Prophet

But doctors are required to report anything that they identify as an immediate physical threat (e.g., to the patient or because of the patient). I found out recently that this is entirely subjective - different doctors have different ideas about what constitutes a threat. So, in a lot of ways, no, medical secrecy may not protect you if you tell the wrong doctor.

Israel (at least in large part) is why they're pushing the tiktok ban now. It is a little hard to connect the dots on this because the China-reasoning seems strong on the surface. I agree that China is bad, but there has not been any stellar evidence to show that China censors or otherwise manipulates users on the platform. You can easily go to tiktok and find videos discussing how awful the Chinese government is, information about tiananmen square, Winnie the Pooh jokes, etc. In comparison, the data that came out of the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal was far more concrete, and Congress did nothing. Certainly there were not 81% of house members coming together to force Facebook to sell. Tiktok has even offered to make major concessions about data privacy.

Israel's war in Gaza is deeply unpopular and the fascists in Israel and here in the US are concerned that they are losing popularity. Tiktok has 100+ million active users in the US and the heaviest anti-Israel sentiment (the government and the US's relationship with the Israeli government, not the Israeli/Jewish people) is heaviest on Tiktok, which is dominated by young millennials and gen Z. This is leaked audio of the director of the anti-defamation league (a very pro-Israel organization) speaking about this. He basically tells his audience that they have a "major major major... problem" and specifically says that they have a "tiktok problem and a gen Z problem." Listen to the audio- you can agree or not with his reasoning, but he's essentially saying that the spread of ideas on tiktok is causing their polling issues.

People like this want to stop the spread of ideas on tiktok because young people are organizing, boycotting, and putting dents in the system. They do not like that young voters are having a larger and larger influence. These young people are also boycotting major companies like McDonalds and Starbucks who have taken pro-Israel stances, and these companies have lost profits from this. All this to say - I don't think there is any lack of motivation by people with lots of money to destroy the platform where these people are organizing.

It is incredible how much money Israel pumps into our politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. Joe Biden himself is the largest recipient of this money. There are anti-BDS laws (specifically for Israel) in 37 states. I don't think many people are aware of just how much influence Israel has in the US. It is surprising and disturbing, but I am equally surprised/disturbed at how little attention these topics have received on Lemmy of all places. I don't think it takes a genius to start making these connections and to start asking questions - maybe this isn't the full picture but there is a lot of stuff here to be skeptical about. That said, I absolutely do think this kind of information is suppressed on other platforms, and they want to suppress all of tiktok because it's dangerous to them.

A lot of people in the comments are saying how this won't hold up or how unconstitutional it is but 35 fucking states have already passed anti-bds (boycotts, divestment*, and sanctions) laws that do the same thing as this bill but Israel. If the politicians are sufficiently bribed enough, they won't care what the laws actually are.

I've seen this a lot lately on lemmy - that android needs "saving" or that we need government intervention to stop Apple. But, I would argue that android is its own worst enemy. Even the best android phones are plagued by quality issues, both hardware and software. Google's own pixel lineup has seasonal class action lawsuits over build issues, and now they automatically opt you into non-arbitration agreements whenever you activate a new Google phone.

Personally, I'm willing to take the risk because, in my experience, stock android is just so much better than iOS (and other android flavors). But therein lies the issue - android could compete with iPhone just fine, but android manufacturers can't (or won't) compete with apple's relentless pursuit of build quality and software polish. Another damning aspect of this is that Google is supposed to be the best software company in the world, yet they've taken more than a decade to figure out messaging - something apple figured out back in ~2010. Android doesn't deserve to claw back market share in the US until their phones are actually better per $ than the iPhone.

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I feel like I need to step in and personally rebuke this shit. Voting absolutely does work. Showing up to vote once isn't going to magically fix everything - it's going to take many election cycles to reverse course. US policy doesn't reflect the will of the people because we've been apathetic for so long. Saying "voting doesn't help" implies there's no point in voting, and not voting guarantees that we will lose our democracy. I'm sympathetic to those who have been hurt by the conservative and capitalist agenda in this country who are losing hope, but making claims like this essentially makes you an ally to the corpofascist machine.

Please vote.

I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say these companies aren't destroying themselves though. Are they just going to explode and die all at once? Probably not, but they will likely fade to obscurity like IBM or HP (two powerhouses of the last century). I agree that exploiting customers is how they make money hand over foot (and we just roll over for it) but the point is to make the largest possible short term gains, not to maximize profit. It's important to maximize short term gains because it makes big shareholders happy, and the shareholders (e.g., the CEO and the board) want to enrich themselves. The issue with optimizing for short term gains is that you miss out on the dividends of long term effort, which is usually significantly greater.

Something I think about occasionally is how it is that a no-name startup beat the likes of Google, MS, Facebook, etc to chatgpt. Chatgpt is the single greatest innovation in search in almost 3 decades. Google's whole business relies on users needing Google's search platform to find information. Google gets to place ads here, and that makes up the largest part of their revenue, but chatgpt threatens to upend that whole business. There is the potential for a whole new generation of advertisement technology to be baked into chatgpt that delivers an unprecedented level of ad targeting. In case you need a translation, that is massive $$$$$$$$, because advertisers want their ads to be placed in front of people who will actually buy the product (and they will pay a premium for this!), not the spray and pray strategy you see today.

So yes, in a way, Google and other companies that rely on simply extracting wealth rather than innovating/building wealth risk losing billions of dollars and eventually fading to irrelevance. I really think Facebook has passed the point of no return already in this regard, and has allowed numerous social media sites to steal market share very easily.

Not entirely sure what the commenter was referring to, but it might be about tracking (Firefox has great anti-tracking and privacy tech). The real money on the web comes from ads, and specifically targeted ads. Targeted ads require that advertisement companies like Facebook and Google track you and build a profile based on your activity. Companies like reddit make money by helping to build these profiles and by delivering ads.

If you can still be targeted by ads, the powers that be will continue to try and "make a buck" off the internet. If there is a market for targeted ads, it is likely that a service will be monetized for the sake of profit, which typically leads to situations like what we've seen with reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc... Privacy is essentially an ad-business killer in the modern web.

I think mods don't want to lose the subreddits they've built up. It's hard to onboard users into the fediverse, and migrating would mean those communities take a big hit. Perhaps it's hard for the mods to onboard with lemmy too? But I agree that everything that protest did was ultimately toothless. Now reddit is just removing mods and installing their own pro-reddit mods.

It's all kind of unfortunate. Reddit controls a massive, mature set of communities that are ultimately very convenient and easy to access. Lemmy, in comparison, is a little tricky to get started with. That said, I love the smaller communities with less trolls, no ads, and no bots. I plan to heavily reduce my reddit usage and hopefully transition more and more to lemmy.

There is absolutely alt-right content on lemmy. That said, it is mostly drowned out. I saw several alt-right communities when I joined lemmy 3 weeks ago with only 1 member. These people were trying to build echo chambers by themselves. Other lemmy users would come in and start posting articles from regular media which pretty much shut down. I think it's great that users here don't want to allow it to be a safe haven for that kind of stuff, unlike the numerous other "free speech" websites that actively encourage it.

Bro he's saying that you're supposed to realize how fucked up it is (and ideally be revolted) that corporations - who don't give a shit about you or anyone else - team up to prevent bright young adults from having a career and affording to live as payback for exposing their inhumanity/making them look foolish.

Instead you're over here like "yeah I lick corporate boot and will gladly accept being stepped on if I get to keep my career." This girl is a hero for standing up to the likes of cloudflare and we should all aspire to have her courage.

I think you have the right idea but came to the wrong conclusion. Why would anyone buy office space if there is no value in employees coming to the office? Hint: they wouldn't.

Edited to add: these properties may become a liability on their books which would impact their ability to apply for or pay for loans, as well as other negatives for the company.

The rationale appears to be that they don't have the moderation tools necessary to deal with an unvetted userbase. Lemmy.world doesn't require any prior user verification, so anyone can join (just like reddit). Beehaw claims that they were receiving a large amount of trolls or other negative traffic from lemmy.world and shitjustworks, so they have temporarily defederated these instances.

This may change if better modding tools come around.

Since the starfield exclusivity thing started, this point has always stuck with me: PlayStation owners buy PlayStation because of the expectation that they will get the best exclusives (and even most other games first). It was so bizarre to see them so brazenly attack Xbox over making starfield exclusive. They couldn't see that they were beneficiaries of these same tactics for so long that they just accepted it as "the way it is." Logically, why would you ever buy an Xbox if PlayStation gets better exclusives and the other great games first? No one should be surprised when TES6 is Xbox/PC exclusive.

There's a restaurant in my hometown of Lexington, KY called ""Frank and Dino's." It's owned by Carlo Baccarezza who has ties John Gotti, who was Italian mafia. He's a horrible person and has been sued by former employees of the restaurant for discrimination.

He opened this place just before the pandemic. It's supposed to be a fine-ish dining establishment with authentic Italian. The prices are high, but the food is terrible. It might be passable for someone who doesn't know authentic Italian. In any case, the restaurant sits empty most of the day, and it doesn't make sense to me why you would open a place like this and just allow it to have a terrible reputation that's mostly empty day in and day out.

I believe that Disney/Star Wars actually owns the trademark on the word "Droid" and they make money on every droid-phone sold.

We already have DNA tests for that which don't require a whole database? A comprehensive DNA database could be used for extreme evil, such as mass systemic genocide or eugenics.

Obama's presidency was the first presidency with a truly contrarian congress. Dems should have done more when they controlled both houses, because once they lost the senate, Republicans blocked Obama's agenda in every conceivable way, and that has been their modus operandi ever since.

Just for reference, Obamacare was supposed to be fairly close to single-payer insurance, with both public and private options (which would force private insurance to compete with the government). What we got in the end was a neutered, emaciated shell of what the original bill was supposed to be, but at least insurance companies couldn't deny you based on preexisting conditions anymore. This was considered a huge win at the time. It's laughable though, because this was when everyone was pointing at Canada and claiming they had death panels because universal healthcare couldn't handle all the patients (complete bullshit/propaganda), as if our own insurance companies weren't doing exactly this.

I see this argument a lot, and I am absolutely a hardliner on genocide. That said, I am also aware that a second Trump presidency will be the end of our nation as we know it. It used to be so simple when voting for candidates - it was "evil" vs "more of the same", but now it's "evil" vs "genocide as a foreign policy."

What is the exit strategy for us as a nation? How many times can we stave off a Republican presidency? Even voting blue we are slipping right - how many times can we vote for the Democrats until we've made so many concessions that the blue guy is just exactly equivalent to the current red guy?

I'm really trying to argue in good faith. If someone has a decent answer to this, I'd love to hear their side. Otherwise it seems to me like we are headed for some kind of civil war in this country.

I also really like these things. I read the article, and I got the sense that their rationalization for picking BG3 as GOTY was based exclusively on the actual game design, and before I say anything else, I agree that the design is fantastic. But, I would love to see Larian get more credit for the transparency during development, their commitment to delivering an experience of the highest quality, and the fairness and respect they give to their player base.

Whether or not a person likes games like BG3 or thinks it deserves GOTY, this stuff alone should be the bar for all games, not the scummy greedy practices we've become so used to seeing. Thank you Larian Studios!

It's also a state where your primary residence is shielded if you need to declare bankruptcy...

It's true. Even in the comments on this post there's someone adamantly claiming (without evidence) that masks don't work, despite being presented with a full literature review of studies showing that they do work.

It shouldn't even take a full scientific study to convince someone that covering their nose and mouth helps to prevent the spread of airborne illness. Their egos are so fragile that any critical introspective examination of their viewpoints would destroy their entire identity. What even are they without their vitriol and hatred for the truth?

I would add Pinta as another drop-in replacement for MS Paint

They don't condemn Russia or the US leaders that push Putin's agenda here - that's how it's support. How could it be anything else?

You can see how those two things are a little different though, right?

No, not really. Contrary to your point, Bethesda has worked quite closely with Xbox a number of times (especially back in the oblivion days) and Sony has never been interested in Bethesda's ideas about games (support for Skyrim was abysmal on PlayStation and mods on PS3/4 were a joke).

Is MS a huge jerk for yanking starfield out of the hands of the majority of console gamers? Yeah totally, but Sony is also a huge jerk (and has been) for a long time when it comes to negotiating exclusivity deals, which they have been able to do because they are the number 1 console. It's really not hard to extrapolate how much leverage Sony has over the industry when you see that they have sold 75% more consoles than xbox (35 vs 20 million units sold PS5/XS). I believe the previous gen was even worse. The outcry over this would have been much smaller if the roles were reversed, because it would have just been business as usual for every gamer.

Not a swifty but if she wasn't a billionaire, I don't think she would have less "political power." She is just that popular. I think the distinction between swift and your run-of-the-mill oligarch is that they specifically use their money and power to expand their political power (e.g., buying political party members, burying any dissenters). Could she do that? Probably, and that in and of itself is problematic. I think that this is maybe what you were saying though.

Lexmark seems like such a niche thing to put here but I know about it because it's based in my hometown. Also it deserves to be placed next to the soyboy.

The blockchain is essentially a ledger that tracks transactions (including the creation of currency). One thing that is not always clear is how important it is for a blockchain to be decentralized. When I say "decentralized," I mean that many different people are operating a server that performs transactions on a larger network. These people are rewarded in currency for their efforts, and are sometimes referred to as "miners," though this term is changing somewhat.

There are thousands of these servers in a network that are operating on and tracking the ledger for blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Any updates to the ledger are verified by all of these nodes. As long as 51% of nodes can verify a transaction, it will be added to the ledger. This means that as long as someone doesn't own 51% of the network, they can't just inject whatever transactions they want (i.e., fraudulent activity). In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.

I think this paves the way for a lot of the practical examples you're looking for. For example, there's no way for the network to decide to just give tons of money to a single entity for some "economic policy" like Too Big to Fail (i.e., corporate bailouts). This means you don't have to wake up one morning worrying about whether or not your currency will rapidly inflate because of things like corruption. Another example is the true ownership of digital assets. NFTs have (rightly) gotten a lot of flack for being overpriced JPEGs, but there are real use cases here. A random middleman can't just decide to price gouge because they own all the tickets first (Ticketmaster). Instead, artists can mint tickets on the blockchain (very important: this ensures authenticity) and then fans can buy them on the blockchain - no middle man required. You still show a QR code at the door for verification like you would now.

I would dispute your claim about there being a "circular firing squad." The firing definitely comes from a very specific direction. Politicians like Joe Biden run on progressive ideas (cancelling student loans, legalizing marijuana, healthcare reform, etc) and then all but drop those promises once they get into office. This is the real "backstabbing" in my opinion. These democratic politicians take massive donations from corporations, Israel, billionaires, etc. Who is going to get the most representation from these politicians? The voters or the donors? Four years later, liberals wonder why progressives aren't willing to jump in and vote for their guy again.

It's like a cycle. We get a blue wave thanks to young, minority, and progressive voter turnout, then those same voters become completely disillusioned after four years. Why? Personally I think it's because liberal (especially white middle class) voters subscribe to "vote blue no matter who," and it's been going on since well before Trump. They see the success of right wing candidates with total voter unity and think they can do the same thing with their superior numbers. However, these liberal voters get too invested with can we do this when they should be thinking about should we do this.

I personally think this mentality has given Democratic politicians a license to ignore their voters, because they essentially have a monopoly on votes from anyone who is not a crazy fascist. This in turn leads to the same repeated stalled progress and disillusionment. As long as Dems don't piss off their base too much, they can maintain this position forever while also providing a ton of value to their donors.

All of this has led me to believe that ranked choice voting may be the best thing we could do to turn our country around, because it would give third party candidates an actual shot and force Democrats (and maybe Republicans) to actually compete for votes because voters would feel more freedom to vote their conscience without pissing their vote away. If there are any initiatives in your state to put ranked choice on the ballot, please get involved.

I understand your point, but I think the logic you are presenting is what is enabling these people. Ask yourself - what is the nuance in the Ukraine war? Fence sitting, and talking out both sides of your mouth about how we should condemn Putin yet also accept there is nuance to these issues is dangerous. It's not complicated. If you don't condemn Putin's actions, you are implicitly accepting/agreeing that Ukraine should be wiped out.

Putin relies on the populace accepting that there is "nuance" to the Ukraine war. Russia has conditioned (or at least is trying to condition) the population (in the west) into adopting this logic but the reality is that there is no nuance to this issue. What nuance could there be to an aggressor invading someone's land?

They are almost certainly a Russian troll. See their comment history.

There's a paywall on the article, so maybe there are details there that I'm missing. I also wasn't very politically aware until ~2016. Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on why this person caused hillary to lose in 2016? I always assumed it was overconfidence on her part (e.g., not even bothering to campaign in Wisconsin) and then the report from James Comey literally days before the election that tanked her.

Thanks for the catch, I edited the comment.

