I am live.
Obama absolutely deported a massive number of people, historically high numbers, enough that immigration advocates at the time openly called him the “Deporter-in-Chief.” That part is not a myth.
The difference is how those deportations were carried out. Under Obama, enforcement was largely focused on recent border crossers and people already in custody, often through expedited removals. It was bureaucratic, procedural, and mostly invisible to the public. There weren’t constant interior raids, and long-term residents were increasingly deprioritized later in his presidency.
Trump, on the other hand, did not surpass Obama’s totals, but he radically changed the operating philosophy. Interior enforcement was aggressive, highly visible, and deliberately public. Priority categories were loosened to the point of meaninglessness, and the enforcement itself became part of the political messaging.
So if you’re talking about raw numbers, Obama qualifies. If you’re talking about tactics, visibility, and the lived experience inside the country, Trump’s approach is what most people actually mean when they say “mass deportation.” Same machinery. Very different mode of operation.
I keep saying that I'm going to upgrade my 5600x and 3070ti. Lol.
That would be a really easy way to identify them. Yes.
/S
Nice billionaire talking points you have there. You are literally admitting you live in an oppressive economic regime, yet you attempt to defend it.
I suppose we are both guilty of ad hominem.
I would like you to show me, in our exchange or anywhere under my original comment, where I supported billionaires. My position is straightforward. I am explaining why a four-day workweek, in my business, would not generate sufficient revenue. Other companies would undercut me by working more than four days a week and charging less per closed work order. That is not ideology; it is how competition functions in a capitalist system.
This leads to the central question: what reforms, legislation, or structural changes could realistically curtail this basic economic condition? Corporations should absolutely be more heavily regulated to prevent abuse. However, their autonomy cannot be eliminated entirely. They must retain some capacity to operate independently and generate profit, or the system collapses. What you are ultimately describing resembles a non-monetary or post-scarcity economy, which cannot exist until scarcity itself is eliminated.
The four-day workweek is an excellent idea, and I fully support it where it is viable. What you are proposing, however, is not a minor reform. It is a fundamental change to the philosophical and economic foundations of our society. Such a transformation cannot be achieved through legislation alone.
Omg.
We just got one of those fancy espresso machines. It cost me an arm and a leg, and I’ve been fiddling with it for a while now. This morning my wife complained that it takes me forever to make a cup of coffee.
That said, when she finally tried it, she admitted it was quite good. So… yeah. I guess she’s right.
Ok.
I agree that billionaires hoarding wealth like a dragon under a mountain is terrible.
A four day work week is a great idea and should be implemented where it can work.
We need over arching sweeping reforms to solve our wealth equality issues.
Agree or disagree?
Yes. The pattern continues. You cherry-pick a few choice quotes from my response and then claim I’m some kind of pro-billionaire, despite the fact that my statement opened with a clear denunciation of billionaires.
Wealth inequality is single-handedly one of the worst and most pressing issues on the planet. We are in desperate need of a wealth tax and a wealth cap. We have done this before, and it was demonstrably successful.
Are you going to gloss over that, or is it simply more convenient to pretend I didn’t say it? Of course it is. That part directly contradicts the narrative you are trying to push. It also offers actual solutions, something you have failed to do, opting instead for ad hominem. Let me be perfectly clear. I do not like billionaires. They should not exist. Their wealth needs to be forcibly reclaimed, leaving them with enough money to feel rich but without any functional power. Large corporations must be aggressively monitored and regulated.
Achieving this requires sweeping reforms: outlawing lobbying, instituting term limits for politicians, abolishing the Electoral College, implementing wage taxes and caps, and redistributing wealth to the bottom 80 percent.
So I’ll ask again: are you capable of contributing anything substantive to this discussion, or is performative outrage the extent of your engagement?
Wealth inequality is single-handedly one of the worst and most pressing issues on the planet. We are in desperate need of a wealth tax and a wealth cap. We have done this before, and it was demonstrably successful.
However, there is a critical detail that is consistently ignored: competition, the cornerstone of capitalism. If my company demands higher pay, another company will undercut us. I lose work. That is the reality of the market.
You are not the first person I have had this discussion with. The problem is an overfocus on an idealized, single facet of a far more complex system. It is easy to say “we should work less and get paid more,” but we live in reality. There are many types of work and compensation structures that do not scale to a four-day workweek.
Moreover, what is being proposed are massive, systemic, sweeping change, an attempt to fundamentally reshape the entire system “for the greater good.” History shows that “the greater good” is a dangerous concept and is rarely good for the majority.
Does anybody read anything that I actually write?
We have competition in the business. We have to offer lower prices to stay in business to be competitive. You can't just charge more... People are going to use cheaper services than expensive ones. That's basic economics.
