I chose NOT diddling kids!

I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.

Lol the place that must not be named.

It’s a numbers game. Getting engagement and knowing your audience are skills. The fediverse is a small place compared to meta. Being a big player in the fediverse for most posters is like being in the best team in a college league. Meta joining with 500-2000x the users is like suddenly having to compete at a national professional level. Certainly a few players have the skill, but most will get benched in no time.

Maybe I’m wrong and I hope that I am, but I certainly know most default sub comments at the other place had no upvotes, no replies, and were at the bottom of the thread never to be seen. On here, nearly every comment i see or post has SOME engagement (like this discussion!). It’s a different game when you have hundreds of millions to billions of users.

You wouldn’t create a meta account. But I know I consume a lot more content than I create. Probably 1% of social media users create 80% of the content. If meta joined, the users that make most fediverse content now will see their engagement drop. There will likely not be a good reason for them to post at all since, in all likelihood, that content has already been posted by a meta user or reposted with more engagement.

Eventually they’ll stop posting because it won’t be fun. At this point almost all content will be meta content, and most activity pub clients will be “alternative meta clients” in practice. If/When meta leaves, the fediverse will likely have a fraction of the content it has now, it’ll be a ghost town and have a long and hard road to recovery.

That’s not to mention the other problems in the article.

When a big corporation like Walmart moves into a neighborhood it kills the small stores because it delivers most of what people want more effectively. Then when Walmart closes shops to consolidate those neighborhoods don’t go back to the way they were, they now have no stores.

There is a lot of content in the fediverse that wouldn’t exist with meta, because meta users would provide better content, more discussion, and more votes would mean more granularity so better content rises higher. That would stop a lot of the people who post content on activity pub. They would be too late and have too little engagement to be relevant. Those people don’t magically reappear if meta decides that activity pub was just a bad mistake.

I don’t see any large leaps.

If threads uses activity pub, most activity pub users will be meta users using the meta client. Meta will not feel the pressure to conform to the activity pub implementation. They could add features as they want since all their users will use their client. This will cause a sudden incompatibility and the fediverse will have to be the one to fix the problem.

If the fediverse wants to update the protocol to add a feature, we’d have to run it by meta first since they would have to update their client. If they drag their feet it would be hard to force the update knowing it will disconnect the majority of users from the fediverse.

It’s the same situation described in the article with Google and XMPP.

I don’t see any leaps or jumps. This could be how meta kills the fediverse and we’d be walking into it eyes wide open.

I love the caption! 6 people holding a seance but they have 22 hands lol

Jokes aside the fact that people put the effort to caption their images for accessibility is awesome!

I’m sorry, I just have a hard time agreeing with you on the definition of progressive taxation here. Sure SOME rich people will pay more than SOME poor people. But even that statement is tenable at best. Certainly MOST rich people will pay less than an average family farm. Most rich people will pay less than an average person who owns a self sufficient rural homestead lot.

It’s not as bad as the libertarian “15/15/15 flat tax” that was making the rounds a few years ago, but that’s the best that can be said about it.

I like a lot of consequences of the LVT, like that if famously solves the downtown parking lot problem. But I’d never call it progressive. A progressive tax should tax people who own more wealth more than those who own less. If you tax someone who owns a multi million dollar hotel the same as someone who owns an empty lot next door all you’re doing is making it so that only the rich can afford lots. Then when they improve the lot to make more money you reward them by effectively taking a smaller percentage of their new found wealth.

It’s not progressive.

How much land does Musk or Bezos own? How much land does an average farmer own?

Amazon warehouses are built on the unimproved equivalent of farmland or worse. The Amazon warehouse generates millions in annual profit. The same parcel of land gets a farmer a meager income and we should tax BOTH THE SAME???

If you come up with a tax that has any chance of taxing an old farmer more than it taxes Musk or Bezos, don’t come tell me it’s progressive.

Also I’m sick of hearing that somehow this tax “can’t be passed down to the consumer”. If every plot of land nearby is taxed the same, all the owners will shrug and say “sorry that’s just what it costs”. It’s the very definition of things that will be passed down to the consumer. Take your libertarian BS out of here.

Selling your home so there’s more homes on the market as a solution is equivalent to turning the water off while brushing your teeth to fight the dwindling supply of water.

Fucking EXACTLY. Every drop counts, not running the water uselessly for 4 minutes a day saves enough water for you to survive a full day. Sure there are people wasting more water and we need to spend more energy reducing their waste, but just because someone is worse than you doesn’t mean you’re “good”.

Yeah, damn those tenants who use their legal rights to actually get their landlords to maintain their own damn property. They’re just mean. If only all tenants just did free labour for their landlords, the world would be a better place.

What a fucking joke.

Landlords gonna landlord. You’re literally the guy in the meme “owning other people’s homes and complaining about it”

Basically you wrote a story where you’re the good guy who out of the goodness of his heart rented his only house at HALF MARKET VALUE just because you love the poor and want to help them. Then an EVIL NON LAND OWNING tenant moves in and destroys it for no reason. And you didn’t even make any money. What a disaster. Thankfully for your landlord you’re a good land owning tenant. If only all tenants were like you.

What a joke.

Other businesses “we can provide you with a good or a service in exchange for money”

Landlords “I own your house so you owe me half your income”

Yeah, no difference at all /s

Land value tax is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of. “Unimproved” value? So basically when rich people get together and build mansions, next to them we build affordable housing. Both pay the same tax because the unimproved land is worth the same? Or maybe you’d argue that because the other mansions were built that the land is now worth more because it’s more desirable. That logic applies to the affordable housing next door though, so the rich can kick the poor out of house and home just by being nearby.

No, all taxes need to be extremely progressive because the wealthy simply consume more from society than the poor. A poor person can be poor anywhere. A rich person can only accumulate and hoard vast wealth if the society they parasite provides them with a steady source of healthy and intelligent workers and vast access to energy and natural resources to consume. The rich take more from society and need to pay more.

Taxes also need to apply to every possible economic transaction because unlike the poor, the rich can afford to do weird things to escape taxation. If we tax only one thing you can bet your ass the rich will find a way to avoid it and only the poor and working class will pay, allowing the rich to hoard wealth unimpeded leading to the tremendous inflation we see now.

Should have sold your house. Another person could have bought it. Being the owner, they would have more respect for it since it’s their loss of it gets wrecked. Adding another house to the market also increases supply and makes houses more affordable.

Your landlord also should have sold his house and you could have bought it instead of paying his mortgage.

The ethical use case for rentals is short and medium term for travelers and people who are in a place for a few months to a year.

This was one of my favorite games in when I was younger, almost 20 years ago now. I had no idea people were keeping it going. It makes me happy to see that it’s still alive.

Sounds like you’re on the right track there. As far as energy goes, you’re right, when things are dissipated, or all the same, you can’t extract anything. You need a differential, like a hot place and a cold one, a high voltage and a low one, a fast object and a slow/stopped one, a high object and a low one. The higher the differential the more you’re going to be able to extract. If it’s too small you might not be able to get any useful work out at all.

If you only had access to the coal furnace you couldn’t make power. The coal furnace is hot and it’s surrounded by room temperature air. The furnace really wants to heat the air around it and the air wants to cool the furnace because nature generally doesn’t like large differentials. So what we do is we force that heat to turn an engine before it can get to the cool ambient air.

It’s like a putting a turbine in the way of a waterfall. The water wants to fall, so we force it to turn an engine before it can get to the ground.

So back to your initial question, an AC is a heat pump. It pumps heat from the cooler inside to the warmer outside. It’s just like if we pumped the the water from the bottom of the waterfall to the top. Yes you can than use that water to generate energy, but you’re the one who pumped it up there in the first place so it’s a bit counterproductive.

If you’re trying to claim that a series of carefully selected “neutral” facts don’t create a narrative then you’re either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.

I note that you haven’t aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn’t create any protections for trans people that don’t already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.

Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, “neutral facts” must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a “neutral” light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was “an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views” that’s a bunch of neutral facts, but it’s deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a “neutral light”. Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.

Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don’t know what that term means.

This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can’t blame people for assuming you support heinous people.