Microsoft didn't "absorb" open ai, they have a partnership where Microsoft pays assloads of money to sustain openai so that Google doesn't get it. Ironically, this might be considered "long term thinking" but I wonder how long shareholders will tolerate such a hit to the books. There is supposed to be a profit sharing model here eventually (up to a certain point) but Microsoft isn't getting chatgpt, otherwise bing would have replaced chatgpt. I have to wonder if, by the time chatgpt is profitable, if there will already be better models produced by other groups (maybe even open source), especially given the pace of AI innovation. I would not be surprised if this was a net loss for MS. GPT is amazing but it has numerous drawbacks at the moment. I admit that, if they figure things out quickly, this could be a huge win for them. I would go so far as to say that this is not anti consumer at all and is exactly how the free market is supposed to work.

As for Facebook, the only data you need is that the younger generations think it's for boomers and don't use it. I'm a little older and (to your credit) I check in about once a month. I know that meta has a very powerful user data harvesting business (arguably more valuable than Facebook), but Facebook's user engagement will continue to slide if they can't capture younger users and keep millennials and gen x users on the platform. This devalues their ability to make money from ads directly, and again, they did this to themselves by destroying their reputation for short term gains. They will eventually become like Yahoo! or AOL, both of which have almost zero brand value.

Funny that you don't even try to deny that Trump may have been involved in inciting/leading an insurrection. It's only that he hasn't been found guilty of it by the courts. How will the goalposts shift if he is found guilty?

I've been having the same thoughts. I think liberals, especially white liberals, are scared of a Trump presidency because, for once, the fallout might come down on them. They don't have to be scared of a Biden presidency, because their lives can continue on as they have been. So then they attack you for saying that the US is already a fascist state, even though it already is for anyone who isn't white and straight.

This comment is so shitty and condescending and completely devoid of intelligence. It reads the same as "Please do not invoke my white privilege as an excuse to let Trump take away my white privilege." Liberals love to act like they care about issues but comments like these come off so self-centered. I don't live in some fantasy world where a second Trump presidency is better than a second Biden presidency, but liberals are so adamant that it has to be Biden. Why aren't liberals outraged that the DNC is forcing an unpopular candidate down our throats again? The most common response I see is "it's complicated" but it's not fucking complicated in the slightest, liberals just want to be comfortable and they'll gladly roll over and take it from anyone who promises them to at least use lube. Yes I'm talking about you.

Right. And they dismiss these really valid concerns as right wing propaganda or both-sides-isms. Polls right now show Trump polling marginally better than Biden. Shouldn't this be sounding the alarms for more of us? Biden should be stomping Trump in polls but instead they're neck and neck. And this is the guy that they're determined to push.

I don't even agree that Biden is "the best we got" but somehow everyone is convinced of that. I have a sad theory that DNC strategists see Biden as the most viable candidate because he's a white male from a rust belt town. This profile lines up with many conservative voters that they think they need to win elections. This explains why they wouldn't run someone "woke" like Whitmer or Newsome or maybe Michelle Obama. In other words, there aren't any good ole boys left in the democratic party, or at least any popular enough to actually win (e.g., Joe Manchin).

From the perspective of an ordinary citizen though, Biden didn't win because of conservative voters. He won because of a large coalition of different kinds of people - moderates, women, minority races, and leftists. Biden has upset that coalition by not pushing harder for codified reproductive rights, his stance on Gaza, and a weak relationship with labor. I worry that while moderates will turn out, that has never been enough to win.

Seems like anything you buy is somewhat of a gamble. Internal combustion engines/gasoline could be gone or (more likely) far less desirable in 10 years. As manufacturers begin switching to primarily electric cars, finding parts/labor for these vehicles may become challenging. With a hybrid, I wonder if you carry all the same risks (as far as the long term value of the vehicle) as a normal gasoline-powered car.

But maybe the timeline for this is more like 20 years.

I'm sorry you're being downvoted for this comment. What you're saying is absolutely true, the moderates just don't want to hear it.

It's the candidate's job to assuage voter's fears and convince people to vote for them. If Biden is too frail to do interviews, how is he going to do an election campaign? How is he even able to do this job? We have other people, why does it have to be Biden?

I liked how Jon Stewart put it - when the barbarians (Trump) are at the walls, you want Conan up there leading the charge, not a feeble old man who's afraid to appear in front of the public.