Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah college event in ~society
-
Comment on Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah college event in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentThis seems a little more different to untangle because Floyd was murdered by someone hired by local government to perform a job in reacting to that situation. The cause and effect here are...I personally find this explanation entirely unsatisfactory for one simple reason. I do not image anyone who is commenting in this manner to say something along the lines of "I don't celebrate the loss of life but I understand cause and effect, George Floyd should have stayed away from drugs and shouldn't have stolen from a store." Well no, because you're not supposed to get killed for that, that's why we condemn the people who killed him. Well, you're not supposed to get killed for saying things either, so what cause and effect are you talking about?
This seems a little more different to untangle because Floyd was murdered by someone hired by local government to perform a job in reacting to that situation. The cause and effect here are different and the level of impact is different.
To boil it down to "saying things" is like saying the person who shouts "Fire!" in a movie theater to incite panic is just "saying things" when clearly that scenario isn't protected in the same way as saying other things. While I'm not arguing that Kirk was saying anything illegal, we also know that what is defined as legal or illegal isn't necessarily equating to the ethics behind the actions or words.
He did a lot more than just 'say things' and I'd argue that proportionally the impacts of what he was just 'saying' had a greater influence on the effect that came back at him. The price to be paid for profiteering off intentionally divisive and incendiary comments is as steep as the rewards were for doing it. That's cause and effect. Compare that to George Floyd and what he was gaining from the situation before what led to his death was so little that you can easily make the case that the proportionality of the response is nowhere close, and again, it's still more complicated of a situation to untangle the variables to that because of it being a person hired by local government to be put in such a place to respond to that situation.
In culture war, which is what we're effectively dealing with here, words can be weapons, and Kirk was wielding them that way.
-
Comment on Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah college event in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentWhat would it look like for it to be 'getting somewhere'? I ask because to say that seems like you have some expectation for how it should be or what it should look like in order to justify the...What would it look like for it to be 'getting somewhere'? I ask because to say that seems like you have some expectation for how it should be or what it should look like in order to justify the thread continuing to still be going, but I don't know what that actually looks like. Is it supposed to look like one very convincing comment rises to the top and everyone says they change their mind and agree with that?
Discussion around topics like this, or perhaps any topics even, I find to rarely ever show any signs of anyone changing their minds or such right away, but I don't have the expectation that solid discussion looks like that. I think those things happen over time. My comment here would not be the same if I hadn't read or participated in many other discussions over the years that weren't going anywhere, I think they very much shaped how I perceive things even in ways that I didn't recognize at the time when I was reading or participating in those discussions. There were times I was certain the other person was wrong and I was in the right, but later came around to ideas that I was resistant to at the time. Maybe not solely because of that one person but perhaps repetition of seeing those arguments made from various people.
If people are engaging for the 'right' reasons, which I say that in such a way that I don't know if there are some set of strict 'right' reasons or what it even looks like as it probably varies for each person, but if the people who are still engaging are doing so as they think it is beneficial to them and there aren't a lot of other markers indicating it's a negative for them, then that seems to me that the thread is 'getting somewhere' for those people.
-
Comment on Conservative activist Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah college event in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't think they were equating the actions of those figures, rather using those figures to establish that there is a line which is in contrast to the original comment that stated nobody deserves...I don't think they were equating the actions of those figures, rather using those figures to establish that there is a line which is in contrast to the original comment that stated nobody deserves it. Whether that line begins/ends somewhere around Putin/Hitler level or extends towards people like Charlie Kirk is part of other arguments being made.
-
Comment on Has anyone else run up against higher costs due to the US tariffs? in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentHow would this work on a site like Amazon where it may be common that they do 'free' shipping and they also said they weren't going to separate out the tariff cost? I'd personally prefer to shop...How would this work on a site like Amazon where it may be common that they do 'free' shipping and they also said they weren't going to separate out the tariff cost?
I'd personally prefer to shop somewhere that lists the tariff as a line item if they still had comparable end result pricing to other places that are not putting the line item in, but I'm not sure if any such retailers exist.
