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.

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”.

Less a “journalist that knows not to take bullshit” and more a “journalist that is actually a Russian mouthpiece, and Iran is a Russian ally”.

Yeah, the question I don’t know the answer to is, what is the hard limit to the market’s greed? In a hypothetical scenario where every single trader successfully agrees to maintain their positions and continue buying shares at inflated speculative prices so that the market holds its value (apparently where we find ourselves) at what point does that strategy catch up to them? If the greed manages to never shifts toward fear, can the market sustain this indefinitely? Or is there some point where speculation has to manifest actual gains?

I guess that point is when traders can no longer afford speculation? Which probably translates to: boomers retiring and cashing out their 401k.

I don’t think they were talking about the kid.

…to do it again*. We’ve been down this road, we know where it ends.

It is so odd that this info being publicized…

These comments are so shit

Yeah, my last statement was more of a tangent. Just something I wonder in general. Because you know it’s gotta be a thing.

Yeah, it’s normal for people to engage with the latest posts. But also, as far as the news cycle for AI goes, there have been like 10 developments since Feb that completely change the climate that the article was posted in. I think that’s my main issue; people are making speculations about what this means, when we’re already 4 months in the future (which feels like a decade).

It’s also from Feb.

I’ve been noticing a few articles lately that were several months old, yet commenters don’t seem to notice or care. I do often wonder what percentage of Lemmy is dead internet bots circle jerking about how bad AI is.

the issue was already personal, pitting service against citizenship

For the record, no, it’s pitting unconstitutional orders against sworn duty.

I don’t want the military to decide any outcomes, but I do think just about time they let everyone involved know that the military’s only loyalty is to the people and the constitution. Yes, they take orders from the president, but we have checks and balances for a reason, and I’d feel better if the military just stated plainly their primary goal is to keep it that way.

But seriously, fuck X.

No, the article is dated March 5th. This is old news.

As long as you’re counting location as a resource. Ex. Cuba was an advantageous location for the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Mk, you’re not interested, that’s what I thought. Cheers.

That is an absolutely wild claim to make.

I need to go to bed, but if you’re actually interested in educating yourself, I recommend looking up our interest payments on national debt over time, when social security began running a deficit, debt-to-gdp over time, and the long term impacts of the 2008 financial crisis bailouts.

But if you’re just here for the circle jerk, then sure, make whatever baseless claims you want. Later.

Edit: this is actually a pretty good summary I watched recently