Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Not_mikey

@Not_mikey@slrpnk.net

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Not_mikey , (edited )

They're great, now if apple could concede that right click is an important thing that's not going away and not relegate it to a corner barely larger than my finger then they'd be perfect.

EDIT: I forgot the default way to right click on Mac is two finger click, I changed it in the settings when I first got it to be click in the bottom right. If you've gotten used to two finger click good on you, but point still stands for us who like the "right" way.

Not_mikey ,

Oh yeah, I changed it so long ago I forgot that's the default. Changed it to bottom right corner in the settings when I first got it since I am used to windows laptops, but the area for the bottom right corner that apple designates is very small.

Not_mikey ,

The default is for two finger click, I forgot that's the default way since I changed it so long ago, but you can change it to a click in the bottom right is right click, like on a windows laptop, in the settings. it's just the area in the bottom right that qualifies as the corner is very small.

Not_mikey ,

Thanks for the pointers! Like the meme though I keep it plugged into a mouse, keyboard etc. so don't really use it but when I do it's good except that one issue.

At worst, perhaps you can put Linux onto your existing Mac hardware and therefore configure it more directly?

I wish, it's my work computer though and even though all the software I need and the software I'm developing runs on Linux, I think IT would get mad If I loaded Linux on it. Also why I probably can't do any of the other changes you suggested

Not_mikey ,

You can get the film replaced, for free the first time, then like $20 after. Mine basically came all the way off on the fold for my z flip, but then I went to a galaxy store and they replaced it and it's fine now.

Not_mikey ,

It's not the capitalist auto companies who are going to get hurt though. The price advantage of the Chinese companies comes from low labor costs and government subsidies, so the auto companies will just move there production to whatever country offers the most subsidies and least labor costs because in our current globalized world capital can move freely.

The real losers will be the unionized auto workers who'll be abandoned while capitalists maintain or even increase there profits in the third world. These sorts of race to the bottom always harm workers, whether it be with clothes and shein , or EVs.

Not_mikey ,

Is it good or do they just have a massive network and data advantage. If tik tok left and everyone switched over to Instagram reels or YouTube shorts and they had the same amount of data tik tok has I think the experience would converge to whatever was on tik tok in a month or so.

There's no secret sauce to tik tok, they're throwing massive amounts of data at a recommendation AI and telling it to optimize for watch time, any sufficiently scaled company can do that nowadays. It's more a matter of getting and maintaining an audience to create that data and content creators, both of which due to the network effect, and without federation, are drawn to the biggest service, not necessarily to the best.

Not_mikey ,

It's not about the data, it's about the algorithm. Unlike other social media which has followers, subscribers etc. that dictate what you see tik tok is a pure black box recommendation algorithm. Tons of people's world views are shaped by tik tok and a slight tweak to this algorithm can have huge political consequences. I'm far from a china hawk but even I can recognize the dangers of allowing that sort of machine to be in the hands of a foreign rival. Ideally we'd take it out of the hands of the corporate interests running the ones here in the u.s. as well and force them to be open sour e, but that doesn't seem possible right now and at least those companies are more beholden to the American people then byte dance, there are American employees in those companies that can raise a red flag if management is telling them to push the algorithm in a direction.

The youth also probably won't care in a years time. Even if tik tok actually shuts down in the u.s. instead of selling, which I still doubt they will as that would effectively be burning 10s of billions of dollars to prove a point, the youth can just move onto another app like Instagram reels or YouTube shorts which offer the same experience but aren't as good because of the mass network effect tik tok has. If everyone is forced out of tik tok and onto one of the other apps they'll gain that same network effect and have the same experience after a bit of transition/ AI training time. The kids aren't attached to byte dance or tik tok, they're attached to the content and content creators who make it, and those can move to another app very easily.

Not_mikey ,

If the choice is between the u.s. government and the Chinese government choosing what's appropriate for me to watch then I'd choose the u.s government as it is still has some democratic levers which the American people can use to stop it from propagandizing too much. There is no such influence they can wield in the Chinese government. I'm not ok with it though and it's more a matter of the lesser of two evils. Ideally there would be no centralized control over these services and the algorithms would be open source and the servers federated, to allow people to transparently evaluate the biases each service has and make their own decision free from the centralizing network effect present in current social media. If I am unable to inspect it then I want the person who is able to do so to have interests that are better aligned with mine, either an elected representative or at least a worker with similar national interests to me.

As for the book question it's not a matter of a single book. Unless they're advocating for atrocities I'm for any creator being allowed on the platform, the problem is how the platform is showing that content, it's a matter of the book store instead of a single book. If the library has a copy of the three body problem, or even Maos little red book alongside a bunch of other books countering it then that's fine. But if there's no library and only one book store in town then the owner of that book store has a lot of political power and should be under a lot of scrutiny. If the owner of that store isn't a part of the community and doesn't have interests that align with it, or even run counter to it, then the people of that community are right to become skeptical and demand a more open system. This is why libraries are so important, they provide an information repository owned by the public instead of private interests.

Not_mikey ,

Can't tell if this is sarcastic but the intention was that Tupac was helping Kendrick get over his "writers block" for his next diss track by "gifting" him an idea to make fun of drake for liking young girls, drakes trying to beat him to the punch, while trying to discredit it as just gossip with the budden podcast line.

Not_mikey ,

It looks like they didn't even get the money, these were "student loans" so the money just went to pay for the tuition.

Not_mikey ,

Your missing another big part and that's unions are hamstrung down there. A lot of places in the Midwest offer similar advantages, ports aren't as good but you can still ship a lot on the great lakes, but they won't go there because they're afraid of unions.

Not_mikey ,

Yes, if rail were so good all the families and normal people who value there lives could take it, meanwhile the interstate could go turn into no speed limit chaos where all the rich people with huge egos and small dicks can crash their Porsches into each other without killing an innocent person whose just trying to get to work.

Not_mikey ,

Judge hasn't ruled yet, this was just them saying the case has some merit and won't be dismissed. This will go to trial, after which the judge will make their ruling.

Not_mikey ,

Sweet, I'm sure this won't be used by AIPAC to sue all the tech companies for causing October 7th somehow like unrwa and force them to shutdown or suppress all talk on Palestine. People hearing about a genocide happening might radicalize them, maybe we could get away with allowing discussion but better safe then sorry, to the banned words list it goes.

This isn't going to end in the tech companies hiring a team of skilled moderators who understand the nuance between passion and radical intention trying to preserve a safe space for political discussion, that costs money. This is going to end up with a dictionary of banned and suppressed words.

Not_mikey ,

Blame the city not the biker. An person riding an bike will always choose a protected bike lane over having to weave through pedestrians on the sidewalk. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at the city for not putting down a bike lane instead of the biker just trying to not get hit. Pedestrians and cyclist need to have solidarity to take back the road from there dominance by cars. Fighting between each other over the scraps they give us only helps them, we need to demand more.

Not_mikey ,

Was there a protected bike lane next to you when they zipped passed you? It doesn't matter if there's a bunch of unused bike lanes in the city if they aren't where you need to go. There are tons of sidewalks and car lanes that sit unused most of the time but we keep them open because people will eventually use them.

If we treated bikes like we treat cars and pedestrians and give them they're own lane on every street none of this would happen, cause bikes don't want to ride on sidewalks just as much as pedestrians don't want them on the sidewalks. Weaving through pedestrians slows you down and is dangerous. You may be just as scared of bikes as the bikes are of cars but the cars aren't nearly as afraid of bikes as bikes are of pedestrians. If your in a car and you hit a bike your going to be fine physically cause your surrounded by a metal box meant to protect you. If your on a bike and hit a pedestrian , you may come out better than the pedestrian, but you are way more likely to be physically injured or dead then if you were a driver. There's a shared stake in avoiding collisions between pedestrians and cyclist that cars don't have.

The solution has to be more bike lanes and not less e-bikes because e-bikes are better for the environment and people's health than cars. Even looking at it as just a pedestrian your better with an e-bike riding in a lane next to you then a car, there less dangerous, quieter, and don't emit a bunch of toxic fumes and brake pad dust that you have to breathe in. The cars are the enemy, not the e-bikes.

Not_mikey ,

We both agree that bikes on the sidewalk are a problem that needs a solution. Making it illegal to ride on the sidewalk isn't working so the way I see it there are three other solutions:

  1. Increase enforcement so that bikers will get consequences for riding on the sidewalk
  2. Restrict e-bike use
  3. Add more bike lanes

The first one will cost more than the third and could lead to chases that further endanger pedestrians. Theres also no guarantee it will work as long as there's gaps in the polices views. This also will discourage e-bike use which gets us to two. Restricting e-bikes could stop them from being in the sidewalk but encourages more car use which is bad for the environment and you as a pedestrian. That leaves three which solves the problem and encourages alternative transport which we need to do if we want to stop climate change.

