• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • My journey was Windows-> Ubuntu -> Mint -> Fedora -> Arch.

    (Infuriatingly i still use windows for gaming, but nothing else.)

    Did i mention that i use arch?

    More importantly:

    fucked up all my data with no backup.

    One time i messed up a script and accidentally copied 40,000 mp3s to the same filename. 20 years of music collecting, literally going back to Napster, all gone.

    Well, not completely gone. I’ve got everything uploaded to iBroadcast, and I’m pretty sure i can download my library. But I’m not sure i deserve to.




  • The Bibles have nothing to do with his campaign. In the context of the Bibles, he’s just a dude selling bibles, he’s not a representative of his campaign, the money isn’t going to his campaign, and it’s not being spent on his campaign.

    To be specific, there’s no law against a church giving money to a political figure; there are laws against donations to political causes – and political campaigns are political causes. Trump the person can sell whatever he wants and use that money however he wants, or, in this case, license his name to whatever, etc.

    There’s no reason a person can’t pay for their own campaign, and there’s no reason someone with more money than sense can’t just give another person free money with no strings. We don’t tend to this because we don’t tend to have candidates that could believably get money from people for reasons unrelated to their campaign – with any career politician, it would be a transparent pretense. But not with Trump, he legitimately can get people to buy whatever, because it’s him they like, not just him-as-president. The shoes, the Bible, the steaks – they’re proof of that fact.

    The money he’s getting from the Bibles is not political money and he’s not spending it on his campaign. There’s just no there there.

    Trump’s debts are not “political,” especially the fraud verdict (the $400m one) which is his biggest problem rn. There’s no reason a person can’t sell a Bible and use it to pay for the judgement against him for fraud. Like, that’s a weird sentence, but it’s true.

    His campaign is definitely short on money, but, financially, his main concern right now is the fraud judgement, and after that the rape/defamation judgement, then maybe the lawyers next? Tho he probably doesn’t plan on paying them. So, yeah, Trump’s going to need some money for his campaign, but he needs to keep the Trump in Trump Tower or he’s completely fucked – legally, financially, and even politically.

    Look, I hate him too, but this is just not money laundering.




  • It’s not illegal to sell bibles. I’m sure there are loads of churches that will fill their pews with them, but they’re not sending money to the campaign, they’re sending it to Trump. Why would he make this harder for himself, he can just take the money and put it in his pocket, there’s no reason to get the campaign involved.


  • For real. Trump is an idiot, a grifter, and a piece of shit, but this isn’t even sidestepping campaign donation law.

    He’s not a political candidate getting funds from churches, he’s a parasite capitalist selling bibles to his fans, and he’s a political candidate – 2 separate things. The bible money isn’t going to his campaign, it’s just going to his pocket.

    This take assumes that he’s selling bibles, funneling the money from their sales to his campaign, then funneling it back out to pay for his disgorgements. This take thinks he’s intentionally making is harder for himself, just to make it illegal.

    He’s just a guy selling shit.




  • I’m not sure it was ever accurate for people who weren’t already conservative.

    It makes a lot more sense that, as you get older, you stop growing and learning, so as society progresses, your formerly progressive views become commonplace and eventually anachronistic.

    (That’s 100% what happened to my mother, who was a hippie, literally flowers in her hair, and now “just doesn’t really get the whole trans thing”)

    And, if a person was progressive, but had some secret conservative or regressive values, those values come into sharper relief when their other views become commonplace – and, as you get older, you’re less interested in hiding your flaws and/or shameful values, so they come out more.

    (That’s what happened with my dad, he was in folk music groups in the 70s and then became a doctor and didn’t like the idea of poor people getting some of his money (even though it was those same programs that kept his mother afloat after his father didn’t come back from Korea).)


  • I’m not sure if I understand. Isn’t this a normal thing, Amazon just made it look like you’re normal one, plus “Amazon”? I could be misunderstanding.

    edit judging by the down votes I guess I misunderstood?

    You’ve been able to capture and replace context menus in browsers for years. I don’t use them in my development because they’re annoying but this is one that I played with one time:

    https://carbon-components-svelte.onrender.com/components/ContextMenu

    (The feature has been Dollar Store DRM for years - that’s how you just disable the context menu altogether. “We have DRM at home”- type DRM.)

    To be clear, the reason this isn’t common is because of OP’s response – it feels intrusive and the more “value” it adds (ie how customized it is) is proportional to how intrusive it feels.

    To make matters worse, as far as I know, you can’t replace the context menu just sometimes, like, it would be cool to just customize options on images for example, or links – but it’s whole page or nothing – so using the feature at all means using it everywhere, and, for me anyway, it’s kind of a lot of effort, which sits on the scale with “intrusive and annoying” to outweigh the value add.




