mfed1122

And what form of employment do you have which doesn’t support billionaires?

Ooooh can we pay my washed up friend $3,000,000 to give a speech there?

"Learned", lol, yeah that's what the problem is. They're just so stupid. So *unbelievably* stupid. These people with billions of dollars of think tank research and social data, these people who climbed into power, they just aren't realizing this obvious fact that somehow every non-politician around me has understood since they were 15 years old. They haven't "learned".

Hmm yes I think a lot of this exists but isn't being called by this term. It's a good term. It kinda means what cyberpunk originally meant before it got hollowed out and turned into primarily an aesthetic term.

Hah, whoops, I edited this in before I saw your response! Same research!

So jokes aside, why is it titled this way? Or is the title actually a joke? Edit: https://artincontext.org/the-cursed-woman-painting-by-tassaert/ Meh, looks like he's probably just using it as a synonym for damned, so just classic boring religious condemnation of horny. Though in fairness he may just be using it descriptively and playfully the way we now use "naughty" I guess?

I refused to vote because I believed it would maximize the well-being of good people over the foreseeable future. My intent was good. You can call me completely stupid if you want, but its totally irrational to call me an asshole. I purposely *intended* to give up my own well-being for the greater good. That's not asshole behavior, I would think. Again, feel free to say that I am stupid and had the wrong plan for the greater good. That's a good debatable stance. But claiming I'm an asshole only demonstrates that you can't see my argument as it is, but only as you want to see it

Try addressing the reasoning that I explicitly laid out rather than restating your own reasoning that we started off with. That's how conversation works. I have no problem having a rational back and forth discussion, but if you won't even respond to my actual reasoning there's no point to it. I don't want to antagonize someone who is ultimately on my side, but you sure make it hard to resist by being so inflammatory. I understand you're upset and think I did a horrible thing, but I also think the same thing about you, yet I am not holding it so harshly against you because I understand your heart was in the right place. If someone keeps being so aggressive to me, I'm only human, and its hard for me to keep a level head. But I want to keep a level head and have a reasonable discussion. I can tell you that I'm open to having my mind changed, although perhaps you may not believe that. But if you want to actually change someone's mind, I'm right here and ready to talk about it. But I ask that you at least respond to the reasoning I laid out, not just my claim but my reasoning for it, and to try to be respectful. I get that it's not always possible, I mess up too (I've done it in this same thread), but let's just try to assume the best of each other and be open to being wrong (me too) and maybe we could actually come away from this with at least one changed mind. Edit: I'll happily try to elaborate in response to your other comments if you want, but it seems like you would rather I just shut up, so its up to you. I don't wanna waste time typing out an argument that you aren't interested in having

It was, you're welcome. Now go be selfish somewhere else Edit: (If its not obvious, I don't mean this, but figured I'd show you what its like for someone to disregard 90% of your post and call you selfish when you explicitly made an argument for why you're not) You can insult me all you want, but I listed out plenty of reasons for why *you're* the one sacrificing others in order to sit on your high horse of having voted for Kamala. But you fall back to insults because you can't actually address my points. You are selfishly choosing the well-being of your immediate social group over millions of people in the present and future.

Its just confusing because I’m told I should have voted for Kamala because:

1. I need to think about more people than myself
2. Sometimes we need to pick a lesser evil for the practical benefit of more people
3. I need to make personal and ideological sacrifices for the greater good
4. I need to accept that hard choices have to be made and be willing to take real action even if it inconveniences me
5. I can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good

But from my perspective, that’s exactly what I AM doing, in fact to an even greater extent, by not voting for Kamala. And when I bring this up, suddenly your rebuttal is that actually I should be picking…. What’s best for me personally in the next couple of years?

I knew Trump winning would mean disaster for me, my family, my friends. But I felt like Kamala winning would just buy us a few more years of relative peace (at the continued expense of exploiting much of the rest of the world), only to then land us with the same ultimatum ,but with higher stakes, four years later. So I:

1. Thought about more people than myself, my friends, my family. I also thought about their kids, and people all over the world, and about millions of people who haven’t even been born yet but one day will grow up under the same horrible America that we’ll still have even if progressives manage to undo the last 20 years of crazy.
2. Picked a lesser evil (Trump now) over a greater evil (another century of stable American evil at home and abroad) for the practical benefit of more people (future people and young people)
3. Made personal sacrifices (I need to plan to leave the country) and ideological sacrifices (I don’t like picking lesser evils! I wish I could only ever pick good things!)
4. Accepted hard choices (not voting for Kamala) and was willing to take real action (selling all my stuff, boycotting corporations, giving up a hundred comforts, and preparing to leave the country)
5. Didn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Of course not voting for Kamala would ideally not be so catastrophic. Ideally vote boycotting would have started decades ago. But oh well, we can’t have things be perfect, so I guess starting the change now, messy and painful as it is for me today, will be good for future generations after me

So just to be clear, I don't hate you or anything, we're trying to achieve basically the same goal, we want the same thing. Our disagreement is just about what actions will most effectively bring it about. That's much better than the people who fundamentally want something different, so I want to be clear that I don't wish to characterize you as "essentially identical" to those actual enemy groups. Anyways, from my understanding of the world, you voting for Kamala also disregards the effect on marginalized communities, its just marginalized communities of 2030-2080 and possibly onwards, rather than the communities of 2025-2030 which you are more directly affected by. That's the way I see it, at least. Its funny because really both the people who voted for Kamala and the people who don't are thinking to themselves: "this isn't how I really want things to go, but its a noble sacrifice to make for the greater good". I think the disagreement between the two groups truly comes down to complexities of which method will actually end up bringing about change. I leaned towards the choice I took, because when I look at the political history of this country since the 80s, it seems as though the Democrats have gone soft as representatives, which created that famous political ratchet effect. I'm sorry, and I know this sounds like me just being lazy, but I truly do not believe putting in the leg work to change the party this way will matter. I know people who burnt literal years doing grassroots campaigning for truly progressive candidates and it went nowhere. I've been to more than a few of those types of events where everyone is trying to change the system the way it's supposed to be changed. But you know why those people never went any further? Because the party didn't need them to, because the party can get the votes they need AND have their donor cake too, because even *many of the people in these grassroots campaigns* will fall in line to vote for the normie candidate when the time comes and the Democrats know that. They know it because of the millions of dollars they spend to verify and ensure it for themselves. So to me, since the "lift up opposing candidates" thing has been failing for 50 years, and the "blue no matter who" thing has been making things worse for 50 years, the only thing left to try is not voting. That's the one thing that might actually hit Democratic politicians where it hurts (their power/money). I know its not your strategy and you have every right to keep trying yours too, even though I think your strategy is part of the problem and you think the same about mine. I think the only way to come to a consensus is to debate why we expect one strategy to work better, and so far I feel like recent political history is clearly on my side. But I am interested in hearing counterarguments. But everyone should understand that continually posting this Kamala shame stuff just makes people like me drastically less willing to hear those counterarguments, because it demonstrates how the people making them haven't even bothered to properly understand the nuance of our voting reasons, and instead prefer to strawman us as dumbly caring only about Middle Eastern genocides above all else.

I take responsibility but still think it was the correct choice not to vote for Kamala. This is because from my perspective the Democratic party relied on its voters usung harm reduction strategies in order to run candidates that don't make anything better for regular people in the long run, other than some tiny little concessions as tribute. Don't think there can't be worse presidents than Trump. Don't think it can't get worse here. Back when Bush was elected people thought he was the pinnacle too. And before that people thought that about Reagan. But people like *YOU* kept voting for the lesser evil, and the Democrats, who are on the side of billionaires just like every other politician, didn't really make things better, kept cooperating with Republicans, and together they laid the groundwork that allowed Trump to be elected. If that pattern keeps up, one day (soon) we will have something worse than Trump. I understand the current situation is worse than the situation would be if Kamala had won, but we have to draw the line before it gets even worse. The way it's been going, the country was on an oscillating trajectory with a downward trend. Its shortsighted to only consider 4 years ahead. You're thinking about yourself for the next couple years, I'm thinking about all the future generations after us for decades. Anyways, I took responsibility, so please do your part and downvote Kamalaposts now