When there's a problem with a viable solution you have to find out what system is preventing that solution and direct your anger there. Getting mad at the individual only disperses your anger away from the underlying forces that are making that individual do something that will remain. If you report that cyclist and the police actually do catch them and give them a ticket that's not going to stop them. Even if they confiscated there bike some day another person's just going to zip past you.

If your boss fires you in favor of an undocumented immigrant who they can pay under minimum wage, getting mad at the immigrant and having them deported isn't going to help your problem, your boss will just hire a different one and laugh as they watch the poor people fight each other. You need to have solidarity with that immigrant and realize the boss and the immigration system are harming both of you and direct your combined anger towards them.

Not_mikey ,

I do care about pedestrians, I walk way more than I cycle, that's why I'm proposing a solution that will make both safe. The city would maybe spend a bit more money up front to put down some paint , but long term it would save money because cars wear down the road much more than bikes. Cars are the thing that's draining the city budget by forcing constant road maintenance.

I don't understand what you want , if you want bikes to stop being on the sidewalks and for the city to save money along with a bunch of other benefits put down a bike lane, unless you have some better solution. You haven't suggested any solution though which makes me think you want to just be mad at cyclists and stew in your anger without doing anything, which doesn't sound like a good way to live.

If you do want to get mad at something get mad at cars which are an exponentially larger threat to you as a pedestrian then a bike. Unless your main means of transport is a car and you can't get mad at them so you take it out on cyclists instead.

Not_mikey ,

Xmpp was designed for ease of federation and simplicity in implementation. Most messaging apps these days are designed, or at least say they are designed, with privacy first. There probably are plugins for xmpp to allow for e2e encryption and contact list and metadata privacy from server admins but that depends on the server and will probably not be as secure as signal. Just as signal can be federated but it's complex and not really worth it.

There's a tradeoff between privacy/security and federation/decentralization and most people value privacy and security more.

Not_mikey ,

Your still viewing things from a motor normative lense with statements like I need to drive to get to work and I need to park my car. This sort of thinking naturalizes things that are actually part of a system that can change if we decide to. We can collectively decide to ban cars and humanity could continue to thrive, there's nothing necessary about cars. They may be personally necessary in the current system, but the system itself isn't, and this is critiquing the system not individual decisions.

The point of critical theory like this is to look at things we take for granted or think are necessary, show that they actually aren't natural or necessary, and expose some of the problems we ignore because we think the problem is required to live.

You have to step outside the system and look at it like you don't come from car centric culture and with the knowledge that it's a choice and not necessary. From that point of view questions like why is it ok to spew toxic fumes in a populated area? Makes sense since you know the system is a societal choice, not just the way things have to be.

With that knowledge you can try and change the system. That doesn't mean never driving, because it may be necessary to live, but driving less and taking public transit when you can and advocating and supporting public transit and biking infrastructure over car infrastructure.

Not_mikey ,

You seemed to have missed the part where I said

They may be personally necessary in the current system, but the system itself isn't necessary, and this is critiquing the system.

You may need to drive because the system forces you to do so to live. But that system that forces you to drive isn't necessary and we can work to change it. If you are working to change that than good. If you dismiss problems with the current system by naturalizing it with unqualified statements like "I need to ..." Then that's a problem, you should instead say "I'm forced to..."

Like if the government is restricting your speech statements like "I need to not criticize the government" makes that seem unchangeable and just the way things are, if you say " I'm forced to not criticize the government" or qualify it with "I need to not criticize the government because it's repressive" then that shows there's nothing natural about it and that some system is preventing you from doing something, not nature. Then you can recognize the system can change and work towards changing the system, instead of accepting it and moving on.

Not_mikey ,

The idea that they must do x is the normativity they're testing. You must drive a car isn't an absolutely true statement, it's an assumption you make based off your experiences, but many people do fine without a car.

Just like the statement a man must date a woman isn't true. It may be true for you who are heterosexual and for everyone you know who is dating but it's not absolutely true. So questions like should a man be able to marry another man may seem wrong to someone who "understands" men can only be romantic with women but that's a false assumption. That normativity and those assumptions then hurt people who live outside those norms.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •