This is an idea explored in The Egg by Andy Weir.

That’s what irks me the most, when people act like abstaining from an election is a grand act of protest that will change things for the better. I understand the reluctance to vote, but that should never be accompanied by a reluctance to act.

Imagine enforcing shitty copyright laws on yourself like some code of honor. We developed the technology to make infinite copies of any media and then spend endless resources fighting it because it undermines our parasitic economic model.

Imagine for a moment that society embraced the full potential of digital technology. We could have a library of all human art and knowledge ever produced available for free, instantly, everywhere. If book libraries didn’t already exist and were proposed today the excuses for rejecting it would be the same. The answer is also the same, change our economic model to support people’s basic needs unconditionally and directly subsidize the production we need/want (like art).

Craigslist was always on the fringes, before Facebook marketplace came in there were a bunch of separate and disconnected online marketplaces. Facebook marketplace had the advantage of already having a massive user base (larger than any of the existing online marketplaces), causing it to become the largest one right out the gate, which then of course makes it the most attractive option for sellers since they will reach more people.

I’m not mixing average with lowest rate, the average dipped that low in 2021, meaning lots of people were getting even lower rates than that. And yes, of course people with middle class incomes buy points. That doesn’t counter my point.

Buying points involves paying more money up front to reduce interest rates. Given that someone struggling financially wouldn’t be able to do that I don’t think it’s fair to include them in conversations about the affordability of homes. It’s also not a great idea to buy points if you’re uncertain about whether you’re going to continue living there. It can take years for the savings on interest to recoup the up front cost of points, so you could easily lose money if something happens and you end up having to move or sell the home.

The “boots” theory of economic unfairness is pretty relevant here.

Edit: also the numbers the above commenter used are not far off, in the US average interest rates in 2021 went as low as 2.65%, and average interest rates in 2024 have been oscillating around 7%.

Went to check sources but you have to register to read the whole article, do you happen to know the source or another article that has them?

What’s your opinion of the Bolsheviks?

I would be wondering what I did to make his job more difficult.

That also reminds me of this scene from Invincible where during the copying process their experiences are sort of “blended” making them see from both bodies at once, only here they both live and are separate afterwards.

Edit: is it obvious how much of a sci-fi geek I am lol

If anyone’s interested in a hard sci-fi show about uploading consciousness they should watch the animated series Pantheon. Not only does the technology feel realistic, but the way it’s created and used by big tech companies is uncomfortably real.

The show got kinda screwed over on advertising and fell to obscurity because of streaming service fuck ups and region locking, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s at least partially because of its harsh criticisms of the tech industry.

The animated series Pantheon has a scene depicting exactly this, and it’s one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen.

Edit: Here is the scene in question. It’s explained he has to be awake during the procedure because the remaining parts of his brain need to continue functioning in tandem with the parts that have already been scanned.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

Didn’t intend to suggest they were the same, only that people don’t find being sober depressing and unbearable after experiencing an altered state of consciousness once. People get “high” at the doctor’s or dentist all the time and the risk of addiction from that is all but non-existent, but if someone seeks out the same drug outside a hospital setting the risk of addiction is much higher. Why? Because drugs don’t make people addicted, they keep people addicted. People become addicted when they begin to use drugs as a maladaptive coping mechanism (typically for mental illness or environmental factors, i.e. poverty), and only then does the chemical component of addiction come into play.

Have you ever been given drugs at the doctor’s or dentist, like anesthesia or pain meds? It’s pretty rare that someone has never experienced an altered state of mind at some point.

The majority of people have been high before, and the majority of people are not drug addicts who find being sober horribly depressing. It’s the depression that causes the drug addiction, not the other way around - though it certainly does make it harder to recover.

I would suspect this is an intentional dark pattern. They’re probably hoping most people will get tired of waiting and click cancel, which sets it back to the default of allowing all cookies.