Oh my god when will you people shut the fuck up about this

Let me first clarify that I think you seem very nice and I'm not mad at you, nor do I have any intent to make you feel bad. I think you're misreading my tone, tbh. That or I'm expressing my tone poorly. So, I thought I did correct you politely, within the bounds of also needing to make very clear and unambiguous that you needed to adjust your confidence when talking about this subject. I have no issue with someone idly brainstorming ideas, but in the context of your original comment "There are so many ways to do human verification that have worked for years.", which you didn't qualify in any way, you sounded completely authoritative and sure of yourself. Since you yourself even know that you are ignorant on this topic, to me a better phrasing would be to preface that with something like "I think..." Or "It seems like...", or even outright saying "I don't really know about this stuff, but..." Etc.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a dick, just being honest. I felt it was important to correct your unjustified confidence in the original comment where you claimed many such solutions exist

Sorry dude, but this comment makes it clear you have no idea what you’re talking about. If I’m given an assignment to write a program that generates a huge variety of novel cat drawings, which won’t register the same in this database, I bet I could personally single handedly have that done in a week of work.

Some other problems :

1. Many real humans will draw roughly similar cats. Unless you compare the drawings pixel by pixel, or very precisely, then there will be lots of false positives.

2. If you then decide to compare the drawings pixel by pixel or very precisely, then I can trivially generate new drawings by altering them. I have plenty of time to reverse engineer how your database is comparing things even though you don’t tell me when I get a strike because I can make lots of fake accounts via hiding my IP address and run experiments by feeding different variations of drawings and seeing which ones eventually get banned.

3. If you ask once every couple of months, then my bot gets to do three times whatever that duration of months is worth of damage and misinformation before it gets banned. That’s a pretty long time, especially for a bot. I can deploy new bots much faster than your system gets rid of them.

4. As Anivia pointed out, I can pay real humans to draw the different cats for my bots when needed. This is especially trivial because I can just ask them to draw a whole bunch of cats in advance. I don’t even need to wait for the cue from the system. I can just have a big library of pre-drawn cat drawings that I upload as needed.

Its tricky because I don't dislike this post, but I do feel like posts should be in the appropriate comms. And I'm just legitimately unclear on what belongs here. I guess the idea is just whatever people post?

Is there any type of post that *doesn't* belong in a shitposting community? Because I know some people have very strong opinions about what shitposting is around here. And personally, I don't think this fits. But maybe shitposting is meant to just be a pure miscellaneous grab bag of anything? Yes, I read the community rules which say "everything goes", but the reality of what is posted seems to suggest a different spirit of the law.

The jury didn't say using Signal was evidence of terrorist activity, though. That's why it's alarmist to say the jury said that - because they didn't. At least, not to my knowledge?

It's alarmist to say that a jury decided using Signal is evidence of terrorism

I am beginning to suspect that 90% of programming memes are made by beginners and 90% of the engagement with them is also from beginners. Maybe I'm just projecting. I remember seeing this stuff when I was starting and just assuming that must be how it is.

Vintage dank maymay

I just want to be able to group tabs on mobile 🥲

Yeah I just can’t stop getting ragebaited by the Electron hate. All Electron haters are free to develop their own efficient, pleasant looking, cross-platform native app instead since it’s so easy

I wonder if this introvert/extrovert dichotomy really exists this much or if it’s just psychological astrology. Personally, I find it completely irrelevant to myself, but maybe that’s just me. I will be extremely extroverted around people I like and extremely introverted around people I don’t like. I can feel recharged by interactions with people I like and discharged by interactions with people I don’t like. Isn’t that obvious? With strangers it’s all based on my perception of them, derived from their appearance, their context, and any other clues I have. In groups it’s based on the composition of the group. The percentage of people I like or dislike, and also the context. When I’m alone, I’m perfectly content alone. I love being alone and I love hanging out with my friends. To be honest, I suspect my situation is how pretty much everyone is. I feel like my friends who describe themselves as extroverts and my friends who describe themselves as introverts are really just doing the same thing as each other and as me. I suspect that people who are very pronounced one way or the other, are doing so out of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect resulting from having decided at some point in the past to conceive of themselves as introverted or extroverted. The same way an astrology fan may unwittingly begin to behave according to their sign stereotype.