[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

And yet, android is still not what people mean when they say they're running Linux.

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I keep hearing this, but my emby server has been running strong for a few years now without issue. My only gripe with it is the emby premiere ads that take up a lot of home screen space, but I got rid of it with custom CSS that you can put in emby settings, doesn't even show up on the phone app anymore.

I've heard Jellyfin implemented features that emby puts behind a paywall too, but I'm not sure what. Care to fill me in on what I'm missing?

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Why is the only possibility for you to either get on the roads or do nothing? The criticism is that road blocking is an ineffective form of protest, not that protest as a whole is stupid.

I work in IoT by the way, and I'm directly involved in programming small computers that increase fuel efficiency in heaters. In other words, if climate change is your primary concern, you shouldn't be inconveniencing people indiscriminately, because there's risk of stopping someone like me who's actually doing something that addresses the problem in a productive way.

I'm hardly close to the most important job that you'd be inconveniencing, just the most ironic one. These protests are certainly inconveniencing nurses on their way to their patients, lawyers on their way to their clients, families coming home to meet up for the first time since Christmas. Not to mention emergency workers being held up during active emergencies. This has all happened, and it's happened way more than any goals achieved by the protests.

So no, we're not all talk. I think most of us here giving pushback are all trying to better the world in our own way, and these protests are a consistent impediment to that, across the board. In fact, I would say anybody who bothers to take the time to say how stupid they think these protests are are doing infinitely more good than road blocking protestors, simply by virtue of maybe getting someone to stop that stupid shit.

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

I've learned to treat comments that start with "what those people don't understand..." With a little bit more skepticism than others. I find that if your opening move is to imply that not believing your ideas shows ignorance, then chances are really high that you don't have much confidence in arguing your case by its own merit.

Economic pressure can be a strategic move, sure. But, the road block has been largely indiscriminate, and the goal seems to be to create as much disruption as possible. Where's the strategy in indiscriminate disruption? In fact, the corporations you advocate against are probably least hurt by shit like this, because it would be such a comparatively small hit than everyone else.

You are far more likely to inconvenience someone just trying to get by, or someone with something person and time sensitive going on than any corporation you'd like to "pressure". They don't feel this, they don't think about this. You're not disrupting corporate supply chains, you're inconveniencing regular people.

That doesn't even get to the fact that road blockages are extremely dangerous in emergency situations, and you're putting far more lives at risk than your own by going out there.

If you are genuinely interested in taking a structured approach to protests, then I strongly suggest you start thinking of some other methods.

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

This was my experience with micro usb, and everyone seemed to agree they were total shit. As for USB-C, I've never even heard of someone having trouble with the actual cord. Generally the issue is that there is lint or something in the charge port. I don't think I've ever thrown out a USB-C cord, to my memory.

In short, check for lint, and if that's not the issue then yeah it really might be your phone. Mind if I ask what kind of phone you have?

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

This doesn't really address what he said.

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The very nature of capitalism facilitates concentrations of power

No. Capitalism is one thing and one thing only: the private ownership of the means of production. The very nature of private ownership, means private citizens have the freedom to own what's theirs, and trade it with whoever. The nature of capitalism, meaning its logical end state, is a free market in the truest sense. This is the opposite of concentrating power, because the means of power are completely disunited. In less favorable terms, the logical end state of capitalism is anarchy or chaos

Socialism is the common/public/collective ownership of the means of production. Holding the means of power in a collective is another way of saying it's being concentrated. The logical end of socialism is the concentration of everything.

Of course, I don't think we need to take either extreme too seriously. They both have faults, clearly, and they both devolve into something that more resembles the other with time. Capitalism adopts regulations or develop a state to concentrate their power against and enemy. Socialism reduces state power when civilians want more freedoms.

Point is, your characterizing of Capitalism seems misinformed, and it's incredibly silly to think a fundamental replacement of our current system is in order, as if there's some perfect ideology we can obviously replace it with

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

I'd love for people to stop using capitalism as a catch-all term for every wrong in the world. This post illustrates a great reason why.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. This means every private citizen has control over that which they own, and is free to sell it. In short, it's characterized by a free market, because everybody is free to sell whatever they want.

The reason people view this favorably is because if, for example, someone is selling some really useful farming tool, they're free to sell it at whatever price they want. But, someone else - who is also free to sell whatever they please - might figure out an alternative or their own way to assemble this tool. They can now sell it for a lower price to get more customers, thus forcing the original inventor to bring down the price as well. As a result, the farming world becomes more efficient thanks to innovation and market forces.

I feel like most people understand market forces, so I'm sorry if I'm not saying anything new yet, but it's crucial for seeing the flaw in the next part...

Modern medicine is not controlled by private entities, and they are not operating in a free market. The conditions that allow for market forces simply does not exist in Canada or America (probably Europe too but I know less about their system to get into details).

Take Johnson and Johnson for example. For one thing, they are not a private entity, they are incorporated and act in the collective interest of its shareholders. If capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (which it is!) then immoral acts they take cannot be attributed to capitalism.

Now consider their business, aside from who owns and controls them. They have a medicine called Stelara, which has no generic alternative. They have an effective Monopoly on this Crohn's medicine, becauae no one else is allowed to sell medicine of the same chemical composition until the patent wears out and it's genericized. This patent is enforced by the state. So, the state enforces a ruling that prevents private business from selling medicine, which gives the corporation an effective Monopoly.

So we have a public entity, using state-enforced rules to prevent a private business from controlling the means of producing that medicine. That's completely anti-capitalistic from every angle I can think of

When a new medicine is invented, and a company marks up the price to high heaven, it's not because they're a capitalist and thus greedy, that simply shows anti-capitalist bias. It's because the state and the laws they enforce give them the opportunity to.

People can be greedy whether they're capitalist or not, so don't use it as an indicator for the flaw in capitalism because you'll just be wrong a lot of the time, because they're independent things

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The middle ages ended in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople, which coincided with the birth of the Renaissance in Italy having already taken place.

The Iroquois Confederacy was founded (most likely) in the 1500s, with the earliest record of the first capital being in 1609.

The United States itself was founded in the 1700s.

Their comment was correct, the Iroquois Confederacy was founded during the age of the Renaissance and our modern conception of America came much later

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Considering science has only gotten robust enough to prove anything like that far more recently than any good examples of ecological collapse, I'd say this parameter is a little arbitrary.

The best example I can think of regarding ecological collapse is during and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Their climate decreased in temperature, which reduces crop yields, which weakened the empire and encouraged migration from northern Europe, which brought their collapse (plus like 12 other things lol).

In 535AD, during Justinian's reign in the east, the first black plague happened following a supermassive volcano that left the sky covered in ash blocking the sun. This was a massively ecologically damaging period of history and it caused the death of countless plant and animal life, along with the deaths of half the population of the Mediterranean.

It's not like people of this age were taking soil samples and references trends or whatever, but they certainly understood how things were going poorly.

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

No, they're suggesting that Nestle is probably acting in bad faith by attempting to close a monopolistic gap rather than genuinely doing something for the betterment of the world

[-] HardNut@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Anytime you're told that group A is responsible for your problems rather than group B, you're being lied to. Including this post

view more: next ›

HardNut

joined 1 year ago