-
Comment on The sunscreen scandal shocking Australia in ~health
Grumble4681 Link ParentThat makes far more sense, because the Earth being egg shaped would seemingly be negligible with regards to the distance to the Sun from varying parts of Earth.That makes far more sense, because the Earth being egg shaped would seemingly be negligible with regards to the distance to the Sun from varying parts of Earth.
-
Comment on The case for cultured meat has changed in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentI've never encountered any real substantiated figures on subsidies in meat products so I'd be curious to know just how much it actually is. That's probably why I assumed scale, while I've heard...I've never encountered any real substantiated figures on subsidies in meat products so I'd be curious to know just how much it actually is. That's probably why I assumed scale, while I've heard there are subsidies, without any figures to ascribe to it, I can't really determine the impacts of the subsidies to the resulting prices.
I've been eating some of the plant based meat imitation products off/on over the last 20ish years and I doubt it will change much in the next year 10 years but lab meat will potentially have a better chance. Realistically, many of the plant based imitation products don't deliver enough on the experience/taste as actual meat, and the price difference probably makes that worse. Maybe some could justify buying an inferior tasting product if it were cheaper or even equal price if ethic concerns are also being weighed, but not as much when its 2-3x more. They also don't necessarily offer a ton of health benefits over actual meat (can vary quite a bit depending on the product), so they don't always even have that advantage.
-
Comment on The case for cultured meat has changed in ~food
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentCertainly it won't be an instant success if they pass on costs and it results in being substantially higher price than what comes from livestock, but I think what will more likely happen is that...Certainly it won't be an instant success if they pass on costs and it results in being substantially higher price than what comes from livestock, but I think what will more likely happen is that they will have to pass on costs, it will be quite a bit higher, and a smaller portion of people will pay the premium for it, and then it will slowly begin to encroach on livestock meat prices over time and more people will convert as the price keeps dropping until it reaches a tipping point.
Livestock meat has truly insane scale of production compared to other food productions aimed at these markets. Like a lot of the meat imitation plant-based products are still fairly expensive compared to actual meat, which you would think not having to raise whole animals with all the inefficiencies that comes with could in no way beat these plant-based meat imitation products, but they do and I have to assume it's largely just due to the scale they operate at since plant based meat imitation products are a very tiny fraction of the market. I think they've gotten slightly better cost-wise over the years but still quite a bit more expensive. I think if they were good enough imitations people would be willing to pay the higher price, the scale would have gone up more, the cost would have gone down more; however that plant-based bacon even on the packaging where it's supposed to look its best doesn't look nearly as good as real bacon.
-
Comment on FBI arrests US army veteran for ‘conspiracy’ over protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentThat's not the extent of what was proposed in the prior comment. Taking up arms and fighting is what was mentioned. So are people going to jump to the defense of some people that go that far?That's not the extent of what was proposed in the prior comment. Taking up arms and fighting is what was mentioned. So are people going to jump to the defense of some people that go that far?
-
Comment on FBI arrests US army veteran for ‘conspiracy’ over protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentWhat do you envision that it looks like? Like small groups of people who have give up their lives to maybe storm a building briefly before all being shot and killed? Or something more like Jan 6th...What do you envision that it looks like? Like small groups of people who have give up their lives to maybe storm a building briefly before all being shot and killed? Or something more like Jan 6th but anti-trump instead? Fortunately for the J6 crowd, they had an administration that supported and encouraged that crowd to form, whereas anyone doing that against Trump could potentially get arrested before they even step foot there if they are having what they think are private conversations about ulterior motives only to turn out there's undercover agents in their midst.
For what you're questioning, there has to be enough people who have either nothing to lose, or a lot to lose and it being on the verge of being taken from them. You can assume you're basically getting a life sentence or a death sentence, is it really that hard to understand why you aren't seeing that type of resistance?
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentEvery choice to use FOSS should be well informed to recognize that the contributor(s) can stop contributing at any time. This is no different. I don't see why the onus of being informed should...It is a bit of a rug-pull to those specific (possibly hypothetical) users whose decision to sign up was influenced by the belief that the choice in license was a well-informed one--a fairly mild rug-pull, granted, but a rug-pull nonetheless.