What the hell does invade mean! Greenland has 55k people living in it, most in Nuuk. They have no active military, no navy... Nothing. What's going to happen? A group of US troops flies in on commercial and plant a flag?
Jesus. My zip code has more people than Greenland!
That is the work I do. I am paid per job completion because I am in the repair industry. My income is entirely self-generated; I make my own salary based on output. That is how this business functions, and there is no alternative model that actually works. To remain competitive, I have to work six days a week. We cannot raise prices beyond a minimum threshold without losing work.
It sounds great to say people should work less and live more. Unfortunately, in certain sectors of the economy, that idea is completely disconnected from reality. In industries driven by throughput and competition, working less directly means earning less, and for many of us, that is simply not an option
Of course no one is doing that. I work on throughput, not salary. A lot of people are in the same position, whether they are flat-rate or hourly. If I cut my schedule down to four days, I simply will not make enough money to sustain myself. There is a hard limit to how much work I can complete in a single day, and I cannot compress six days of output into four. That is the point I was making, a four-day workweek does not benefit workers whose income is tied to throughput or hours worked. It primarily benefits salaried employees whose pay is disconnected from daily output
Did you actually read what I wrote?
The real question is: who actually benefits without losing income? The answer is: a minority. Roughly 25-35% of workers, mostly salaried, white-collar, outcome-based roles, can compress or rearrange work without taking a pay hit. For them, four days is mostly a scheduling change.
Of course people want a four-day workweek. That part is obvious and frankly irrelevant.
The real question is: who actually benefits without losing income? The answer is: a minority. Roughly 25–35% of workers, mostly salaried, white-collar, outcome-based roles, can compress or rearrange work without taking a pay hit. For them, four days is mostly a scheduling change.
The other 65–70% of workers, trades, service, healthcare, retail, logistics, commission, flat-rate, piece-work, are paid by volume, not vibes. Fewer days means fewer billable units, fewer closes, fewer shifts, or longer days just to break even.
I work flat-rate. I close work orders. If I work four days, I make less money. There is no efficiency fairy that replaces raw volume.
The four-day workweek isn’t a universal labor reform. It’s a white-collar benefit marketed as moral progress, and it collapses the moment you apply it to people who actually produce, fix, transport, or serve things.
Indeed, I don’t use AI for anything complex. It can’t physically fix an appliance, aside from providing technical data. It can tell me the ohm range for a thermistor or the microfarad rating a capacitor should have. Surprisingly, it does this far more reliably than Google or other search engines. Ironically, AI is better at delivering accurate data in this domain precisely because traditional searches are increasingly cluttered with low-quality AI-generated content.
I use it primarily as a text editor for grammar checking and for analyzing confusing or poorly structured text. I also use it as a search engine quite frequently. I can ask direct questions and receive the information I want, presented in a way that suits my needs. I have used it to help construct responses to inquiries from several companies I work with. It is particularly effective at generating corporate-style responses that appeal to middle management, which has been genuinely useful over the past couple of years. I no longer have to sit and overanalyze how to phrase emails. What used to take a significant amount of time and mental effort is now handled efficiently. In that regard, it has been extremely helpful.
I also use OCR on my phone every single day. It's really great for copying and pasting model and serial numbers and doing very quick basic searches. Although I find this to be more of a convenience than anything else.
Where AI features have failed specifically on my phone is the text-to-speech and the autocorrect for typing, especially on the Google keyboard it oftentimes tries to guess what the best words would be and it fails miserably most of the time.
At the end of the day it's just a tool and a tool is only as good as its user. I work in the repair industry and I utilize very expensive high quality tools and I also have some very very cheap ones because they have some unique use cases only they are suited for.
On a personal level, I like AI. I use it regularly as a tool to handle mundane tasks. I also have friends who use it successfully as an artistic tool. I’m aware that this platform tends to dislike that kind of usage, and that’s fine.
Bandwagon behavior is a serious issue on platforms like Reddit and Lemmy, and that comes with the territory.
However, the claim that this negativity has meaningfully harmed AI adoption is nonsensical. If this person genuinely believes that AI has been hurt, even slightly, by negative online discourse, then he is clearly out of touch with reality. All available data points indicate the opposite.
So you're not going to address anything that I've said at all aside from you don't like it.
Good day to you sir.
I've been saying this for years. All we need to do is just stay at home for a few days. Really put the fear of God into these rich fucks.
Just the entire Eastern seaboard will do.
In just one day of sitting around not buying anything they'll lose countless billions.
And that's where you have to hit them, in the pocket. The one place they fear the most.
If you want to dual boot, the best way to do it is on an internal drive.
For the smoothest of operations would I highly recommend is a hard drive with just Windows installed internally and a boot drive with Linux on it, like on a portable hard drive or something along those lines. Mint in this case works really well of course.