I’ve been suspecting this is one of those “do 200% horrible damages but increases revenue (or at least make the company seem more profitable)” then have a “management change” that comes in as the savoir but they only roll back 10% of the changes to show they’ve fixed things.

It might be anecdotal but this honestly just seems like a Republican Establishment thing. I peruse conservative talking spheres both online and off because of my location and extended family, for the most part everyone just agrees that if someone committed a crime they should be punished regardless of the side of the aisle.

That being said, it doesn’t invalidate any statements made here about the possible motivations for this newest publicity stunt. I think the majority of people are just tired of hearing about “this side bad” and just want the government to get their shit together and actually legislate to help the working class.

From the tear downs I’ve seen with wireless charging it’s actually a pretty sizable and complicated addition to just slap into a phone that’s already had it’s space optimized. I’m sure there’s work arounds, but with so many various models and configurations I doubt you could create a one-size-fits all mod that would be popular/easy to implement.

Could you elaborate further on what you’re saying? I’ve read the article, seems like standard security clearance stuff for sensitize material. Musk didn’t become a citizen of the US till 2002 if what I’m reading is correct and I don’t think they have a problem hiring staff from outside of the US.

I saw someone else on another post the same, the piped videos have been working for me. I am on firefox desktop though not mobile or through a 3rd party app if that makes a difference.

I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.

Personally this feels like a contradiction.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).

Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.

I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,

The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.

Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?

The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).

Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?

For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?

If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.

I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.

Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.

I don’t wear headsets but I have a similar shape (not sure if it’s as pronounced since I haven’t shaved it like that). The article goes onto explain that it takes near 300lbs of pressure to dent the skull and if anything it’s just soft tissue/fat being weird, which can go away through massage and giving it a break lol.

I guess if you’re wearing something as tight as a belt it might make the fat form around differently. I’m skeptical though, I just don’t know what kind of devices these guys are specifically wearing and the weight/time duration so I guess anything is possible.

Are there any personal thoughts or insights about the article you wish to share?

Hail of a good pun line going on.

I don’t want to jump in on @zeppo@lemmy.world 's chance to reply but he stated basically what I would’ve replied with above. I believe that UBI wouldn’t change how things work, it would reset it to a previous economic time but with more equity since everyone would get it (getting back to livable wages because it’s supplemented by the UBI). The government’s have shown a failure of holding capitalism responsible for distribution of wealth (stagnant Fed minimum wage, forcing unions to accept terms/not strike) so subsidizing wages seems more of a greener pasture than our current trajectory.

You would still be able to start your own business, I don’t think anyone is calling for UBI mixed with communism (government owning all production). Rather, some breathing room to return to more prosperous times where you have more options.

• Working + UBI = more savings (possibly as a jumping point so you can start your own business)
• 1 working adult ( and 1 at home adult) + 2 UBI = a stay at home parent to help raise children without going into debt
• Education + UBI = less financial impact for higher education since the problems aren’t being addressed
• Disability + UBI = able to afford medications, food, and rent at the same time (a current problem also not being addressed)

I agree the “freedom” some would experience would be hardships trying to live off of it. It’s hard and mentally draining work to be more self sufficient as humble homesteaders will attest to(it’s a rather well put together video from a contestant on the “Alone” series). But, atm most people can’t afford to start their own business or even realistically consider leaving their current workplace. Dropping into higher education for a career change without incurring enormous interest is near impossible without support (as climate regulations are needed, some jobs will have to be lost and those people need reassurances they can find a new path). Hell, use your UBI supplement to help take a vacation more than once a decade if it helps with mental health, fix a car instead of purchasing a new one (lower climate impact), etc etc.

There’s just a plethora of problems atm that constantly get politicized or fail to have common sense policies implemented to help the situation. UBI would be a catch-all for a lot of those programs. Instead of battling it out on each front constantly (lobbyists, activists, personal conflicting interests from those elected), this would be a nuclear option to end the war (feels insensitive with the current Oppenheimer/Japan stance, but was the best metaphor I could come up with atm).

