mountainriver

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Who in specific do you see voting for the next Dem who did not vote for Kamala?

Some of the 19 million 2020 Biden voters who didn't vote in 2024? Maybe some of the 5-6 million they lost one the issue of aiding and arming a genocide in Gaza?

No, going more Nazi must be the way. Much wise, much centrist. Much exhausting.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

The investors read "11x, the company's, revenue is 10 million" but what they missed was that the correct reading was "11 x [the company's revenue] is 10 million", so the actual revenue is less than a million. Easy mistake to make! Better luck next time investors!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, the exclusion of the dismal science got a chuckle out of me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Ok, that makes sense.

I was somehow under the impression that the main wild cat money to real money exchange was to USD, on account of the media about such exchanges. The rest followed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Something I have been pondering is why when going after Bitcoin from crimes (ransom or stolen) they don't just declare the individual "coins" stemming from illegal proceedings and that when they show up the "coins" will be confiscated and the holders investigated for money laundering. They have a serial number of sorts, right?

It should decrease the trade value of the "coins", might even have the added benefit of scaring people of from the scam currencies. Ay, there might be the rub, for in this modern world of ours suppressing financial "innovations" is treated as worse than scams.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

So I was right that it was a Jabra. :)

I think you are right to treat it like a fanzine, do it for the hell of it. That is the fun way.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I believe I read somewhere that Wikimedia was some time ago (a decade ago? who knows and no point in trying to search for the article) exploring the idea of a human curated search engine. Perhaps an idea who's time has come.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Chatbots are coming for the traditional jobs of gurus, astrologers and tarot-readers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They removed the citation, but did they keep the definition?

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 weeks ago

That was gross.

On a related note, one of my kids learnt about how phrenology was once used for scientific racism and my other kid was shocked, dismayed and didn't want to believe it. So I had to confirm that yes people did that, yes it was very racist, and yes they considered themselves scientists and were viewed as such by the scientific community of the time.

I didn't inform them that phrenology and scientific racism is still with us. There is a limit on how many illusions you want to break in a day.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Pondering where we are heading, I think the tech monopolies will get larger. The companies in a monopolistic position can raise the prices, right now officially because they have added new shiny AI functions nobody wants. After the crash they will raise prices to recoup losses. Microsoft is already rising prices across the board.

The companies that makes their products worse and more expensive and can't recoup losses through monopoly, well they crash and/ or are bought up. The result is a more monopolistic tech sector, leading to more monopoly rents, worse wages etc.

When I was younger and more idealistically hopeful, I would have added that this would give incentives for switching to FOSS. These days I just think the now even stronger monopolies will work even harder to co-opt or squeeze out any competition.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

From topic and lack of citation I just assumed that they had an LLM write it.

 

This isn't a sneer, more of a meta take. Written because I sit in a waiting room and is a bit bored, so I'm writing from memory, no exact quotes will be had.

A recent thread mentioning "No Logo" in combination with a comment in one of the mega-threads that pleaded for us to be more positive about AI got me thinking. I think that in our late stage capitalism it's the consumer's duty to be relentlessly negative, until proven otherwise.

"No Logo" contained a history of capitalism and how we got from a goods based industrial capitalism to a brand based one. I would argue that "No Logo" was written in the end of a longer period that contained both of these, the period of profit driven capital allocation. Profit, as everyone remembers from basic marxism, is the surplus value the capitalist acquire through paying less for labour and resources then the goods (or services, but Marx focused on goods) are sold for. Profits build capital, allowing the capitalist to accrue more and more capital and power.

Even in Marx times, it was not only profits that built capital, but new capital could be had from banks, jump-starting the business in exchange for future profits. Thus capital was still allocated in the 1990s when "No Logo" was written, even if the profits had shifted from the good to the brand. In this model, one could argue about ethical consumption, but that is no longer the world we live in, so I am just gonna leave it there.

In the 1990s there was also a tech bubble were capital allocation was following a different logic. The bubble logic is that capital formation is founded on hype, were capital is allocated to increase hype in hopes of selling to a bigger fool before it all collapses. The bigger the bubble grows, the more institutions are dragged in (by the greed and FOMO of their managers), like banks and pension funds. The bigger the bubble, the more it distorts the surrounding businesses and legislation. Notice how now that the crypto bubble has burst, the obvious crimes of the perpetrators can be prosecuted.

In short, the bigger the bubble, the bigger the damage.

If in a profit driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations profit, in the hype driven capital allocation, the consumer can deny corporations hype. To point and laugh is damage minimisation.

view more: next ›