There are a couple tiny issues I have with it that drive me nuts (namely: 1 how they implement the CSS blur filter sucks and 2 the fact that they haven't implemented page transitions even though I think it was their idea to start with (?))
But other than those things, I certainly don't feel like I'm missing anything by ditching Google.
Yeah but they told him when he wasn't paying attention, so, that's on them.
Obviously you're right. That said, in the universe of Trump's fiction, it tracks (kind of). If the machines were rigged and if the election was stolen, then several things logically follow:
Trump's actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president, since he's the executive branch; while DOJ might normally handle the day to day, a stolen election is a big deal, and it makes sense he would step in. And therefore he would be immune to prosecution for any "law breaking."
If you're a superhero cop - not an actual, fat ass fascist bastard cop we have irl, but the kind of cop TV says is what cops are like, you don't have time for subpoenas and warrants -- you break down the doors and you grab the evidence. Maybe you're not even sure if there's a crime, but you can't risk it -- and if you're president, you can argue there's room for "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" in that context.
If you're not sure whether there's been a crime but there's a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime, since the consequences if there isn't pale in comparison to the consequences if there is. So: if you are the head of the executive branch, and you are concerned that there's a crime of that magnitude, you could easily make the case that you are duty bound to investigate.
So, the situation is this: if you investigate, and there's a crime, you've saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That's a bit unfair -- so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there's no crime, then you're going to jail, might've been called for.
So -- if Trump was able to produce even a single piece of evidence to support his claims, the fiction he's established on top of them is arguable, and, if you start to look at his cases through that lens, his absurd motions and arguments kind of make sense.
I'm not sure if I understand. Isn't this a normal thing, Amazon just made it look like you're normal one, plus "Amazon"? I could be misunderstanding.
edit judging by the down votes I guess I misunderstood?
You've been able to capture and replace context menus in browsers for years. I don't use them in my development because they're annoying but this is one that I played with one time:
https://carbon-components-svelte.onrender.com/components/ContextMenu
(The feature has been Dollar Store DRM for years - that's how you just disable the context menu altogether. "We have DRM at home"- type DRM.)
To be clear, the reason this isn't common is because of OP's response -- it feels intrusive and the more "value" it adds (ie how customized it is) is proportional to how intrusive it feels.
To make matters worse, as far as I know, you can't replace the context menu just sometimes, like, it would be cool to just customize options on images for example, or links -- but it's whole page or nothing -- so using the feature at all means using it everywhere, and, for me anyway, it's kind of a lot of effort, which sits on the scale with "intrusive and annoying" to outweigh the value add.
Oh I pirate the shit out of everything -- and partly it's a boycott, but I think mostly it's the convenience. "Owning" things and enjoying them on my terms (no Internet? No problem) is just better than subscriptions.
And I block ads, 100% for sure. I would literally give up most of the Internet rather than subject myself to ads -- I'm "on the spectrum" and I have a very hard time with overstimulation and distraction, so ads substantially interrupt my ability to read (which I already have trouble with).
Like -- I love lemmy and everything, but I'm here because Reddit disabled the ad-free app I used to use. I was a daily reddit user for like 13 years. if I could still use Relay, my ethical resolve against their anti-user practices, and my personal commitment to foss, probably wouldn't have held up.
My feeling is, if I behave in a way that's conducive with good mental health and life satisfaction, and what I do is also a political statement, then the universe is in harmony.
It's really just the "voting with your wallet' perspective I mean to illuminate and undercut -- it's a very tempting idea, but I would rather we (as a resistance movement) remain sane and comfortable than ascetic and underengaged.
Voting with your wallet is literally plutocracy -- those with more dollars get more votes.
Not only is our theoretically bad, but it's practically bad: the impact of a boycott is negligible, but the impact on the people doing the boycott is huge: not having access to the conveniences everyone else has puts us at a significant disadvantage compared to our peers.
And finally, it's not just practically bad, it's actually contraindicated. The executives of a corporation are legally required to maximize immediate returns to their investors. It's literally illegal for a CEO to move a company in the direction of civic responsibility over profit. And it's not just "profit" -- it has to be increasing profit. Line has to go up; they can't just keep it flat, even if "flat" is hugely profitable. To withdraw our financial support will just cause them to squeeze harder on everyone else.
(There's an argument that there might be more profit in social responsibility, but unless you have numbers to back that up, and it demonstrates immediate returns in addition to long term benefits, then it's just a guess, and a guess is never going to be more convincing to shareholders than facts.)
The only way to change this is with regulation, and a cultural shift away from "line goes up" mentality. And you can't effect political change when you're spend 3x as long making dinner because you're boycotting processed food.
Suggesting that we just give up all the conveniences that our labor, our creativity, and our cultural contributions have enabled, for the sake of convincing a CEO to be nicer is just ineffectual.
Counterpoint, the only way you'll be able to write efficient and clean code, that's both terse and readable, that earns the respect of influencers and CTOs alike, is with the Happy Hacking Keyboard, Type S. It's $300, but you're serious about coding, aren't you? And you'll need some after market keycaps; the stock ones are decent -- dye sub PBT -- but you'll look like a noob, you'll need to get a few sets of colorful blanks and create a pattern from them that defines your coding aesthetic. You have a color scheme that defines your coding aesthetic, right? If not, you need to take care of that, before you even write a single line of code.
