carbadtraingood

Yep, exactly. Worker coops in a market is fine.

Compare the difference between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. Warren and Biden fundamentally believe that capitalism is good and the natural law of the land. Sanders does not. Warren believes that we need to do more to address inequality between the owners and the workers, Biden does not.

I would (personally) consider Bernie to be Leftist, Warren to be Left Leaning, and Biden to be Centrist.

None of them I would consider to be revolutionary left. I've met plenty of tankies who believe in an authoritarian left seized through violence. (I am not one.)

I would assume those folks are not googlers, but are contract labor.

I feel like "r/saved your lick" is more likely to be run by deer who have opinions on where to find the best salt licks...

MSNBC fundamentally believes capitalism is good and right. They are absolutely left of the Republican party, but they are hardly left.

This is unfortunately a consequence of the two party system in the States. We equate Democrats with Left and Republicans with Right. Anything supportive of Democrats gets labeled "left" even if the policies are really centrist, pro capital ones. Because we don't really have the language here to differentiate the Left and Democrats in mainstream American parlance.

Capital L Liberal leaning, maybe. Deeply biased and sensationalist, absolutely. Not particularly leftist.

A Left leaning news source would be much more interested in discussing the demands of workers, pushing for strong labor, nationalization of corporations, etc. When Slavoj Žižek becomes a newscaster somewhere, and the news is talking about how important it is to eliminate landlords then we can talk about left leaning news media.

As a leftist who feels the Democratic party is a center-right party, networks like CNN and MSNBC come across as deeply biased but not particularly "left". Maybe Liberal, but certainly not "Left".

"Across the board" means "in every instance" not "in aggregate", at least in my experience.

This is a laughable concern. There's no reason to think there will be a rash of guns-shaped-like-iphones being a thing.

Being a cop is less dangerous than, for instance, being a pizza delivery driver.

Motivation to post: discussion is interesting. Sharing and hearing opinions is interesting.

I can teach someone technology (assuming they have a minimum baseline knowledge of the tech space). It's much much harder to teach attitude.

You need both to succeed, but it's much easier to teach the knowledge.

Can you supply a few? Again, this is a fresh account on an anonymous internet forum, and the posts I make generate single digit upvotes.

So what are the motivations to lie in this thread?

> There is this beauty of economics – you don’t have to make anyone poorer in order for you to become richer.

At any appreciable scale I disagree with this, or at least believe this ignores a whole lot of complexity.

Like, it totally ignores how profits are allocated within a company, for instance. Jeff Bezos got richer by making his employees poorer, for instance. He could have chosen to make his employees richer at the expense of making himself poorer.

It also seems to ignore the extractive elements of companies. Whether we are extracting raw minerals, agricultural products, or manufacturing capacity.

I think you are incorrect here. Sveltekit comes with a number of adapters designed to ship either a SSR site or a static SPA.

Serving a static Svelte site is literally a one line change in a config file. I've got a good half dozen Svelte sites that live in s3.

What does it take to convince you that the opinion someone expresses is their genuine one?

Given there's literally no motivation to lie, Occam's razor would suggest that the belief is genuine.

I don't use submarine in my daily work. But submarine is also not a metaphorical word, it's a literal one - sub (below) marine (the sea).

One could argue that it's an insufficiently specific literal term, and that the word "vessel" should be added afterwards, I suppose. But it doesn't really matter because it's not the same error of form that Allowlist and whitelist have.

I don't know what to tell you, you seem convinced I'm lying on an anonymous web forum. My responses have netted me like 3 karma, so clearly it earns me no clout to hold this opinion. There's no incentive for me to lie here.

Me: My opinion is A

You: No, your opinion is B, and you are cowardly and insulting.

Me: Genuinely, my opinion is A

You: You are pretending. No one believes opinion A.

I'm not sure what's so challenging here. Either I'm not aware of my own opinions or your worldview needs to be updated. I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like to understand the curious specimen I am better.

Just, maybe can we do that with fewer insults?

Right. That's the definition the international Olympic committee tried to enforce. The presence of a Y chromosome meant athletes weren't allowed to compete.

The problem is that many women (who are not trans) have a Y chromosome. They are either XXY (Klinefelter), or XY (Swyer), XY mosaicism, or any of the other intersex conditions.

Are those people not women? They may have fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a uterus, but also a Y chromosome.

Ok, I'll try again with a less cynical and more engaged response.

> Nobody cares about words being literal and self describing

I care about literal and self describing language, and I believe you are falling prey to the fundamental attribution error -- you believe there is a group of folks driving some agenda.

I look at the suggestion no matter where it comes from and say, "oh hey, yeah, I think that is a good suggestion".

It's not some grand conspiracy to "post hoc justify political activism". Someone just suggested a thing and many of us said, "oh yeah, that makes sense and is easy to change."

What conclusion? I just pointed out one historical attempt to define "biological man", and noted that it ended in failure?

Can you help me understand the costs? Because as far as I can tell it is:

1) "We should consider using Allowlist" "ok, but let's be careful with externally facing APIs, in exactly the same way we change all our externally facing APIs?" "Sure!"

2) "I was editing this file, find/replaced a couple cases of whitelist while I was in there" "LGTM"

3) "Oh, hey, noticed we had nearly finished opportunistically replacing whitelist. Does anyone mind if I just finish up?" "Sure, timebox it?"

Like, it's extremely low cost? What costs are you imagining?

These changes make sense even outside of any sort of political charge.

"Allow list" is frankly a much more descriptive and easy to understand term than "white list". It's a list of things that are allowed. If you were trying to learn the English language, I'd imagine a self describing term is much easier to understand.

What's a biological man? Not a Y chromosome, since they used to test Olympic athletes but found that the presence of a Y chromosome was not sufficient to identify men and women. (There are multiple genetic conditions that can cause this.) Many athletes had an unpleasant surprise at the hands of the IOC resulting in at least one suicide.

History and relevant link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports#:....

Police have an inflated sense of their abilities? Leading to hubris and a poor implementation of something?

Surely not. Surely the police only hire the best...

(/s)

Lol, look at a map of Tokyo and Japan's rail network. Or Switzerland, or the Netherlands, or Hong Kong, or honestly nearly anywhere that actually builds rails.

You can do just fine on rails.

Sure, if you want to get into the rural mountains you might need to rent a car. But like, for most people rail will do you just fine.

This would make sense if rails were some sort of outmoded transit mechanism, but they can be significantly faster, more efficient, and more pleasant.

Rails are too restrictive for real life? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... Rails are widely used for real life around the globe. In many, many places rails significantly out perform cars to the point that people choose not to own cars.

Honestly, a bit of a road diet from the occasional "this intersection is closed due to fleet maintenance" is probably not the worst thing.