My guess is…

So in other words, the article doesn’t mention which rule could be interpreted to ban giving out water.

And yet it’s the first CEO Intel has had in years who is willing to acknowledge reality. Maybe they’re finally past their denial stage.

Oh my sweet summer child, if only that were what is happening here.

You should be able to filter out certain keywords using your Lemmy client.

It said it was going to explain why enshittification wouldn’t happen to them, but didn’t.

I agree that would be more environmentally friendly, but now you also need to train and employ how many nuclear experts to keep thousands of ships running safely? And this tech has existed for a while. If this was cheaper to do, I expect they would have already done it.

For the record, the current technology we have to capture renewable energy is not capable of supporting the civilization we have built compared to how efficient oil and natural gas are as energy-dense molecules. Only very recently has battery technology come far enough to make it worth it to move a semi-truck any reasonable distance, but cargo ships are still going to be difficult to replace and account for a huge amount of pollution, as well as commerce we depend on. So it’s not a “slightly better profit margin”, as it would range from a literal decimation of society to straight up impossible to cut out all fossil fuels today.

But we should have started a global, methodical transition over 40 years ago, and the free market control over government and media has systematically prevented that. And THAT is unacceptable.

Yeah, clearly, no difference.

In particular, fear, or “terror”. You can use violence without anyone knowing, and you can create fear without violence. The fear is the key factor.

Ok THIS is the most idiocracy thing so far.

Given recent performances I think most boxing fans won’t mind seeing him being escorted back across the border

Am I the only one who thinks this is unsportsmanlike to say? If someone is worth fighting against inside the ring, then they’re worth fighting with outside the ring.

Isn’t it amazing how it’s impossible to make a bad move in 4D chess?

Paramount being capitalist is a red herring. That would have been the case regardless of trump being corrupt. Settling the extortion payment had to happen for them to stop being harassed. The fact that they want to stop being harassed…so that they can continue doing the same capitalist bullshit they would have done regardless is irrelevant. It’s not the flip side of an extortion coin, it’s a completely separate unethical practice to try to confuse and divide criticism. This is step one in fostering a “both sides” argument.

They already were. The right has been sneaking bans on ranked choice voting into many red state legislations for many years now.

You may be thinking “how could they convince people to vote against ranked choice voting?!” By piggybacking on xenophobia of course!

I feel like this thread is somehow interpreting the “bribery” payment as malicious on Paramount’s part. If a corrupt cop is going to arrest you for made up charges unless you grease his palms, you’re not being malicious or unethical, you’re not somehow getting something out of the exchange that you otherwise wouldn’t have, you’re just being extorted by a corrupt cop.

Letting perfection be the enemy of the good is why we can’t have nice things.

I mean…not that curious. It’s his entire livelihood at the moment.

Easy: VPN license. Corporations already don’t like when customers use VPNs to get around their geo locks on content. We’re one lobbying push away from courts broadly interpreting use of a VPN as a malicious violation of DMCA or CFAA.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of social dogma that gives rise to religion has an evolutionary advantage. It’s how you get a bunch of people to focus on a common ends without spending too much time and energy being critical of the means. Humans who rally unquestioningly behind some percieved commonality get stuff done, regardless of how ethical it is. It’s why the Catholic church is immune to “cancel culture”. If any other modern institution had a documented history of figureheads systematically abusing children, they would be finished. But if everyone involved can say “that’s just the actions of a few evil individuals, they don’t represent my faith,” then they’ve achieved social immunity.

I honestly believe that until we see a belief system that emphasizes human dignity over corporate profits, we will continue our race to the bottom of capitalism. This isn’t something a democracy “reasons” its way out of, because falsifiable beliefs based in reason will always lose some argument (by design).

I think the Japanese religion of Shinto is pretty close to a best case scenario for a religion. It’s actually really fascinating. At its core is a belief that a spirit or godlike entity inhabits every single thing, living or inanimate, so you should treat everything with the respect of a divine being. But what you wouldn’t expect is, most people don’t literally believe these gods exist, they just see that practicing the religion makes their society better. In the west, we have a huge number of “non-practicing religious” people, but in Japan there is a huge number of “shinto-practicing non-religious” people. Combined with the fact that it (somehow) doesn’t have any figurehead trying to coopt it, it’s basically exclusively a net win for their society.

Btw abolishing religion is also be the quickest way to convince a bunch of people to start/join a religion.

It’s wild that they billionaires are openly just saying “whoops, we can’t be letting the people elect someone good for them, here let’s fix that”.