I think even worse than “no future” is no change. Biden and Kamala pretty much ran on “we are not stupid (like Trump) otherwise no change” and Trump ran on “I’m going to change everything”.

It seems the left is scared to propose/pitch radical change.

Not that radical change is necessarily good (see Argentina’s historical flip-flop from radical left, right, libertarian, and authoritarian) its just that belief of change is required to believe in a better future.

Nix

My thought is, they’re just starting. It is incredibly hard to start a vehicle manufacturing company. Hopefully if they get enough traction (🥁🐍) they’ll expand to vans, roadsters, and 4wd models.

Hell yeah, thank you for doing that.

IKR? My favorite part was:

Little baby windows “are owu sure you want to dewete candy crush?”

Linux: hands you a gun “Do it. You are god” Eldridge horror sounds

I’d be nice if they mentioned how to identify structural problems. Itd be even more nice if the paper wasn’t hidden behind a $64 paywall.

Oh I think you absolutely nailed it. I just meant its not just two separate words. Like the difference between a game with action and adventure" and an “action-adventure game”

I love it, I wouldn’t have clicked this post without it. Its an actual term

https://www.howtogeek.com/what-are-boomer-shooters-and-are-they-worth-playing/

Continuing gaming’s long tradition of dumb names for game genres, boomer shooters are first person shooters that don’t use auto-regen health (COD, Halo), in offline they give health frequently from killing enemies (rather exclusively health packs), and they’re designed to be fast paced, usually with a wide FOV, an absurdly high “walk” speed with no run button, and somewhat disorienting or labyrinth-like map style. They’re often offline, but can be multiplayer player-vs-player.

Even if the game is completely modern: Doom Eternal, Ultrakill, Dusk, Turbo Overkill, etc its still called a boomer shooter.

Those are really good points, and I appreciate the input. I could see why alcohol being on someones desk isn’t a problem, e.g. depending on the person its possible the bottle doesn’t have a “gravity” tempting them.

I’m going to guess that reality is somewhere between my points and your points. Notifications can be configured, but my grandmother isn’t going to figure it out. Having a bottle of alcohol on every person’s desk is probably completely neutral for a lot of people, but could be detrimental to others. Etc

I’m saying one of the big downsides has nothing to do with self discipline.

• Even if we never click an advertisement.
• Even if we never eat from the candy bowl.
• Even if we never use the bad phone apps.

Merely living in a world covered in advertisements, living next to a delicious smelling candy bowl, living 30 seconds away from memes, rage-bait, doom scrolling, sports gambling, and other slop – just living next to those things are bad for our mental health.

Some sources if you’re curious on the research behind it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4731333/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301694

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/mgmtuht/31/

I disagree. Yes there can be good intermediate steps, but deleting slop is not even half as healthy as locking a phone away.

1. Interruptions

Not just phone calls or texts, but things like typing an email on the phone and then seeing a text or having the GPS interrupt your train of thought by yelling “Continue straight for 5 miles”. Brains hate interruptions. Those are still going to exist even when the slop is gone.

2. Resisting a temptation is exhausting. “not eating candy is healthy”… yes but having a candy bowl right next to your desk is exhausting. It takes 2sec to open a twitter link in the browser. Uninstalling an app is like moving the candy bowl to a nearby room, yeah its better, but it only takes 30 sec to reinstall.

Turning off the dopamine machine (not eating candy) is one thing. But Eddy was showing something a lot bigger than that; deleting his access to the temptation. He didnt know the code to unlock the phone.

deleted by creator

Glad I’m not alone on this

Yeah :/ it does appear that way. I looked into them a bit after reading the article, they’ve got a 61/100 score on the freedom house index (US is 83/100). From freedom of speech to freedom of religion, there seems to be a lot of not-as-advertised realities.

Its worth mentioning: workers would also be liable for company failure; but that actually might be one of the best parts of this idea.

See, right now you can get hired to run a company, drive it straight into the ground with stupid decisions, get paid the whole time, and then leave the now-bankrupted company with no downside for yourself. That would no longer be allowed if you were held responsible for the company at a personal level.

Wow, I really wasn’t expecting a positive response to my comment. You just made my day :D, thanks!

TLDR: When you commit a crime for an employer, you and the employer are responsible and must both receive the consequences. Even if you signed a contract saying you’re not liable – doesn’t matter; you can’t choose to be “not liable”.

However, when you commit a not-a-crime for an employer, only the employer gets the consequences (aka gets 100% payment/income from that work). They’re treated as if they’re the only one responsible/liable for that action. Somehow, this time, you can separate yourself from liability with a contract.

The argument is: Either liability is totally inseparable from a person or it is totally separable. We can’t have “its inseparable but only if the person is committing a crime”.

I’m usually the one person in the Solarpunk lemmy who debates “capitalism==bad” titles. This was a solid video; I don’t think I have any critiques of the arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. The speaker does a good job at not being polarizing or sensationaliazing the topic; he simply presents the information without getting emotionally charged.

That’s in contrast to the Lemmy title, which I think is senasionalized/polarizing and a bit of an insult to the listener; telling them the conclusion they should have instead of assuming they’re smart enough to understand the consequences themselves. “Why workplace democracy is an inalienable right, and its incompatibility with capitalism” would be more appropriate title IMO.

Either way I’m glad this was posted.

I think it could be a great solution. I’ve never considered it before. That said there’s one sticking point for me:

Apportion payment to developers based on software use by paid users and the size of their contribution to that software.

That^ . That needs a lot more detail. If they provide solid details – details that most can agree on – then I will actually be on board with the solution.