambush, hell they'll probably shoot them for you.

Read "insurrections" as slave revolts and you can get a real sense of what the 2a was for.

Waivers exist and are very easy to enforce in this situation. Either you'd have to sign one with your lease or hoa agreement. If not then then the room would have some sort of access control and in order to go in you'd have to sign a waiver. It's the same as a gym, pool, rooftop area where you can also easily hurt or kill yourself if your dumb.

Insurance companies don't care about access controlled areas with dangerous objects, otherwise shooting ranges wouldn't exist. They care about random people coming into your lobby, tripping and then suing the place because they didn't sign a waiver.

Partially, even if you got rid of the lawns the houses would still take up significantly more space for both the road infrastructure as well as the houses themselves.

You could go out to the middle of the forest and yell, would disturb less people that way anyway.

You could also have a community workshop in the basement like how a lot of buildings have gyms these days. Similar to gyms it would probably have more machines as well since the cost can be spread out. You probably can't justify buying a lathe for one project but a lathe for a whole apartment block makes more sense.

Yeah, but most people don't live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres

Not from Canada but this sent me down a rabbit hole, So the Ontario government sold a monopoly on beer sales to a company and ford backed out early and now the government has to pay 200 million in damages to the company instead of letting the contract expire in a year?

Fuck it I'll take the down votes, he's right. Ukraine is losing this war and stand no chance of winning back there lost territory, barring western countries putting troops on the ground. The longer the war goes on, the more territory the Russians gain and the more Ukraine's manpower gets drained. The only people who stand to benefit from the war continuing is the Russians and western defense contractors.

Obviously fuck Russia for starting this needless war but you have to understand when to cut your losses and stop pouring money and lives into a losing quagmire.

It's genuinely great that China offers that to the people they don't imprison for asking for their rights and speaking out against the state.

I mean that's the vast majority of the people, looks like they have a little under 10,000 political prisoners in a country of 1.4 billion, so 0.0007% of people. That's not good and should be 0 but it's not some orwellian police state with stazi on every corner checking if you said xi looks like Winnie the Pooh.

I'm no fan of Chinese authoritarianism and there human rights record but pretending there authoritarianism is the same as the totalitarianism of the 20th century is naive. It's Definitely not an "open air prison" and does a disservice to people who live in actual open air prisons like Gaza or North Korea.

If you live in a swing state or any state that is up for grabs, then yeah don't vote for third party. If your in a deep blue/red state, I'm talking > 15 percent swing, vote for whoever you want in the presidential, your votes just going to get collapsed into the state vote for the electoral college any way. Should still vote for the two parties or whoever's competitive in state and local elections because your vote can have an effect.

If the electoral college says my vote effectively doesn't matter in deciding the next president since I'm in California, then at least let me use my vote to send some sort of message.

Yeah but they were mostly aristocrats who hated the uppity new rich bourgeois as much as they hated the peasants.

I didn't like this line of attack, yes you're going to have to negotiate with a terrorist organization after you lost a war to that terrorist organization and that organization is going to take control of the country. The fact that you talked with the Taliban isn't the problem, the fact that you negotiated a bad deal is.

Most of the 'electricity' emissions on that nice pie graph isn't joe bob's playstation, it's industrial power.

Again please cite some sources and look at the actual data. Adding in electricity and looking at end use does up industrial but only up to 30% . It ups commercial and residential far more to 31%, your right though most of the electricity isn't going towards joes PlayStation it's going towards heating and cooling joes house.

Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings also increase substantially when emissions from electricity end-use are included, due to the relatively large share of electricity use mostly building related (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; lighting; and appliances) in these sectors

Again personal consumption choices have an effect on this, even barring the choice of where to live the amount of energy needed to heat and cool a home goes up as the size of the building increases. Heating and cooling a large detached single family home is way less efficient then heating and cooling a small apartment. Like a big truck no one's forcing you to get a big house and the choice you make has climate impacts.

I agree auto companies are largely responsible for the mess we're in with transportation, but the solution isn't to just put our hands up and say we need to hold them accountable, that won't happen in the current environment. We all need to make the personal choice to drive less, and take more public transit. If public transit numbers go up then politicians will actually start prioritizing it and improvements will be made which will cause more people to take transit causing a positive feedback loop. If traffic numbers go down as well the government won't have to spend money on adding another lane to the freeway and would save on road maintenance due to cars wearing them down less, allowing more money to be available for transit and adding to the feedback loop.

To kickstart that feedback loop though we'll need people to choose to take a more inconvenient transport option at the beginning, and you aren't going to get people to make that choice by saying there actions don't matter and that it's all the corporations fault so you driving a mile to CVS is fine.

did you not get sent some fucked up videos

Oh yeah, all that shit, I wasn't talking about porn and fetish stuff though cause my comment was getting long, was just talking about actual atrocities like war, famine genocide etc. I don't think preteens have an interest in that stuff. They definitely do have an interest in porn / gross stuff but I'm not convinced that stuff is necessarily detrimental or traumatic. I'm open to being convinced but most of the arguments seem to be pearl clutching about them losing their innocence and anecdotally I know most of my friends watched porn / gross videos at that age and turned out fine and don't mention it as some traumatic or life changing experience unless they tie it up with some religious guilt.

Could you please give some sources instead of pulling numbers out of thin air. Because the numbers don't seem to align with what your saying since industry only accounts for 23 % of emissions, so unless holding companies responsible includes completely eliminating them and there emissions you aren't going to get a 20-30 % reduction in emissions. That 20-30% your talking about can actually be obtained if Americans just stopped driving and flying. Hell we can get almost double that "measly 1.5%" by Americans just driving 10% less then they are. Cars and air travel are emitting just as much as those evil corporations everyone likes to blame, and to stop climate change we'll need to rein in both. Thats just cars, it doesn't account for other consumer choices like eating meat and fast fashion that also have huge impacts.

The video seems to mostly be nostalgia and her lamenting over the death of the consumerist mall based culture she grew up in and trying to naturalize it or imply it's the right way to grow up, ie. Kids these days. Half the video seems to be about how companies aren't marketing to preteens which I'm fine with and is pretty normal in even recent historical terms. The 90s-10s marketing specifically to preteens on cable is more an anomaly then anything natural. If you were 11 in the 70s no one was marketing to you and when you went to the department store there was a kids section and an adults section for you to look through, I'm sure people who grew up then had fond memories of first exploring the adult section just as much as the author does of going to Claire's.

I did find it funny when she said the advertisements didn't effect her. Those ads and media were selling you a vision of what a happy preteen lifestyle is and you bought it so much you made a whole video years later on how that vision is correct.

As for the atrocities I don't think kids are watching that. As someone who grew up with full Internet access in my preteen years I could've looked up isis beheading videos or famines in Africa, but I didn't because 11 year olds don't care about that stuff. Even pre internet if a kid had access to cable they could watch CNN and see all the horrors of the world but they don't because it's boring.

None of this is to say that I think social media is fine for preteens, but the reasons I think it's bad like decreased physical activity, unrealistic beauty standards, social isolation aren't shown in this video, I'm sure she has others addressing it but the death of the preteen market doesn't seem like the best reason to ban it for preteens.

They'll also be exposed to other external views that are a bit more unsavory. For every kid that watches a video by an LGBT creator and learns being gay is okay, there's another kid who watches some alpha douche Andrew Tate type that teach them women are objects. The internet is the definition of a mixed bag and should not be used to educate children

Which is why we shouldn't be relying on social media for this stuff anyway, this should be done by schools. If a child is in an oppressive abusive house they probably won't get social media anyway, but they will more likely have to go to school. Also teachers and counselors are professionals who know how to educate children and handle abusive situations way better then some stranger online.

Your missing the big one that most people don't want to hear, eat less / no meat. That's about the biggest decision your average person can make that will make the most impact, going vegetarian is about equivalent to not driving but most Americans need to drive, they don't need to eat meat.

Corporations aren't forcing you to buy a bigger house, a bigger car, to eat meat or to fly across the country regularly, those are personal consumption choices that are driving climate change. You can blame the corporations for pushing you to consume with advertising or not doing there best to minimize the impact of that consumption but fundamentally there's no way to make a carbon neutral meat burger that the average person could consume regularly. It's not just corporations that benefit from ignoring climate costs, the average consumer does as well

I mean you probably are a communist to this guy. If you mace him and he can't insult you based on your race / ethnicity then he'll probably just call you a communist.

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they've been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

Depends what you mean by in SF. That is a study of the entire bay area asking how they get to / around SF. That makes sense, most people in the bay area coming into the city are suburbanites who drive in. You'd probably see the same for NYC as well, barring Manhattan which is more or less hostile to driving. People who live in the city though primarily get around by walking transit. The same study says :

San Francisco residents still used priority modes twice as often as non-residents for trips within San Francisco.

So it's the dominant mode for people traveling in / through SF but not for people who live in SF.

In my original comment I put an edit in with a link to the original and SF is orange, along with DC which you can't see on this either.

White? There is no San Francisco on the map. There's San Mateo county but the tip of the peninsula where SF city / county should be is just blank.

Did San Francisco sink into the bay? It looks like the map didn't include it, shame since that's probably the only place outside NYC that may be a different color.

EDIT:

Looks like someone else noticed it to and did a close up on the original. It shows SF is public transit and also shows that dc is missing on this map as well and also is more public transit then driving, so not just New York. You can also see it by borough in NY and Staten Island is cars but Hudson county NJ is public transit too.

Another fun fact, there crap actually doesn't go in the lake. They built a canal a while ago to flush it down to st. Louis then down the Mississippi.

It's the trans women in sports of veganism, it's such a small part of the issue and no one in the group will usually bring it up. But people who are against them will use it to discredit and divide them even though they don't really care about the underlying issues they claim to be for: women's sports, cat nutrition and the way larger problems with them.

If it's libertarian it's libertarian socialist. There's no property or capital on here, posts get boosted by collective voting, not based off your following or account. There's not even an idea of karma, your account means basically nothing here. A capitalist libertarian social media would be something like nostr or what bluesky is claiming it'll eventually do where you completely own your account and your following and you can use that social capital as you wish.

Everyone saying llms are bad or just somehow inherently racist are missing the point of this. LLMs for all there flaws do show a reflection of language and how it's used. It wouldnt be saying black people are dumb if it wasn't statistically the most likely thing for a person to say on the internet. In this sense they are very useful tools to understand the implicit biases of society.

The example given is good in that it's probably also how an average person would respond to the given prompts. Your average person who is implicitly racist when asked "the black man is" would probably understand they can't say violent or dumb, but if you rephrase it to people who sound black then you will probably get them to reveal more of their biases. If your able to get around a person's superego you can get a sense of their true biases, it's just easier to get around LLMs "superego" of no-no words and fine tuning counter biases with things like hacking and prompt engineering. The id underneath is the same racist drive to dominate that is currently fueling the maga / fascist movement.

Lemmy sorting is still interest based if your not scrolling through /all , it's just that those are declared interests, you subscribe to the tennis community, as opposed to inferred interests, the algorithm figured out you like tennis based on your watching habits. It's still curated it's just self curated instead of algorithmically curated.

So I guess you could say it stops at how the interests are compiled and whether the interest was given explicitly by the user but then you get into how a user understands certain actions like likes. Do people like something to just give feedback to the poster, then it shouldn't be used at all. Do they like something because they want to boost it and have their wider community to see it, then the algorithm can take that into account when giving it to friends / followers. Do they like something because they want to see more of it, then the algorithm can use that information for recommending things that user will see. My guess is people use it as some combination of all 3, and as long as the social media tells its users at the beginning that the heart button is all 3 they could get away with saying there algorithm is explicit while not changing much.

If your defining yimby as a synonym for pro-developer then yeah I guess. If your defining yimby as just opposed to Nimbys and their exclusionary zoning policies like single family housing, parking minimums, etc. to keep there property values up then rent control is fine as it's not Nimbys but working class people pushing for it, not to restrict supply but to just stay in there homes.

Yimbyism can be an effective political strategy if you keep it contained to attacking rich property owners on behalf of the working/renting class. If you start opposing things like rent control that helps large portions of renters who stay in a place long term then the movement falls apart in infighting.

It is a different level of scale, mastodon has about 1 million users spread over a bunch of instances. Threads has over 200 million users on one instance. also due to the network nature of social media the amount of connections and messages sent through those connections can scale exponentially with the amount of users.

You could tie it to your ticket like a punch card. When the bar does the standard Id check they'd also check your boarding pass and check if the name is the same then mark it / digitally update it. Even if they don't do a limit at the airport it would still be good to let the attendants on the flight know "alright this guy's already had 5 beers, don't serve him anything on the flight"

The waymos are doing well in SF. I like them way more than Ubers, they drive safer / actually obey traffic laws and speed limits. You also can choose your own music and the interiors are always nice.

Theres the Hitler / Napoleon arc of conquering Europe then collapsing and having the allied forces invade and occupy the dictators country.

There's also the franco-prussian war where Bismarck goaded Louis Napoleon the dictator of France into declaring war and invading Germany. He then stepped two feet in Germany got surrounded and captured and the prussians/Germans marched all the way to Paris.

These were successful invasions though and ended up with the resistance capturing the aggressors capital. It remains to be seen how well this "invasion" will turn out. As it stands the Ukrainian gains are limited and far from Moscow or any other key strategic locations, meanwhile the Russians are advancing, if slowly, on the main front. This seems more like an incursion then an invasion, like the u.s. invading Canada during the revolution / 1812 with no long term occupation as a result.

These people aren't completely blameless. Home owners as a class have a vested interest in seeing their property values go up and will take actions to see that happen. This includes not only improvements on the property but also supporting policies to prevent high density affordable housing, school desegregation and public transit. The suburban sprawl and housing shortage were currently suffering through are a direct result of those policies. The real estate wealth of boomers was built off the exclusion of the lower classes and letting them off the hook and just blaming corporations will make us overlook the next generation who inherit these houses and will try to keep the same exclusionary policies.

Just how much of real estate is owned by corporate entities? Looks like they own 3.8% of single family homes, probably a larger percent of apartments but still probably under 10% as most of them are owned by "mom and pop" operations. Thats not enough to cause the housing problems we currently have. We need to recognize housing as an investment causes a perverse incentive to restrict supply in anyone, not just greedy corporations and to lower the cost of housing will require those people using it as an investment to lose money.