isleepinahammock

joined 2 years ago
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

It's the parents that are the problem. The problem is, when schools try to ban them, parents flip the fuck out. They become apoplectic at the idea of not being able to instantly reach their kids at every hour of the day. A surprising number of parents install tracking apps on their kid's phones. They have them tagged like wild animals under study.

So schools are stuck compromising with unenforceable rules. Instead of banning phones entirely, they'll ban kids from having them out in class. Which of course never works, as the kids just take them out as soon as the teacher turns their back.

95% of human beings alive today could die tomorrow, and there would still be more of us around than when Julius Caesar walked the Earth.

I worry for the future. I see us on a path that will likely lead to a substantial decline in the total human population from the effects of climate change. It's not a future I want to see.

At the same time, extinction is not something has to remotely worry about.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

On the bright side, our descendants will live on a planet banded by a glorious set of glimmering planetary rings. With all the crap they're planning on launching, Kessler syndrome seems inevitable at this point. But, if you're looking for a silver lining in this dark cloud, rings are it. A spherical shell of debris orbiting the planet does not stay a spherical shell. Interactions between the particles eventually coalesce the spherical shell into a flat disk, planetary rings.

They would be pretty, but yeah...the astronomers aren't going to be too happy about it...

How long before some truck manufacturer sees their truck returned to them as a truck bomb after pulling this shit?

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like you'll be buying a Slate.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Whelp, glad I switched recently to LibreOffice. Had been using an old license of Office from my old university. But that expired and Word ultimately refused to function without it. And I'm certainly not paying money, let alone a subscription, for an AI-infested slop factory.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

My logic isn't flawed. I'm not using a motte-and-bailey fallacy, I'm just using rhetorical defense-in-depth! 😂

The company’s total daily active users grew by 18% to 130.3 million versus estimates of 130.07 million.

I'm guessing all of that increase is bots.

Ultimately the only thing that will stop it is advertisers fleeing the site. They won't be able to tell what portion of the ad views they are paying for are bots, but it sure will show up in the sales conversion figures. Bots don't buy products that advertise to them.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Not who you messaged, but the "advocating violence" thing gets massively abused by conservative mods on r/politics. For example, on January 6, right as it was happening, right as a mob of thugs was storming the capital building trying to steal an election? I wondered out loud why this place was so unguarded. Why aren't there machine gun nests opening up on the mob? Sorry, but if you try to form a mob to overthrow a democracy, that's what you deserve. That's how countries have dealt with such violent uprisings since time immemorial. You try to overthrow a lawfully elected government? Lethal violence is absolutely justified in such a case, and any reasonable person should acknowledge that. Violence is a tool governments unfortunately sometimes have to use. But the site policies do not acknowledge this. Violence is ultimately the core function of the state. See monopoly on violence. Discussing how the government will use one of its core defining functions is perfectly reasonable on a politics sub. Blind "do not advocate violence" policies are idiotic. And it's not like it ever gets applied to people advocating for the US to bomb other countries. That doesn't count as "advocating violence." Oh, and of course the conservative subreddits never get banned even after openly encouraging an armed insurrection against a lawfully elected government.

Later we learned those troops were not stationed at the capital because Trump ordered them away. Didn't reverse my ban though.

The same could be said for newspapers.

The vibe is still similar in some places. I get a lot out of lurking on some of the trans subreddits for instance. But yeah, anything outside of small niche communities has been enshittified into another Instagram.

view more: ‹ prev next ›