BraveSirZaphod

I mean, it’s both, among other things.

Target would absolutely love to charge $1000 for a carton of eggs, and would if they could, but they can’t. There has always been some ceiling price past which most consumers will simply walk away and go somewhere else. What exactly that number is depends firstly on the actual cost of getting the item in the first place, since no store will sell an item at a loss (unless they expect that to drive greater returns elsewhere), but then on how much money people actually have available to spend, and that very much is influenced by how much money the Fed is printing, among plenty of other things.

My point here isn’t that corporate greed isn’t a factor, but it’s not a new factor. It’s not like corporations were feeling generous in 2019 and then got in a greedy mood in 2021. They always have and always will charge as much as people are willing to pay, so any changes to what they’re charging should be examined by looking at what other factors might be at play. In this case, they’ve probably realized that they’ve gotten past the point of driving too many customers away.

Obviously corporate PR will never come out and say “We’re being greedy because fuck you, but we got a little too greedy so please come back”, but that is and always has been the dynamic.

If something is possible, and this simply indeed is, someone is going to develop it regardless of how we feel about it, so it’s important for non-malicious actors to make people aware of the potential negative impacts so we can start to develop ways to handle them before actively malicious actors start deploying it.

Critical businesses and governments need to know that identity verification via video and voice is much less trustworthy than it used to be, and so if you’re currently doing that, you need to mitigate these risks. There are tools, namely public-private key cryptography, that can be used to verify identity in a much tighter way, and we’re probably going to need to start implementing them in more places.

That’s what’s always a bit maddening about these conversations. It’s not like companies are just shredding plastic into the atmosphere because they’re cartoon villains who love evil.

They’re making cheap plastic shit because we love cheap plastic shit. They’re making this stuff in response to explicit consumer prioritization of low costs above all other factors. If consumers broadly demanded soda in glass bottles and expressed a willingness to pay the extra cost that this entails, every soda company would use glass.

I’m not saying that you individually should be blamed for all environmental pollution, but we have to realize that companies are responding to the exact same incentives that we do. They’re obviously operating at a much larger scale, but they use cheap plastic shit for the exact same reason we do. If you’re looking for policy solutions, a great option would be to introduce an externality tax on plastic so that this environmental cost is actually factored into the production and end price and can fund remediate the damage, similar to carbon taxes. Of course though, the moment you say the word ‘tax’ people’s brains completely shut off, so this is probably a non-starter.

That is not at all what right to work means.

I get the frustration, but if you’re going to criticize a thing, it’s a lot more effective if you actually know what the thing is.

Jumping to “All Israelis deserve to die” is not helping you the way you think it is, but by all means, keep digging if you want.

So, yes, it’s “I think more civilian deaths would be good”.

I think I’ll just let that speak for itself. Cheers.

Are you suggesting that hundreds of dead Israeli citizens would be a better state of affairs?

If your position is that we should not support military action that blatantly violates standard rules of engagement, that would apply to the Iranian military just as much as it applies to the IDF. There’s no contradiction in criticizing IDF action in Gaza for not trying to minimize civilian casualties while also working to minimize civilian casualties in Israel as a result of Iranian action.

That other org is literally Hamas.

Meta will probably be pretty cautious and strict about what inbound content is allowed, since they have a global quagmire of laws and regulations to comply with and cannot just open up the firehose without significant legal risk. I’d imagine they’d only accept content from vetted instances that agree to some amount of common policy.

In which case you essentially return to the status quo right now, where the Fediverse is a small group of somewhat-ideological tech enthusiasts.

The funny thing about Lemmygrad people is that you could tell me that this comment was an intentional caricature and it’d seem just as likely as it being genuine.

Removed by mod

My apologies, especially since you brought up WMDs in Iraq in just the best of faith.

Best of luck in your political ventures. The rhetorical bravery you’ve shown here has just been incredibly inspiring.

This conversation is specifically about the Uyghur genocide conspiracy theory.

Weird, I thought it was about Iraq!

The fact that the Iraqi invasion was deeply controversial at the time, and this controversy was able to be loudly expressed, stands in very stark contrast to how controversial topics in China’s recent history can be discussed. This is the main point I’m trying to make. I see you follow the lead of the Chinese government by simply refusing to discuss it, and I understand that talking about things that challenge your world view can be uncomfortable, so I’ll do you a favor by allowing this conversation to end.

I would just point out, though, that if I had responded to your initial comment about WMDs in Iraq with “Nope, not doing it,” you’d probably call me a coward or something.

I mean, yes, Bush lied to the American public. This is not particularly controversial.

And given that the original point was the difference between the ability and willingness of liberals to criticize our own governments relative to tankies, Tiananmen is a perfectly relevant topic, though I’m hardly surprised that you’d clearly like to avoid it. And if randomly bringing up supposedly unrelated topics is something to avoid, might I ask why you brought up WMDs in Iraq in a thread about the Uyghers in the first place?

The Iraq War inspired mass protests immediately that set records in several American cities, but sure.

You are correct though that the narrative has shifted with time. So I take it that this has also happened in China, such that someone could organize a protest on the Tiananmen anniversary, right?

Removed by mod

Violent revolution because of an operating system is genuinely one of the most terminally online ideas I think I’ve ever read in my life.

China will not seek to “own” outer space

Let’s see China get out of other nations’ ocean space first and then we can talk about outer space.

I’m speaking solely to the facts on the ground.

Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on the matter, Israel does hold all the guns here. Rights and privileges mean as much as the paper they’re printed on. In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would exist side by side as peaceful partners, each with fully fledged institutions and militaries and all that jazz. But unless Israel is confident that a Palestinian military won’t have its destruction as its primary goal, it will not allow that to happen, no matter how much pontificating about rights and narratives and double standards anyone does. I’m not trying to talk about who’s “right”, whatever that even means. I’m talking about the actual situation and what will actually happen, regardless of anyone’s opinions on the matter.

When a country has such a consistent history, it’s rational to believe that they will continue annexing Palestinian lands

And an Israeli would say that Palestinians have a consistent history of attempting to murder Israeli civilians and so it is rational to never allow them to build up any military power, and thus the circus goes round. My point is that no amount of moral superiority means very much if you don’t have actual power to go along with it, and Palestinians simply do not. If the goal is actually to develop a real peace rather than avenge any sins of the past, both sides will have to give up on prior grievances and decide that they care more about the lives of their children than their own pride. It’s hard to imagine the situation being much worse than it already is (though I’m sure it’ll find a way)