LukeZaz's recent activity
-
Comment on Anthropic's IPO prospectus shows sweeping AI vision, surging costs in ~finance
-
Comment on Cornell won't, we will in ~news
LukeZaz Link ParentAs deeply horrible as the situation you experienced was, it was absolutely the exception. Don't let one bad memory make you think the majority of people are as terrible as those two people were.but it has made me understand that "help" is the exception, not the rule.
As deeply horrible as the situation you experienced was, it was absolutely the exception. Don't let one bad memory make you think the majority of people are as terrible as those two people were.
-
Comment on Amnesty International calls for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished in ~society
LukeZaz LinkFrom the article: [...]From the article:
Amnesty International called for the abolition of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is tasked with leading Donald Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown in a report released Thursday, September 24. The report, titled "We Had Whistles, They Had Guns," documents widespread human rights violations during ICE's large-scale operations, the rights watchdog said.
The release comes less than a week after a Venezuelan migrant, Wilber Garces Perez, was shot and wounded by an ICE agent in Austin, Texas, reigniting anger in the US over the immigration authorities' methods.
[...]
"ICE is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed," Daar wrote. "For the US government to have an immigration enforcement system that complies with international human rights law and standards, ICE needs to be abolished and we need to start over."
-
Amnesty International calls for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished
24 votes -
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz Link ParentDeleting my previous comment in favor of this one to apologize for it. I do think you've misinterpreted me here, but I was in a rougher position earlier today that I've since rectified and I now...Deleting my previous comment in favor of this one to apologize for it. I do think you've misinterpreted me here, but I was in a rougher position earlier today that I've since rectified and I now find it unreasonable and unfair of me to have assumed you were disingenuous for this. Sorry about that.
For a genuine answer: I could answer the first question a thousand ways, but specific alternatives are not at the forefront of my mind with this conversation, because there are a lot of ways to address the issue and any number of them would be an improvement.
Fundamentally, I want userbases of helpful, societally-beneficial resources to not get undermined by careless sales to bad-faith owners, done solely for a payday. I'll leave it you as to whether or not the Letterboxd sale is this; winther's reply to me earlier suggested perhaps this was not the case.
More specifically: how is it morally wrong for someone to make something and sell it on to someone else, even if the new owner won't run it as well?
Creating something useful for others and then having them become dependent on you for it creates a responsibility, especially in cases where they financially support you for doing so. This might sometimes be unwanted, in which case it is absolutely fair to find someone else to take the reigns. It is also fine, in theory, for money to be exchanged during this process.
The problem is when you hand the resource over to the highest bidder for the sake of cash, regardless of what that bidder plans to actually do with the resource. In this, the hypothetical seller is shirking the responsibility they have to their userbase to safeguard the longevity and reliability of the resource they oversee. That's negligence for the sake of greed, and that's immoral.
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz Link ParentThat's not a given. Plenty of corporate sales are made based on monetary gain rather than actual need. This reads like you're implying it to be true about me. If so, that's another very unfair...it's clear that the owners think it is necessary though.
That's not a given. Plenty of corporate sales are made based on monetary gain rather than actual need.
but I also don't have any attachment to [...]
This reads like you're implying it to be true about me. If so, that's another very unfair strawman.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
This is insulting and unfounded. I don't know where you must've felt I was aggressive enough to warrant this, but if this is where we're at I don't think the conversation is worth continuing, so this will be my last reply.
-
Comment on Troy Jackson emerged from nowhere to succeed Graham Platner in Maine's Senate race. Now the establishment is taking control. in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentThere are so many angles to approach this from that I won't be able to keep track of them all in my head. It doesn't help that I've argued about this ad nauseam for years. I've lost my cool before...There are so many angles to approach this from that I won't be able to keep track of them all in my head. It doesn't help that I've argued about this ad nauseam for years. I've lost my cool before because of it, because seeing this time and time again is exhausting and frustrating. I have so little energy left for this.
So with that in mind, I ended up just... typing. It's probably overlong, to the point that it felt like it needed horizontal rules to break up sections, and I ended up jumping around all over while editing it, but c'est la vie. I got something that started with the simple, ended with the important, and with any luck it'll make sense.
