I find it surreal and profound that there is now a form of cybercrime that is, literally, using poetic maledictions. The line between technology and classic depictions of magic blurs yet further.

CEO complains that his blatant circular investment infinite money glitch isn’t convincing people that these perpetually unprofitable businesses are actually worth further investment.

Like, there’s no way in hell these files haven’t been doctored, right? Months of obfuscation and deflection, and then suddenly Trump’s fine to sign their release? There’s no way.

My take: if Rossman came out swinging as an anti-corporate revolutionary, his ideas wouldn’t have wide appeal right now, since many people still think the problem is just “bad” mega-corporations. So instead, he’s arguing for less-shitty tech corporations as a first step (symbolized by Clippy, of a less-intrusive software age), rather than “destroy all tech corpos now.” No, Microsoft wasn’t good then, but they were less awful.

If his video were starkly anti-capitalist, it would not have reached 2.5 million people, and I’d say getting that many people to start thinking about rejecting invasive software is a great step in the right direction, as opposed to ideological purism that would only resonate with those who already agree. The need for these baby steps is frustrating for those who already see the big picture, but a few chats with my coworkers quickly reveal how shockingly little some people have actually thought about the sins of big tech.

The shift to these ridiculously large trucks is partially consequent of the poorly-implemented Obama fuel economy regulations. The regulations were determined by wheelbase and tread width, which disincentivized manufacturers from making mid- or small-sized trucks. The bigger they made them, the less restricted they were by fuel economy. Larger vehicles also ease constraints on engineers; they don’t have to struggle fitting a lot into a small body. Once large trucks became the default offering, they morphed into the annoying cultural “status” symbol we know today.

Anyway I have a Miata MX-5 and I love my tiny car.

Precisely this. Leftist rhetoric about wages is often framed for other leftists, without addressing the core arguments underpinning centrist and conservative views on why the rich “deserve” their wealth. People say “theft” without making arguments for why our definition of theft needs to change.

I’m in complete agreement with this perspective, but rarely do I see discussions like this address the sticking point centrists and conservatives get hung up on: they don’t believe this is “theft.”

When I told my coworker about the historic productivity-to-wages gap, she argued (paraphrasing), “Could it not be that gap is reflective of the CEOs innovating ways to make their workers increasingly productive, while the value of those workers’ labor hasn’t actually increased, therefore explaining why the minds behind those innovations deserve the wealth?”

This conversation will go nowhere if we keep throwing around terms like “wage theft” and skipping step 1 where we argue the moral determination as to why that is true.

To say “that feeling” of indignation (at the letter’s inclusion in a gallery) is the same as other things that make him roll his eyes, is reductionist. We regard things as stupid for different reasons; they’re not all the “same feeling.” As others have said, the artist’s intentionality in presenting something is part of its message. So the indignation he felt about a piece being put in a gallery is part of that piece’s effect on him, born from the artist’s choices. That feeling is different than hearing a moron say something dumb and thinking it’s stupid.

Intentionality is the key. Case in point, “language evolves” is a silly thing to say after a mistake, but many subcultures start misspelling things on purpose, and that intentionality is how language evolves.

I’m really glad I’m in the lower left because that’s my favorite of the faces.

I just gave up and pre-ordered the Light Phone 3. Anytime I truly need a mobile app, I can just use an old iPhone and a WiFi connection.

I feel conflicted. On one hand, people can regulate themselves, and Facebook becoming a bigoted cesspit may bring more people to a moderated Fediverse.

On the other hand, these major platforms having such user monopoly and influence can cause unfettered hate speech to breed violence.

I’m conflicted about the idea that an insidious for-profit megacorporation should be expected to uphold a moral responsibility to prevent violence; their failure to do so might be a necessary wake-up call that ultimately strips them of that problematic influence. Thoughts?