• 0 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2022

help-circle
  • Right. Sus, like I said. You can’t trust people willing to use their authority to protect kids.

    Although, when it’s put like that, it seems people are also sus who want to or would use their authority to force users to accept the risk of seeing porn and gore by allowing NSFW communities. You know. They could always go somewhere else that already allows it but no they’ve got to cry that they want it here or there, a place they already don’t like and don’t want to visit.









  • That is not what happened.

    When the Lemmy software was first created, the original Hexbear (it had a different name, then) created a fork. A development or two down the line and the two forks were incompatible. The Hexbear devs started working on a fix long before the Reddit API-debacle exodus. It wasn’t easy because the fork added features that were incompatible with, let’s say, vanilla Lemmy until recently. The Hexbear devs eventually made the fixes, which made federation possible again. And the long-planned re-federation occurred. The timing is a coincidence.

    As for federation, Hexbear asked it’s community which instances should be federated. To maintain the friendly culture of Hexbear, there was an agreement to only federate with a few instances. Before that happened, dotworld defederated preemptively. Since then, I have no idea whose federated or defederated with who because I quickly lost interest with the drama.

    I should say that I’d never used Hexbear before federation with my instance. I learned all this because it’s publicly available knowledge. After federation, with all the drama, I searched ‘federation’ and some similar search terms on Hexbear communities and learned what I’ve just explained. The key point is that you don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain motives for and the chronology of federation because, like the modlogs, the relevant conversations are still available to read.




  • Also, YouTube ads are about the most random things. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad on YouTube for anything that I would actually buy. I’m not even nearly immune to ads, either. Show me a product that solves a problem for me and I’ll strongly consider it. Consciously and I’m sure subconsciously.

    Google knows what I do for a living, where I live, and what I spend money on. Google also knows that I use YouTube primarily to watch videos in other languages. It’s not a secret to them. Yet they insist on trying to sell me products or services that have zero relevance to anything that I do. In English.

    It makes me wonder if they’re even trying to profit through ads. I know the answer – no, not really – the advertiser is the customer, not me. It must be too complicated for them to realise that they could charge more for ads the more sales they led to.


  • I disagree that a flop means lost revenue. This is an industry that’s so adept at hiding income to avoid paying taxes, actors, and every other studio worker that dodgy accounting is known as ‘Hollywood Accounting’. Maybe we’re talking about different things. When I say Hollywood, I mean the movie industry as a whole.

    Hollywood has failed to capture some income streams. From theatres, for example, as you say. But there’s still too much money to be made (and too much propaganda potential) for enough big money to leave that the problems of monopoly finance capital go away.



  • I can’t remember who it was. A famous actor, anyway. They were talking about what’s happened with movies. There’s nothing in the middle.

    It’s either $100m+ or less than $3m. Either it gets a big producer and they pump so much money into it that it must be safe because it can’t lose money. Or is a small producer doing it for the love, but a small budget doesn’t go very far. The risky narratives done well would be funded somewhere between the two extremes but it’s just not how it’s done anymore.

    In a strange way, to get more money in for the riskier productions, we need to get the money out of Hollywood. Can’t see it happening, myself.



  • They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.

    What a perfect way to phrase it.

    I see what you mean about those gas guzzlers. While they do make me irrationally upset, a much bigger problem is forcing millions upon millions of workers on daily commutes. This isn’t just about WFH, which would be a solution, but also of insisting on putting almost all employment opportunities at the end of the same clogged roads miles away from where anyone lives.

    I think you’re right to point out that the argument against individualising the problem/solution should be applied evenly. It’s easy to individualise the problem when someone seems to be doing the exact opposite of helping.

    That said, I’ve one challenge, which is about insulating your home. I’ve heard that a good air source heat pump will save more emissions than insulation (some leaky homes might be the exception) and at much lower overall cost to the consumer. They have to be set up right, though. Maybe it depends on building materials? It might be different for timber framed houses that have some insulation built in, anyway. Makes sense to put in better stuff during ordinary construction and maintenance of those.


  • It’s quite short. He did a TED talk, too, which presents a condensed version. The talk is also a bit liberalised to appeal to a wider, Canadian audience, but it’s an interesting listen nonetheless. (Interesting to note that he was attacked near his home today/yesterday by someone shouting his name. Looks like a political attack against a journalist. If it was, the forces of reaction are getting bolder again.)

    I might disagree about the planet’s capacity. It may have one but we’re not close to it yet. The idea that it’s over populated is Malthusian and doesn’t lead to great conclusions. I don’t entirely disagree with you though, with your qualification:

    …can no longer survive at the rate of current land/water use, not for long that is.

    Destroying livable habitats so that Vegas and other dessert towns can can have water is a terrible project, for example. The problem is not the population but the political economy. The peoples indigenous to Turtle Island had a far more sustainable model than the current set of governors. The Red Nation’s manifiesto, The Red Deal, makes some powerful arguments. If you’re in the US, you might prefer starting with this than Bastani. (There’s a reasonably priced book and a pdf version on their site – the pdf is actually three pdfs but it’s the same content, if in a slightly different order to the book.)

    I hope you enjoy either/both works.



  • Real shame about the civilians. I can understand the will not to leave one’s home. But imagine just waiting on the edge of a battle not knowing whether the next missile will accidentally land in your flat. Traumatic. I wonder if people’s mind’s protect them by just zoning out the reality of it all.

    Strange that the Ukrainians would only have one line. To my knowledge the Soviets learned this tactic fighting the Nazis. I’d have thought the Ukrainian military would not make the same mistakes as the early WWII Soviet army. If they do only have one line, it suggests that resources and reserves are in a dire condition. If Ukraine can only manage one line of defence, it would suggest that the war can’t last much longer, though—and it will be ‘easy’ for Russia to isolate troops and starve them out; and the sooner this shit ends, the better.