!mediashare@lemmy.world

So if the argument were about whether a license was important, in the general case, as a selling pointl for books, I would have no choice but to concede.

By your logic, if you’re a good person but you spend your disposable income on a form of recreation that inefficiently brings positivity to the world, you deserve to be ridiculed and your suffering is justly celebrated.

I have no high regard for the guy, but are you seriously, like seriously seriously, trying to tell people that Jordan Peterson depends on his professional title for… literally anything?

Are you saying that without it, he will lose a non-trivial amount of… anything?

“Bro, do you know what really sucks? Not having best-in-class third-party audited end-to-end encryption so nobody ever finds out about all the shit we’re about to get up to. Like, do you even wanna do drugs, bro?”

If that 3% is made up of an outsized share of power users they might be ok. I’m more worried about the power structure shenanigans that have been going on the past few years.

Uh I haven’t but isn’t that written by Gary Webb?

Because the points only relate to the post, not you. You can’t see your aggregate total from all posts combined, which would otherwise incentivize you to post things that will add to your total “high score”.

You still have a minor incentive to post a high scoring comment, but it’s only per-comment. If you feel like pleasing the masses, go ahead and play to their wants and needs. You might get a lot of points for it, and it’ll feel nice.

But if you wanna tell em how you really feel and put them in their place, you can just not care about your points for that post. It’s whatever. There’s no danger that your -478 points is going to drag down your total, discouraging you from ever posting something that upsets the status quo.

Politely disagree, in that I suspect this is a hypocritical sentiment. Most users who get off of Elon news will agree with this position now but then cry foul when this community is spammed with a subject not to their liking. And as much as the ideology of free speech (rightly) resonates, just like with free markets, some minimal regulation is needed in practice; otherwise some fanatics could choke this feed up with, I dunno, 99% Microsoft news, all the time, and you wouldn’t be able to say shit because you “strongly believe people should be able to post whatever they want”. I doubt that you would stand by your lofty convictions so strongly then.

Beyond that, there is nothing wrong with expressing a desire for more or less of something—it’s just an opinion. It’s a bullshit argument to say, “If you don’t like it, instead of articulating why, just use the limited non-descriptive tool provided to reduce your passionate sentiment into a trivial binary value and cast it into the sea of thousands just like it; or else, like, go create an entirely new community or a custom feed or whatever you want. But mainly, just fuck off.”

Even if the value of money goes up, it’s by a paltry 1-2% and it still wouldn’t seem to make sense to hoard rather than invest, unless I’m missing something. In what scenario would any rich person just sit on their money? Likewise, the impact of 2% deflation on a bank loan is well within the variance in rates we see today, and I imagine in such an economy the rates would be adjusted somewhat to compensate.

Simply put, the difference between an inflating vs deflating currency doesn’t seem enough to drastically alter people’s behavior. In the short to medium term it seems almost a non-issue, at least for regular people, and in the long term people won’t get fucked out of their life savings. I imagine the vast majority of the population doesn’t invest their money. Which policy would they prefer?

“Information known for half a century that nevertheless didn’t mean jack squat because it couldn’t be legally explained in such a way that would convince a layman court to break past precedent; but that we’ve now reframed into a compelling interpretation that much more obviously meets the standards required for a court to rule something as ‘predatory pricing’'; thus, any future cases brought are much more likely to succeed.”

tldr: We think we’ve found a way around the technicality VCs have been hiding behind all these years.

Please join both political parties.