Every choice to use FOSS should be well informed to recognize that the contributor(s) can stop contributing at any time. This is no different. I don't see why the onus of being informed should solely fall on the person who is freely providing their time and efforts.
Why shouldn't the perspective of this be along the lines of the contributor stopped contributing to the project, and is now contributing to a different project? Yes, I realize it's the same technical project under a different license, but the license dictates how the contributor wants their contributions to be used and therefore should treated as equal to any other project where the contributor changes where they place their contributions.
I do think that means the users should take into account, just like they would an abandoned project, the long-term reliability of any other projects from that contributor and that would be part of an informed choice on their part whether they would use or engage with such projects. I believe this was an early concern of uBlock Origin to some extent because the creator of this abandoned his original project uBlock and left it in the hands of someone he didn't really know that well which also impacted all the users of that project by giving someone else access to their systems by way of being able to publish changes to the extension in undesirable ways. Of course its been a long time since that happened and those aren't generally seen as relevant concerns anymore (not that they were massive concerns at the time because the explanation given by the creator was seen as reasonable and understandable as well as showing greater awareness to that situation).
Is uBlock Origin not a worthy project simply because the guy who started it didn't make the smartest most informed decisions when he started with uBlock? People make mistakes and sometimes learn from those mistakes.
-
Comment on Google will require developer verification for Android apps outside the Play Store in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentWell if you strictly look at direct competition among businesses, I can't think of much of a strong anti-competitive effect of this registration. But if you consider that Google's business is...Well if you strictly look at direct competition among businesses, I can't think of much of a strong anti-competitive effect of this registration. But if you consider that Google's business is impacted by more than direct competition, there are significant implications here and while I'm not sure that has it fall under anti-competitive, it does bolster their bottom line so maybe in some context it could be seen as that.
For example, adblockers. Some of these are commercial, but some are not. The most popular adblocker that I'm familiar with anyhow, uBlock Origin, is well known to be made by Raymond Hill. As far as I know, it's not released commercially, and they refuse donations for that project. From what I recall, he walked away from the original uBlock because he didn't like the hassles of dealing with public expectations, criticisms and what not that come from having millions of people rely on something he made mostly for himself. So he's not anonymous in any way, but also adblockers have rarely been targeted for violating laws, copyright or otherwise, so I'm guessing he hasn't had to incur a lot of trouble that would otherwise have driven him away from keeping that project available publicly. I could see an alternate timeline or a future where adblockers are targeted more substantially and a project like uBlock Origin would not be sustainable if it required someone to associate their real name and other information with the project. While adblockers are generally not standalone apps as far as I'm aware, there are some apps modified with adblocking functions built in (think of patchers like ReVanced or what not where they can patch some apps to make it so they don't play ads, like Spotify, Youtube etc.)
There's another project under the name Bypass Paywalls Clean maintained by someone under the name Magnolia that used to be easily accessible on the extension stores and then got removed, then got taken down off github etc. and according to the developer it was constantly targeted by DMCA claims. Last I checked, it was only available on a Russian hosted github like website, presumably because they don't care about bogus DMCA claims. This isn't an app mind you just as uBlock Origin isn't, so I'm not stating this as a specific example, but conceptually it is quite transferable. I don't know if this Magnolia person is actually easily trackable in any way, but this move Google is pulling is the type that would basically all but eliminate a project like this.
Then there are the other types of projects, like alternative Youtube front-ends (which generally remove ads), content downloaders (like Youtube-dl), and likely myriads of other projects I have no awareness of. Google has made it very clear they have been going after these types of services, and even if you agree that Google has the right to do so because it costs them money to provide these services, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that we're not far from a future where people who have to put their names on these projects can be legally harassed into giving up, even if what they are doing isn't even technically illegal. For non-commercial projects, who really has the resources to deal with a company like Google or any other that might come after them with some bogus legal claim?
-
Comment on A Palo Alto scientist's $10M plan to kill California redistricting in ~society
Grumble4681 LinkIt wouldn't necessarily be so bad if he had also dumped millions into Texas to stop them from redistricting. Wonder where his sense of duty was then. Mind you, it would still be bad, because no...It wouldn't necessarily be so bad if he had also dumped millions into Texas to stop them from redistricting. Wonder where his sense of duty was then.