Here we go:
First is the simple, surface stuff. Namely, that your link doesn't support your conclusions. Not in the sense that people don't change who they vote for, but in the sense that the article doesn't actually track any reasons for why the changes took place. And that's rather important.
Sure, I can believe that people who switched from Biden to Trump might qualify as part of the group that Democrats are chasing. But that was a whole 5% of Biden's voters and 3% of Trump's. Those numbers are rather tiny compared to the large amounts that either started/came back to voting, or who dropped off, and they could be anything. I could just as easily claim that this happened due to Trump successfully playing to his base while Harris' campaign floundered by relying so heavily on "I'm not him," and that'd be just as unfair to say.
As far as I'm concerned, this data can support the importance of "enthusiasm" – and let's be real here, this isn't just about enthusiasm, it's also about trust – just fine too. And I think that's a more salient position to take anyway, but that brings me to my second point:
Actually, wait, no. Intermission. I want to mention before the proceeding that I'm about to expound upon my thoughts and reasoning for posting the paraphrased quote that I did. I'm going to do this because my previous comment didn't make those thoughts clear.
Those thoughts in turn will probably recontextualize my earlier statements enough that, had you known them back then, you'd have probably responded differently. Expecting you to have done so without any of the coming explanation would be very unfair, and so I want to say I am not pointing fingers at you during any of it.
Anyways.
This one's the most important point I've got to make – hence my ending with it – and that is the fact that I am not talking solely about electoral strategy. The advice I mentioned was given in the context of addressing racism and antisemitism, and in this thread I am extending it because elections face a similar issue, to wit: The Democratic party claims to care about minority groups and those in poverty — if so, why is it spending so much effort trying to convince people who broadly aren't those things? Why is it spending so much more of its time on people who don't like it, and so little time on the people it's ostensibly defending?
Personally, I think the answer is because that's who they – and to a significant degree, we – are used to thinking about. White, cis, straight, able-bodied people historically held power, and so they got the attention. For all the many great ways we've progressed over the years, this stubborn fact has remained true today, and I hope I don't need to start pointing out the demographics of the average Western billionaire to convince anyone of this.
Regardless, it's a tragedy. Not just because we've started to value metrics over goals and started prioritizing electoral strategy over actual post-election results, but because I think it is deeply insulting that the most vulnerable in our society have been forgotten in an effort to chase the people who don't even want to be sought out.
I don't just want enthusiasm. Or trust. I want to vote for a party that remembers who it's for.
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz Link ParentYou've spent so long getting used to sites getting hollowed out for profit that you've forgotten otherwise is possible, haven't you? I can't fathom how else you'd think a $300 million payday is...You've spent so long getting used to sites getting hollowed out for profit that you've forgotten otherwise is possible, haven't you? I can't fathom how else you'd think a $300 million payday is necessary.
The response by every single user group of every single formerly free site that gets sold?
It's not exactly fair to interpret people's words as though they're the worst of a tangentially-related, vaguely defined group of people you remember seeing elsewhere.
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
LukeZaz Link ParentI mean "objectively offensive." How does "objectively offensive" work?I mean "objectively offensive." How does "objectively offensive" work?
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
LukeZaz Link ParentI am very curious what you think this is.objectively offensive.
I am very curious what you think this is.
-
Comment on Troy Jackson emerged from nowhere to succeed Graham Platner in Maine's Senate race. Now the establishment is taking control. in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentI'm reminded again of advice I was once given that went along the lines of this: "You spend a lot of time trying fruitlessly to convince your enemies; have you considered spending your time...exactly who may be persuadable.
I'm reminded again of advice I was once given that went along the lines of this: "You spend a lot of time trying fruitlessly to convince your enemies; have you considered spending your time helping your friends instead?"
Given how much Democratic strategy seems to revolve around convincing mythical median voters rather than playing to their actual voterbase, I can't help but feel that this advice would be very useful to them.
