331–340 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property is theft anyway.
That quote is about real property, that is, land. Not your vinyl collection. And as bad as property is, rents—the current model—is certainly worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft
Completely opposite of the nations foundations, I had no idea the concept of property being theft was actually entertained as a feasible concept "America's Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights" https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-ha…
Of course, as large absentee owners themselves, the Founders were only too happy to let that consequence of Lockean theory slide, just as they were able to write "all men are created equal" while keeping men in slavery. But that merely shows that Upton Sinclair's quote, cliché as it may have become, still holds an inescapable truth.
I have lost count of the number of times I was unable to access my revolut or N26 bank accounts due to some android app updates that for some reason do not work without google play services. I can't understand how investors still put money on this, how banking regulators don't put a stop on that, or how can people use these "banks" as their main accounts. Plus the fact that there is no easy way to contact them (phone, email) if you are unable to login through their _mobile_ app!
(I mention banking apps because they seem more serious, but this happens with all sorts of services with a "mobile" app)
I just saw a video of a woman getting hit by a bus because she had her headphones in and looking at her cell phone crossing a crosswalk. Not really her fault, but I guess I would have heard a bus coming.
As tragic as this is, how is this not 100% her fault. Was the bus running a red light?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Her own iCloud account that is part of a Family. So yes and no? Yes, she has her own account, but no, because she’s also under the umbrella of my account (“Family”). But it has always been this way, yes? One must be under the Family umbrella to see the devices of others?
That’s the distinction - we didn’t put her account under the family plan. I must truly be an edge case then!
Anyway, probably time for me to let this one go, I don’t even remember the original issue without backtracking up thread. :-)
The biggest societal altering impacts may be in terms of dating and reproduction. This has major cultural consequences. * There’s more than 1 reason for this, but approach patterns have changed. Men approaching women in real life is now rarer than it was in favor of online meeting through Apps. * Many relationships now happen based on online dating. In a sense, a series of algorithms are already dictating human repro…
Spend less time in incel communities. You're falling for baseless propaganda written and spread by depressed people looking for a way to "rationally" blame others for their unhappiness and self-perpetuating loneliness.
* I think whatever brand of red-pilled you want to call me is the polar opposite of what an “incel” would be defined as. Most “incels”, as far as I can tell, take bad relationship advice about being yourself to heart and don’t seek out successful men who give good advice on lifting and other positive life improvements to really succeed. They fail to get success and feel bitter precisely because they don’t have good male role models who are willing to talk in an unfiltered way to them. To me, the lack of male role models is key.
* Despite not being an “incel” and disagreeing with them on many topics, I feel an immense amount of sympathy for people with this label. Isn’t it sad that there are a lot of men out there, many of whom are smart and productive members of society, who cannot find a happy and fulfilling relationship? We see mainstream society basically wanting to completely shun the unloved. Instead of joining the 2 minutes of hate, why not offer a path to success for them, or at least some sympathy to the unloved? If you’re an “incel”, how do you think you feel when you see stuff like this? https://twitter.com/ekp/status/991817194987114496?lang=en
My favourite one that surprised me and continues to surprise people: kids that have grown up with smartphones and iPads from birth are computer illiterate. People see their 5 year old using an iPad and the knee-jerk cliche thought/assumption us the classic "oh wow these kids just get technology!" (recall all the "I need my kid to program the VCR" type stuff from the 80s/90s - it is the same thing of older people assu…
> at work with a 20 year old intern in the stock room
> clock on the wall above the door
> intern asks "Hey, do you know what time it is?"
> I look at the clock and say, "5:30pm"
> intern says "Thanks, my phone was dead"
I was in shock for the rest of the day a person less than a decade younger than me doesn't know how to read an analog clock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are exceptions to this though. If you're driving through Europe at night you can easily spend most of your trip on highways safely going 180kmh or faster, saving you many hours on longer trips.
By Europe you are meaning Germany only, I believe, in most other European countries there is a speed limit of 130 km/h or 140 km/h, day or night doesn't matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To say property is theft is an oxymoron. Theft requires ownership. Folks who say this assume they have a right to someone else's labor aka slavery Completely nonsense in a modern society.
> Folks who say this assume they have a right to someone else's labor aka slavery If you read the article I posted, you'd see that your cursory objection is thoroughly false: > Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To say property is theft is an oxymoron. Theft requires ownership. Folks who say this assume they have a right to someone else's labor aka slavery Completely nonsense in a modern society.
> Folks who say this assume they have a right to someone else's labor aka slavery If you read the article I posted, you'd see that your cursory objection is thoroughly false: > Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth.