[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Great song that I'd nearly forgotten about.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thanks, internet stranger. I'm glad to hear that you think this has some value.

All the details are up for debate and possible improvement. But in this first draft of the idea:

Will people be forced to fill it in every year?

Only if they want to decide where their money goes.

Will they fill it in at all?

If they don't fill it in, the fee goes to the RTE.

Will there be a default selection? Like all to RTÉ, or maybe an even split between all options?

All to RTE.

If people don’t have to make a selection every year, will they just choose once and never update or change it because it’s a hassle?

That's a good idea. You could have an option to inform the revenue of your preference just once, and it will be recorded forever, or until you change it. That way, people don't have to fill out a tax return every year.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Yes you couldn't change something so widely used. Look what happened with python 3.

Fortunately there's already a tradition among Git users of building a UI on top of the git UI. My project is just a slightly better version of those. It lays a simple sensible interface on top of the chaotic Git interface.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

But what's the reason for posting a screenshot instead of a link? Lots of people are doing it. It must be more effort for you than posting a link.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

here?

most of those behind were for being "reactionary" or "not an answer". sounds more like general censorship of ideas and opinions. there was even a post banned for "bad faith arguments, downplaying severity of western settler-colonialism, and both sidesing Ukraine conflict".

the mod logs interesting. but i don't see anything relevant. or maybe i don't see how it is relevant.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

This is exactly what happens. The highest quality land in a country is used for tillage. The less productive parts are used for grazing. This is how farmers make the most money. They'd be fools to use productive land for grazing and grow crops on poor land.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yes. this is what most people don't understand.

even if you build a giant metro network, you can have worse congestion and pollution than ever. many cities have exactly this problem.

the only solution is increasing the housing (and reducing vacancy) in business districts, and providing more work places in residential districts. commuting distances have to drop to within cycling/walking distance.

But three is money to be made by making the problems bigger.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It is all teddits.

1
Against Bravery Debates (slatestarcodex.com)
1060
1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml to c/history@lemmy.ml

This was interesting. Her real innovation was structuring the hospitals she managed hierarchically. She made the nurses fully subservient to the doctors, which was not the case before. This was maybe or maybe not good for medicine, but certainly good for the people at the tops of the hierarchies, who celebrated her. Other people who did more valuable work were ignored by the history-writers.

1
What is wealth (lemmy.ml)

I've noticed a pattern, that wealth is privacy. If you take for example how people live.

  1. Homeless, outdoors. No privacy at all.
  2. Shared apartment
  3. Private apartment with shared outdoor space
  4. Private house
  5. Gated community
  6. Gated private estate

Or how people travel.

  1. Walking in the street in full public view
  2. On a bus or train or aeroplane
  3. In a car
  4. In a private convoy surrounded my staff, or in a private jet.

The poorest are always in public, in everything they do. The wealthiest are never seen, except when they choose to appear. There is a continuum in between of increasing wealth meaning increasing privacy.


But there are other possible perspectives. Wealth is the freedom to waste.

With wealth you can buy many things and leave them idle or dump them. You can travel and live and eat in wasteful ways. You can hire people to work for you, doing things you don't really need.

Things which are expensive are (to a large extent) so because their production is wasteful. The rich can utilise more expensive things.

So the problem with too much global consumption - too much emissions, electricity usage, mining, etc - is really a problem of too many rich people. There is no point restricting or banning these things - people will just find other ways to be wasteful - maybe even worse ones. The only way to solve these crisis is reduce wealth, by reducing inequality.


Wealth is power over people. Wealth is required to compel people to do things, to directly pay them to do your bidding, or to access the fruits of hours of labour through purchases. There is also bribery, access to lawyers etc, which allow more wealthy people to exert more power over their peers and society.


Are there other ways to understand wealth?

1
Reconstructing History Sewing Patterns (reconstructinghistory.com)
4
1
Electric vehicles and tyre pollution (www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion)

As car engines are getting cleaner and tyres wider and softer, pollution from tyres is already as high as pollution from engines. But:

Levels of nitrogen oxides, byproducts of burning gasoline and diesel that cause smog, asthma and other ailments, have fallen sharply as electric vehicle ownership has risen.

But there is still a problem where the rubber meets the road. Oslo’s air has unhealthy levels of microscopic particles generated partly by the abrasion of tires and asphalt. Electric vehicles, which account for about one-third of the registered vehicles in the city but a higher proportion of traffic, may even aggravate that problem.

“They’re really a lot heavier than internal combustion engine cars, and that means that they are causing more abrasion,” said Mr. Wolf, who, like many Oslo residents, prefers to get around by bicycle.

-2

If you have seen this piece of news, and are a Lemmy user, it might look familiar.

3
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml to c/artificial_intel@lemmy.ml

So we already have AI that can make paintings (and diverse visual art) in response to prompts, and AI that can generate text in response to prompts.

Both are excellent at imitating what a human would make, from a similar prompt.

But what about AI generated music? This is for me the most interesting. Is it somehow more difficult? Why haven't we seen it yet?

1
2
1
Cognitive bias cheat sheet (betterhumans.pub)
[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

In general we are open for constructive feedback

My one big fear right now is that a mod could delete my words, and they would be lost forever.

Sometimes I write long essays here. They are ideas that I think are important and original. I write them so people will be able to read them many years into the future.

It's important that anything deleted by a mod or an admin can be saved by the creator afterwards.

I'd argue it's necessary that nothing can ever be fully deleted, if you want people to ever write anything important here.

That's why historically most of the most important world-change essays were written to newspapers. Once a newspaper is published, it is available forever. It can never be expunged.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago

Very interesting. It shows that Lemmy was always a political project. It was always meant to advocate certain politics and discourage others.

IMO this is not what new users expect. So we keep seeing these posts of people realising, and being shocked, and sometimes rage-quitting.

Only a certain portion of people will stay with Lemmy after that realisation, and the others will flee. Is that what you want? (again just IMO)

If not, is there a way to make this political vision more evident, to try to stop this effect?


TBH I'm against the politics of Lemmy. But (IMO again) despite that it's still a valuable project, and maybe a historically important one.

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago

That's the defence of the "slur filter" that everyone can agree on. It's harmless because it does almost nothing. It has no real benefit or cost.

The people who say it deters fascists - it just doesn't hold water.#

[-] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 years ago

Ideological freedom encourages nasty people. And restrictions encourage thoughtless people.

You can go on notabug and ignore the crazy psychos and chat with the creative people.

You can go on reddit and find endless people with no independent thought, repeating things and not listening to reach other.

Lemmy is in the middle. But IMO that's not an objective good thing, it's a preference.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

roastpotatothief

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF