Sorry to hear about the cookie, but honestly I hadn’t bothered to order it because it looks like it wouldn’t be worth the calories.

What do you mean by vendor harassment?

The actual food has been pretty consistent around here, and I don’t use the app, so I can’t really opine on that, but I’m surprised to see people reconsidering renewal. At the very least, the pricing and variety of products has been consistently good. Around me, a single serving of any fruit/vegetable is like half of what Costco is charging for a family serving. I can buy 5 celery sticks for x at my local or 40 celery sticks for 2x at Costco. I don’t necessarily need 40, but even if I just need 20, our Costco membership makes sense for that alone.

I didn’t mention it in my original comment, but I did actually do a search, and the only thing I found was him talking about how bluesky is better because it doesn’t do suppression of external links. Bluesky itself does not load with my current settings so I can’t scroll through his posts, but his recent YouTube videos seem pretty normal/benign from just the titles. Seems weird to unnecessarily attack Hank Green, but I am gonna guess that’s what they’re doing because I cannot find example or article him being problematic.

I’m familiar with Hank Green, but I don’t actually follow him or have a bluesky account. Can you provide a link to an example or an explanation of what you mean?

That just leaves me with more questions, honestly.

In my comment I made clear that I don’t think he’s doing this for our benefit and that I just brought it up because it’s possible at some point in the future or past, tariffs can be used responsibly. I did not “carry water” for him, or anyone. If anything, I “carried water” for the concept of tariffs. And that I will admit to because that was my goal. People are getting it in their heads that tariffs=bad and that’s not the case. There’s a time and place for tariffs, and I made clear in my comment that I don’t think it’s here and now. Apparently you view defending a tool the government has employed since its inception as equivalent to supporting Trump.

I am not defending his actions, just legitimately providing a reason that might be done in some cases. I think it’s important people think through the consequences of actions regardless of the admin and that seemed like a pretty clear outcome in some cases that was being overlooked.

For what it’s worth, companies can hold grudges, but money is money, and if the stick hurts enough they will generally capitulate because money is generally more important then the ego of whoever is in charge that feels temporarily slighted. Look at the way CEOs/businesses (even from perceived “left leaning” companies) capitulated and donated to his campaign or changed policies overnight. Yes, there are Elon musks of the world, but most CEOs are just looking to increase profits and move on. Few take business personally. There’s a whole idiom about that.

What was happening in/with that array?

Would love to see a dem administration (if we get one again) use this as an excuse to go WFH and spread federal jobs out across America. In some ways it made sense to have most of government centralized in one place, but that’s no longer necessary. Would love to see these jobs offered remote, especially since a lot of them are well paying with pensions. Plus, DC has a huge congestion problem, and all the commuters are bad for climate change. I know a lot of DC economy depends on commuters, but I think it’d be better long term.

Not a fan of Trump at all, but one could argue that chips was a carrot and tariffs are a stick and you might not need the carrot if the stick is gonna work, so putting the carrot to use elsewhere makes sense. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anything he does is to benefit Americans or our infrastructure/economy, but there is a world where that makes sense.

Really wish/hope that’s the case, but if there was an equivalent white guy, I don’t think I’d chance it. It might be that AOC is such an exciting candidate it overshadows any race/gender issues, and I’d love that, but I think a primary will help answer that. Maybe not even the winner, since who knows what the party will do to put their finger on the scale, but a primary will definitely show who’s energized the voters. Fingers crossed we get elections next go around.

I think you just identified the actual problem, while shying away from identifying it as such. People shouldn’t take issue with ai, they should have issues with capitalism.

IMHO, the point of creative work can be debated, and you’re more than welcome to only be interested in non-ai work, but obviously that differs person to person. Some people might think that creative work is there to be enjoyed and if it brings joy then it’s valid. Plenty of people can enjoy AI work, even if you’re not one of them.

If what you’re fighting for is jobs for creatives, then I think it’s a bad argument. Nobody should be fighting for more things for capitalism to demand from anyone. Creatives should do their work separate and apart from the threat of capitalism, like everyone else. Anti-AI rhetoric serves to make people look like luddites while distracting from the actual problem - capitalism.

Yea, no worries! The app I use highlights new users, so I figured you hadn’t run into enough .ml trolls to make the connection yet. Hope you have a great Lemmy experience going forward!

You see how their username ends in Lemmy.ml? That entire instance is full of trolls and pro Russia/anti US bots. Blocking and ignoring is the universal suggestion, otherwise you’re gonna have a bad time. There are quite a few on non-Lemmy.ml instances, but blocking that is a good start. Feel however you want about the US, but they legit hate individual Americans and support the Russian state. The Russian state is corrupted (just like the US now, thanks Russia!), but individuals from either country do not represent the state as a whole, and the amount of Putin simping they do is egregious.

I think she’d be a great choice but we need a white guy to run. I hate to say it, but we need every advantage possible, and being a white man is an advantage. Maybe an AOC VP makes sense, but I’m very worried that the there’s at least enough truth to the racism/sexism claims about last year and I am sick of gambling peoples futures on candidates we know are going to struggle.

It feels reminiscent of the way narrators used to do books on tape. Modern ones are better imho, but all the pausing and intonation definitely seems “professional” more than conversational. Still extremely good.

I think the issue is the “random” part of it. If I had a back and forth with someone on a gaming or LGBT or political organizing community, and the exchange was pleasant and they wanted to chat more, I wouldn’t be opposed, but if I’ve never interacted with someone and they are essentially spamming any and everyone the same copypasta, yea that’s not someone I want to interact with. Shout out to lemmings that help with Linux too.

These people think white people are smarter than other races so he’s just like “yep, you two white people made a white baby, good job!” I respect the grift. Lmaoo if he’s like, “nah, this one is dumb, get rid of it” just for fun. Like the couple once bumped into him accidentally and now for some reason all they have is dumb babies.

Honestly, everything causes vulnerable people to suffer. Voting (which everyone should do) clearly does nothing substantial, revolution has never been a safe path regardless of if the revolutionaries win, and accelerationism makes things worse in basically the same way a revolution does, but at least people aren’t pointing at revolutionaries as the problem when accelerationism happens. I think we’d all much prefer being able to snap our fingers and making the world perfect, but it looks like the world chose accelerationism all by itself. Certainly wouldn’t have been my first choice.

Because it’s not about helping people. If it was, putting someone on your insurance wouldn’t be a thing in the first place. It’s about reinforcing a nuclear family. You and your brother (hopefully) aren’t planning on making babies, so the government isn’t getting anything from investing in you. I mean, we know they are, but that’s not how they think.

For what it’s worth, I think marriage as an institution makes sense, seeing as it serves to predesignate a person as an emergency contact/inheritor. It also protects people that would otherwise need a bespoke contract for things like stay at home spouses.

Yea, seems like we’re basically on the same page re campaign donations. Unfortunately, telling people how/where to spend their money, especially when it’s money for donations, generally never goes well. The effective altruism movement would complain that the money would go further in other countries, so they should donate for malaria nets or well water, some animal rights people would say that genocide is being perpetrated against animals on a daily basis and the money should go to stop that, suicide prevention and the ACLU, there are so many things pulling people in so many directions. If you just can’t understand how someone not steeped in leftist politics would think that donating to Harris would be better on a global scale, I can’t make you understand that, but I hope that there’s not too much animosity there because those people are the closest things we have to allies, and they probably truly thought they were doing what was best.