Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
6
Comments
802
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Because you aren’t using it. It isn’t in your lap when you’re using it. How do you use your mobile?

  • Lions just out here eating faces.

  • You have the causality exactly backwards.

    Your shoe example is beautifully rigged: you've contrived a scenario where both options pollute equally and the company profits the same either way; so of course the only variable left is consumer choice. How handy. But in the real world, the company decided what to produce, how to price it, and what trade-offs to build in. The cheap shoe exists because the company chose to manufacture it at that price point rather than, say, making only the durable version and pricing it at 1.3x. The product landscape a corporate decision. You're treating the menu as if it fell from the sky.

    You dismiss demand engineering as "just an advertising campaign." Advertising is a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry built on decades of behavioral psychology, and that's before you get to planned obsolescence, lobbying to suppress alternatives, and regulatory capture to keep externalities unpriced. Cigarettes aren't the exception; they're the most documented example of a widespread practice.

    Your EV example backfires even harder. For decades, automakers actively killed electric vehicle programs and lobbied against emissions standards. The "choice" you're pointing to was shaped by years of corporate behavior. And even now, when TCO is lower, upfront cost still gates the decision. If you can't aford the higher initial purchase, long-term savings are irrelevant. That's not irrationality. That's resource scarcity doing exactly what it's designed to do.

    Choice requires resources: money, time, information, access; which is precisely what is most scarce among those you're blaming. And that scarcity is systemic by design, not a result of consumer inaction. You're looking at people responding rationally to a landscape they didn't build, can't control, and can't afford to exit, and calling it their fault.

  • People “want cheap and easy” the way a fish “wants” to swim in the direction the current is flowing. The current was engineered by the companies you're letting off the hook. You're blaming people for responding rationally to a landscape they didn't build and can't control.

    If the population is complacent, the question is “who benefits from that complacency and who works to maintain it”. You're looking at the effect and calling it the cause.

    Or fix the problem today on your own. Oh, you can’t? Well… QED.

  • I get what you’re saying but it isn’t a binary thing. There is blame to go around across consumers and governments, but at the base of the tree of blame are the rich. Always the rich.

  • I’m so sorry. I look regularly at my little buddy and nearly weep knowing that I’ll likely outlive him. I mean, I hope I do because he’d be crushed if I didn’t.

  • Loneliness. Without my wife or dog, I would descend into a most dark place.

  • I think gratitude is the best of all emotions, so thanks for spreading some. I’m grateful for my best groodle buddy Kohga that loves me unconditionally, and another day to witness the universal spectacle.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Fair enough; I respect that. But I’d pay twice as much if they asked, because I value it so much. Not just the results, but the dedication to keeping the results uncluttered without forcing advertising or selling my eyes to advertisers. I dig it.

    Like sending Wikimedia money every time they ask; worth it.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Kagi is worth every penny. Superb results.

  • I didn’t even know existed. I dug it. What a trip down memory lane.

  • Sopot Poland. Beautiful oceanfront, cheap, and so many pierogi.

    Also, one of the best times I’ve ever had on vacation was at a cruise stop in Ensenada. The trick was walking far enough from the port they expected pesos then hanging out at a bar where the workers all had face tattoos. Very cool blokes and we might have found a local ski resort too; iykyk.

  • Aim high, buddy. We salute you.

  • It really sucks because there are some core ideas that are really nice, completely overshadowed by the country’s terrible behavior. The things we were led to believe about ourselves in school would make for a genuinely good society. The secularism, multiculturalism, access to opportunity, many freedoms beyond reproach, etc. Our leaders have for centuries now talked about these and still mostly failed to deliver.

    Well that’s on all of us, but given the outsized influence of the rich, I’m happy to shirk much of our responsibility onto them.

  • Three’s company too.

  • That’s a very thoughtful reply, and I just want to apologize for implying you are a problem at all. Good that this crosses your mind. I’ve definitely been in similar situations, and sometimes I come away thinking, “maybe I was wrong here,” where other times it’s more, “they’re so wrong.” So it goes both ways. I really didn’t mean to make it about you.

    But my actual key learning in decades of work is about my own introspection. Recognizing one’s own biases and considering one’s own role in bad vibes is very helpful. Sounds like you do that too.

    As an aside, I’ve also found sometimes a situation gets ahead of its own skiis and it is very difficult to change course. I’ve been in workplaces where a group really hates me, and it bums me out because I can sometimes see where it went of the rails… but there is just no putting the train back on the track sometimes and it sucks.

  • Have you considered the possibility that you are in any part culpable for this? I’m not at all saying you are, but I have a few times worked with people that thought they were beyond reproach but were actually just insufferable. Even when they were sometimes correct, they did harm the group by not being able to read the room and work together.

    Again, no blame. May not be the case at all here. Just wondering if it had crossed your mind.

  • I explicitly pointed out that it was idealism. You’re barking at the moon. It’s like getting mad at a physics instructor for saying “imagine a frictionless surface and purely elastic collisions”. The point is to extract those things that can distract from a rigorous concept.

    I’m not implying in anyway that this is the real world. Rather that the negative things associated with nationalism are not inextricably linked to the concept of national identity. If you don’t see it that way, fine. But this act like you think I meant this was a possible representation of the world we live in is just silly.

  • Generally a collective of people acting as a community. Of course it is all the worst things too, but it doesn’t have to be. I think a big problem is that the borders meet each other due to how many humans are on a planet this size. But imagine an infinite landscape where nations are far apart. When you arrive at one, you may find a group of people that like to collectively offer a set of protections and provisions. They also might have a set or treaties with nearby nations so each can benefit from each other’s resources.

    Idealism, I know, but I’m just expressing that nations as a concept doesn’t necessitate the bad parts.