Mind you, it would still be bad, because no single individual should be able to throw around millions of dollars to influence government even if they aren't being complete hypocrites about it, but that's a different issue.
-
Comment on Google will require developer verification for Android apps outside the Play Store in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentYeah basically stifle creation of or maintenance of many kinds of apps because it could result in someone getting harassed for one reason or another. Harassed by corporations via DMCA claims and...Yeah basically stifle creation of or maintenance of many kinds of apps because it could result in someone getting harassed for one reason or another. Harassed by corporations via DMCA claims and other bogus copyright claims, bogus legal threats and otherwise for anti-competitive reasons, and then all other kinds of work that aren't illegal but someone may not want to be publicly associated with because family, friends, coworkers, future potential employers etc. and while there may not be a public database that one could easily look up, it's not entirely clear yet how accessible this information would be. Given the current state of US government and just how many governments across the world are treating privacy, I have absolutely no faith that this information won't be trivially accessible even if there are no crimes being committed.
It's things like this that happen over time that have contributed to the erosion of people sharing their hobbies for fun and make it so the only way anything can be shared publicly is if you're willing to do it as a business and make money off it, because that's the only way you can justify all the potential headaches and hoops to jump through. I just think of the experience of going to the store front of Google Play to look for free games and comparing that to the days when you could go to the 'store front' of flash game websites and the direction those go in are completely different.
-
Comment on McDonald’s is cutting prices of its combo meals to convince customers it’s affordable again in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentCigarettes, liquor etc. aren't necessary for survival, whereas food is. Sure, heavily processed food isn't necessary for survival, but if that is what is available to you within the constraints of...Cigarettes, liquor etc. aren't necessary for survival, whereas food is. Sure, heavily processed food isn't necessary for survival, but if that is what is available to you within the constraints of your living circumstances, then the tax is directly going towards making your survival more difficult.
-
Comment on McDonald’s is cutting prices of its combo meals to convince customers it’s affordable again in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentThey did say this. It could easily be interpreted as that was their situation when they said "We", with the "we" being the children to the single mom.A single mom working two jobs probably isn't making food at home that is cheaper or healthier than McDonalds. We used the microwave far more often than than the stove (when it worked).
They did say this. It could easily be interpreted as that was their situation when they said "We", with the "we" being the children to the single mom.
-
Comment on McDonald’s is cutting prices of its combo meals to convince customers it’s affordable again in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentI would disagree in the sense that it proposes this as though it's some unique event or that there aren't certain rules to how it works. Every day there's some suit wearing assholes somewhere out...I would disagree in the sense that it proposes this as though it's some unique event or that there aren't certain rules to how it works. Every day there's some suit wearing assholes somewhere out there going into a meeting with their bullshit charts and sheets of metrics and other information with their primary goal to make more money and with only enough concern for how they get it that it doesn't backfire on them. If they could sell you literal shit and get away with it without consequence, they would. Regulations and regulatory bodies help mitigate that, consumer self interest and competition are the primary force. You wouldn't want to eat shit and if you knew you were, you'd likely go anywhere else that doesn't serve literal shit after that.
Inflation is actually a reason to raise prices, including uncertainty of inflation. Perception cuts in multiple ways. You can perceive it as they raised prices too much initially and are resistant to lowering, but you can also perceive other actions as businesses constantly raising prices and baiting people in with low prices to begin with, like streaming services in the last decade or so. So if you are a business selling something, raising prices slightly that don't account for what the true costs of inflation will be in the next couple years not only costs you money, but could also negatively impact perception of your business more than if you had taken the hit in perception in one go rather than repeatedly over time.
The regulatory and market forces that keep any business from just charging whatever they wanted before are still there (well regulatory forces may change depending on what dipshit gets elected). But the point being that they couldn't sell you literal shit before because it would backfire on them, and just because significant inflation is occurring still doesn't mean they can sell you literal shit as it would still backfire on them. There's still a limit to what they can get away with.