  • One of the things that I thought of to help with this problem is, like, what if we figured out how much it costs to meet like all the basics in life - a house (not a rental!), food, soda, internet, heat/hot water - all that stuff. Then add some more, so that people could do nice stuff and enjoy their lives, save for retirement, go on vacations, etc.

    Then - now here’s the crazy part - we make a law requiring that everyone in the country needs to be paid at least that much money. It would be like a “Floor Wage,” or, like, a “Minimum Salary.”

    If the increase in the cost of doing business didn’t eliminate billionaires altogether, I bet people would at least stop giving a shit about billionaires and their gold piles because the rest of us aren’t living in debt while they build yachts for their yachts.


  • I just wrote like a 10 page response to another comment on that same post I made so I don’t think I have the energy to go too deep on this - so, to keep it short:

    1. I was just rebutting that person’s claim that a car and a digital object have the same relationship to value, and they don’t; physicality requires resources that “digitality” doesn’t.

    2. I feel like you might’ve agreed with me in the second part? Or, if not, I think you managed to destabilize the entire data economy in like 2 sentences, so, fuck yeah.


  • First off, I was specifically addressing your concern about the car & it’s physicality. Value of physical objects is directly related to the scarcity of the resources; digital content pricing is skeuomorphic (sp?) at best and absolute bullshit at worst.

    Surely the sale of that copy of the movie has value

    Secondly (and thirdly in a sec), this is the fundamental misapprehension that surrounds piracy. Each instance of piracy does not mean one lost sale. In terms of music (I read a study about music piracy a few years ago), this is rarely the case, and in fact, it was the opposite: the study found that the albums that were pirated more resulted in more sales, since the album’s reach was extended.

    Thirdly, one of the core issues with the entertainment industry at the moment is that the streaming services have no way to gauge the draw of a specific show, movie, or song, since subscribers just don’t approach their subscription that way - you don’t subscribe to Spotify because your want to hear Virtual Cold by Polvo; you subscribe because you want to have access to their entire collection, as well as all the other awesome 90s noise/math rock - even though, let’s be honest, you really just listen to Virtual Cold over and over.

    As a result of this clusterfuck, streaming services can’t correctly apportion payment to their content - they do an elaborate split of the profits. So - the best way for the “content providers” (ie copyright holders) to increase profits is to reduce the amount of content on the streaming service - so the profits are spread over fewer titles.

    This is massively hurting the production companies - please note none of these fuckers are getting any sympathy from me, this is just an explanation - they’re having a hard time finding a balance between how much they can spend given that half of their productions’ profits are pennies. (Oops, forgot one element: because of streaming tech, no one buys films in tape or DVD or whatever - which was half of a film’s profit.) Do they make a bunch of huge budget action movie sequels that fill the theater seats? Or do they make smaller-budget films with smaller profit margins?

    It’s a shitty situation, and I don’t know what the answer is - but I know that the answer isn’t whatever the fuck this is. And, until they figure their shit out, I’m just going to step outside the market for a bit.

    I’m not living in some dream world where piracy doesn’t reduce profits. I know that the underground bands that I like are usually supportive of piracy because it helps them more than it hurts - and when it comes to film and TV, when those companies complain about piracy , it’s just like those bullshit shoplifting claims - attempts to turn their “line not go up” on poor people. Piracy is a grain of sand in the Sahara - they have way bigger problems than that - though I do think increased piracy metrics might help encourage them in the right direction.

    Anyway, if you got this far, I appreciate your time.



  • Before Obama, I could still remain quiet when people said “voting for anyone is implicit approval,” or whatever - and for the most part, they’re right - voting is a pretty low level of change.

    I voted for Obama because even if he is a bit of a tool, he’s black, and now a huge group of minority kids saw someone who looks like them in the white house. I voted for him not because of the “HOPE” on his signs but literally to give black kids hope. (And yeah, for the most part, it’s false hope, just like it is for white kids, welcome to the club.) He was a positive symbol and, if it’s a symbol who is also a centrist Democrat, that’s better then a centrist Democrat that isn’t a positive symbol. And a shit ton better than Mitt Romney or whoever the other guy was.

    And then Trump happened, and any respect for the “don’t vote” viewpoint drained out. If you still think both parties are the same at this point, you might want to start asking yourself what else is going on with you - because “not great” is not identical to “fucking terrible”…

    Biden isn’t doing what I want him to do - health care, income inequality, corruption in Congress, etc - but the infrastructure bill isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing, we need it. We need a lot more, but 1 > 0.