-
Comment on The literary world’s DEI checklist in ~books
LukeZaz Link ParentIn this case, it'd probably be best to liken it to shooing an unwanted solicitor at your doorstep. This post goes a bit beyond "uninteresting" and seems to veer uncomfortably close to "offensive"...I’m not sure why people act like ignoring a post you’re not interested in is a hassle.
In this case, it'd probably be best to liken it to shooing an unwanted solicitor at your doorstep. This post goes a bit beyond "uninteresting" and seems to veer uncomfortably close to "offensive" considering the apparent absurdity of the author, so we're not talking about a flyer in the mailbox here.
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz Link ParentAttempting to play devil's advocate for this scenario based on some kind of pure logical angle suggests that you agree that it's morally cloudy at best; if you didn't, you'd presumably be...Attempting to play devil's advocate for this scenario based on some kind of pure logical angle suggests that you agree that it's morally cloudy at best; if you didn't, you'd presumably be addressing it from that perspective. Which begs the question: Why are you trying to defend an unethical decision?
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz (edited )Link ParentWho said anything about "provided for free" or "in perpetuity"? This is one hell of a bad faith interpretation of what's being said. All I want is for things to not get sold to soulless for-profit...Who said anything about "provided for free" or "in perpetuity"? This is one hell of a bad faith interpretation of what's being said.
All I want is for things to not get sold to soulless for-profit monstrosities. That is not an unreasonable ask.
-
Comment on A24, Sony and The New York Times circle Letterboxd as bidding starts at $300 million in ~movies
LukeZaz Link ParentMaybe it wouldn't be so inevitable so frequently if they were willing to not cash out.Maybe it wouldn't be so inevitable so frequently if they were willing to not cash out.
-
Comment on Paramount settles with California, other states over Warner Bros merger in ~movies
LukeZaz LinkRight, so a gigantic merger is allowed to go through, creating a serious monopoly issue, and this settlement is supposed to prevent that by... what, introducing a bunch of temporary restrictions?...Right, so a gigantic merger is allowed to go through, creating a serious monopoly issue, and this settlement is supposed to prevent that by... what, introducing a bunch of temporary restrictions?
Even if I had faith that these terms would be enforced, which I don't, most of the terms lapse. It's fixing almost nothing in favor of just kicking the problems down the road!
Ellison thanked [...] California Governor Gavin Newsom for his support throughout the process.
If that's even remotely true, I'll be sure to remember that for the next couple years.
-
Comment on Donald Trump says the US has reached a "new" security deal with Denmark and Greenland in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentI don't technically disagree, but I strongly feel that this hubbub will encourage different behavior than you expect, as these are the lessons I see it sending: For other countries: The United...I don't technically disagree, but I strongly feel that this hubbub will encourage different behavior than you expect, as these are the lessons I see it sending:
- For other countries: The United States may threaten you arbitrarily. If they do, give in at least a little bit to make them go away — it worked for Denmark, right?
- For Trump: The United States can threaten even its allies to get concessions successfully and without visible consequence.
The actual concessions may be small for now, but each time appeasement happens, they will get worse.
(Also, we're assuming that Trump isn't going to just start threatening Greenland again in a few months anyways. Since when does he give a shit about agreements?)
-
Comment on Donald Trump says the US has reached a "new" security deal with Denmark and Greenland in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentSounds like you think I'm calling it a political victory because Trump said so. I'm not. This is a disingenuous question that posits an obvious falsehood and implies it's the only alternative. But...Sounds like you think I'm calling it a political victory because Trump said so. I'm not.
What would you prefer? A dissolution of NATO and the world order?
This is a disingenuous question that posits an obvious falsehood and implies it's the only alternative. But if I ignore that: What I want is for Trump to get nothing, because giving him anything does not actually bring peace.
-
Comment on Donald Trump says the US has reached a "new" security deal with Denmark and Greenland in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentA fascist getting a political victory is not made up for just because I get to dunk on it.A fascist getting a political victory is not made up for just because I get to dunk on it.
Remember that LLMs always look better than they actually are. Close looks are required to determine many errors, and even besides that, many conversational patterns output by chatbots tend to cause people to believe them more than they should.