-
Comment on McDonald’s is cutting prices of its combo meals to convince customers it’s affordable again in ~food
Grumble4681 Link ParentThe calories aren't necessarily even the danger of fast food or restaurants in general. They can be, they'll happily serve up someone a 3000 calorie meal, but I've noticed a lot of fast food...The calories aren't necessarily even the danger of fast food or restaurants in general. They can be, they'll happily serve up someone a 3000 calorie meal, but I've noticed a lot of fast food places have started displaying calories on their menus (on the actual menu, on a website, or in the app) but they don't quite as prominently display some of the other nutritional facts. It's easy to clear 150% DV of saturated fats without touching 2000 calories even. There may even still be some that have trans fats and very high cholesterol, and the sodium can be pretty astronomical.
I think McDonalds shows 450ish calories for a Double Cheeseburger, which honestly doesn't seem that bad, but then you look at the other nutritional facts of it and its quite a bit worse. In fact if you look at their nutritional calculator and the figures they choose to display more prominently, a double cheeseburger is 440 calories, 25g protein, 12% DV of carbs and 30% DV of total fat. Those are the numbers they want you to focus on. But if you look at the smaller numbers below that, its 11g 57% DV of saturated fat, 1.5g trans fat, 1120mg 49% DV sodium.
So take two of those and you're only at 880 calories. It's not the calories that are the killer there.
-
Comment on Sling TV launches new Select service in ~tv
Grumble4681 Link ParentThat selection of channels is basically what my parents watch. Thankfully not Fox News, but a lot of the rest of them.That selection of channels is basically what my parents watch. Thankfully not Fox News, but a lot of the rest of them.
-
Comment on ‘Being short is a curse’: the men paying thousands to get their legs broken – and lengthened in ~life.men
Grumble4681 Link ParentNot that I would think any height really makes this type of procedure worthwhile, but if there actually is a scenario, this height seems to be closer to that than many other heights. What's the...Hell, the guy in the article is 5'6, which isn't even very short. It's slightly shorter than the male average, and still taller than the female average. It seems insane to have an excrutiating, permanently debilitating, extremely risky surgery to get a few inches taller when you're only 6% shorter than average.
Not that I would think any height really makes this type of procedure worthwhile, but if there actually is a scenario, this height seems to be closer to that than many other heights. What's the point of going from 5' to 5'3"? I can possibly see it in the sense that some women want a guy taller than them and those 3 inches might open up some opportunities, but beyond that, that height is still short. The extra 3 inches makes virtually no difference to how you're perceived, which is much shorter than average. At least going from 5'6" to 5'9" does very minorly adjust the circumstances. If 5'9" is the average for guys, then you may lose the perception of being short.
I'd personally never find this surgery to be worthwhile at any height if the only goal is to be a few inches taller. I suspect that if I were 5' tall and felt insecure about my height, I'd still feel insecure at 5'3" tall. Maybe I could convince myself by statistics that going from 5'6" to 5'9" means I'm not short anymore, but I also question if that would be enough, if I wouldn't still feel short anyhow. At a certain point, what you think about yourself can become divorced from reality. I could think I'm ugly as fuck and someone, or multiple people could tell me that I'm not, and it won't make a bit of difference, I'd still think I'm as ugly as fuck because what I'm comparing myself to and what other people are comparing me to can be very different things. That ties into what you mentioned about guys over 6' getting that procedure.
I'd be really curious to know if height itself will compensate for the disadvantages people feel they have if their height is not correlated with how they feel about themselves. If being 6' tall statistically means I'm more likely to get paid more and get laid more, but inside I still think and feel as insecure as I did when I was 5'9", does the increased height even do anything?
I know you didn't specify legal or ethical, but my point is that those things matter. What he was saying was legal, but sometimes quite unethical. And he was profiting off those unethical things he was saying, which I'd argue is like a multiplier to the ethics of what he's saying.
He effectively made himself a lightning rod with what he was saying, for profit and gambling that lightning wouldn't strike him, but lightning did end up striking him.
This is legitimately a culture war in my view, and he was an active participant in escalating it.