I'm just kidding, literally anything. I don't even use one, I just use a mouse, since I'm just copying and pasting from chatGPT anyway -- or, I used to, back when I was a junior dev. Now I just use a magnetic needle and a steady hand
Yeah I think my final point about Ashton should've been more prominent - he's just a TV star, he shouldn't be our moral compass.
It's great he's contributing to this cause but his efforts are a tiny candle when compared to the efforts of the people his money is going to. He sits on a stage, looks handsome, and talks into a microphone about how you shouldn't kidnap people and sell them into sexual slavery. He's not holding anyone's hair back while they vomit.
I'm not going to read what you wrote, I'll just assume I know what you've said based on the first part.
Thanks.
My example was murder, which can be one bad decision. I talked about serial crimes and remorse and all that later - but none of my post was about forgiveness, it was about, specifically, why Ashton Kutcher might say what he did about Masterson.
What interests me about the topic, and why I made that post, is the interplay between redemption (eg Scrooge) and ... whatever redemption's opposite is (eg Masterson).
This is digging into pretty legal territory and copyright law is (arguably unnecessarily) complex -- but licenses are things that you use to let people use your patents. I think that's what they were initially and mainly; but then software and the copyleft movements kind of detached the concepts of licenses and patents.
The fediverse protocols could definitely be patented and licensed, but, like you said (or implied, really), that's... sketchy af. Like, anyone we could trust to patent it would probably refuse to do it -- Linux Torvalds would probably curse me out for even suggesting it, and the lecture rms gave me would probably never end.
Let's have some devils advocate! Everybody loves devils advocate. Just real quick before I start cooking, I just want to say that rape is bad and there's no excuse. That's important and I'm not going to use it in my examples. Murder though - that's basically fine, I think.
A lot of crimes amount to one bad decision. A life of being a really good person and then one time you murder someone, then jail forever? (Well, yes, but actually no - first time offenders don't get life in prison, even for murder.)
Even if you have a dark side that you've been keeping under wraps, that's actually good! If there are people with dark sides, what we want is for them to not act on it - sociopaths, pedophiles - like, if we take for granted that these are conditions which occur in people and there's no cure, what we want is for them to not act on it.
But, one day, you fail, your dark side gets out and you do one of the horrible things you've been trying not to do; then it's easier to do it again, and again, and suddenly you're a serial killer. 40 years of being good despite a very difficult challenge, to suppress that darkness, but the rest of your life, you're judged for the few bad decisions you made in moments of weakness.
Let's talk about Ebeneezer Scrooge. Tis the season after all.
That dude was a total dick for like 60 years, but, in the end of the story, he's changed - it's a redemption story. But his name, Scrooge, is a commonplace synonym which characterizes him as a villain; fuck his redemption, he lived most of his life as a dick, and we remember him that way.
So which is it? Do we judge based on most of their lives, or do we judge based on a recent set of decisions which severely depart from that? Or do we just go with whichever was worst?
When it comes to Ashton Kutcher, like, even a serial killer isn't murdering literally every moment of their day. They have jobs, they go to the store. All that time, that person is being a good person, they're suppressing their darkness. It's easy to see a person in that light when that's how you've seen them for basically your entire adult life.
That said, Ashton Kutcher is a rich TV star so basically all his opinions are invalid. He probably only helps victims of sex trafficking because his PR team thought it would be a good fit for his brand. Not to say he doesn't like helping - I'm just saying fuck that guy. Fuck all those guys.
I'm guessing you mean the diabetes and celiac will be cured, not the autism
WE GOT BALLISTAE FOR YOU TOO, BUDDY
Where's the button I can press to project this comment onto the moon
One of the things that I thought of to help with this problem is, like, what if we figured out how much it costs to meet like all the basics in life - a house (not a rental!), food, soda, internet, heat/hot water - all that stuff. Then add some more, so that people could do nice stuff and enjoy their lives, save for retirement, go on vacations, etc.
Then - now here's the crazy part - we make a law requiring that everyone in the country needs to be paid at least that much money. It would be like a "Floor Wage," or, like, a "Minimum Salary."
If the increase in the cost of doing business didn't eliminate billionaires altogether, I bet people would at least stop giving a shit about billionaires and their gold piles because the rest of us aren't living in debt while they build yachts for their yachts.
I'm not being obtuse, I'm pointing out that that person is full of shit. His/her "contribution" is just as garbage as the posts they criticized.
Clinton is the same person as Obama who is the same person as Biden so Biden is basically on there.
You don't have a "case," you have an opinion that amounts to no-true-Scotsman. If any of these posts are "Reddit brained," but yours is somehow not, then "Reddit brained" is an empty concept you fill with whatever you don't like. Your post, like the ones you're criticizing, is short, low-effort, unfriendly, critical, and contributes nothing to the discussion. You're just expressing the opinion that you're unhappy - and, as far as I can tell, no one asked. If you're allowed to post your irrelevant, negative opinion, then why aren't they?
If you don't like other people, with different motives, interests, and moods, joining your social media platforms, I have bad news.
Although, this is the fediverse - you could make your own server and just defederate every time you're about to make a post like you did here. The rest of us would be grateful to see less toxicity around here.
Racism aside, it's like an ugly Christmas sweater in flag form.
Just to make we fully exhume the original argument -- I hang out with a lot of trans and nb people and I've noticed people just saying "they" to everyone, and I kinda love it. If everyone's just they then no one needs pronouns. The first part of the long term mission, to destabilize gender completely, starts with shit like that - taking all gender out of language.