I agree, it’s difficult for anyone to truly grasp how big space is. The problem is we’re not interested in 99.9999999…% of space, we’re interested in key points. You can drop one grain of bright pink sand on a mountain and no one would care or notice. If you only concentrate that on one path up the mountain and back down, eventually the infinite number of people traversing/dropping on that path will be noticeable and have an effect.

lmao, I didn’t catch that so thank you. I was in a stupor when I wrote that and meant astronomy lol. I added the sciences in because there’s a plethora of different fields that require clear observations and wasn’t sure what the best terminology was to include all of the possibilities. Instead I completely missed the mark with the wrong base word.

I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of plenty of problems that unregulated space industry could cause.

Industry requires infrastructure and support, when speaking space terms everything is way more expensive so cost cutting will be rampant on all systems. Centralized space communication hub? No, we’re gonna be bombarded with signals since maintaining the equipment on ground is cheaper (astrology sciences would suffer). Way to many objects in an orbital plane? Not their problem till eventually it becomes a catastrophic event as our own planet can become (Kessler Syndrome). More mass requires more fuel? Dump all the junk at every opportunity clogging space lanes (micro meteors and radiation will no longer be the main safety concern for travel).

I could go on and on, think about the current state of shipping and logistics. We already have events where ships were forced to sit for weeks outside of docks waiting to be unloaded (source). The space faring ships will only increase in size. What do you do with the useless containers they ship the contents back to earth with? The cost would be too high for re-usability getting it back into space. What about the workers who are at an unregulated site and their conditions?

I agree it’s a conundrum of how do we advance when advancement causes destruction. It’s something I’ve wrestled with when considering the Fermi paradox. Either you live harmoniously with the planet and die when it’s environment changes, or you use that sucker up and get out of dodge before the next mass extinction takes you and nearly all of the living creatures out. I’m hoping in the future we meet some neighbors that can show a middle ground works well to persuade out current trajectory.

What do you think the majority of people are doing now?

I do agree with the previous comments though that UBI can’t successfully exist by itself. Heavy regulations and consumer protections will have to be revamped but that needs done regardless of UBI or not. It’s the same vein as the loan forgiveness program the Democrats tried to implement in the US, they never actually addressed or promoted any policy change that was needed in higher education costs.

The mental gymnastics are interesting though. The same people who scream to vote for the “lesser of two evils” will not use that premise for actual policy. Inflation will go up regardless of UBI (as we’ve seen from corporate greed), any type of shelter during record making climate dangers is better than homelessness.

Also, I take offense to the drinking pasta water comment (not really offended but it’s funny you commented that). It’s literally how ramen is suppose to be consumed.

Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.

I’ll have to take your word on the interviews, I’m open to other perspectives which is why I initiated this dialogue with stating my confusion. I’m still not seeing the connections that I initially confronted. As you stated, the questions are usually answered and administered from top-down (department, district, then principal). I’m not sure on what effectiveness a “skilled” principal could have when the district is not prepared, though I could see a case for an unskilled principal not instituting/following change as instructed.

All of the questions you’ve brought up are valid whether there is a pandemic or not (which is why I specified your pandemic remark). When considering any fairness, edge cases will always be problems that need to be addressed. I agree the situation of overworking was exacerbated during the pandemic but existed long before that as funding and support systems have been slowly dwindled away.

I’m not sure on what the crux of this debate is but I feel like the light has been shifted from “education responsibility” to “pandemic bad/we need X”. I believe education has been getting the short straw for decades and the pandemic was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. A decent principal or administration assessing the health scenarios you presented would not fix the broken system. Schools being all paper based, the overworking of staff, students lack of reliable internet, not having a pre-pandemic plan ready (it’s been known for a long time that it was a problem to arise soon), all of these are problems that needed to be addressed a long time ago. Most early education schools only have one I.T. person and usually doubles their role in another form (teaching classes as well).

I feel like teaching is chaotic as a whole regardless of the situation society faces. Hearing about how the pandemic was the root cause of the problem just sounds disingenuous and completely glosses over the need for distant education to be an effective tool for future students. Teachers should be available to help explain and instruct how to fill out health forms, just like tax forms and other important documentation that should be covered at some point in a students career. Classes should be hybrid, teachers should be familiar and take supplemental training for the new tech they are using. All of this should be countered with support so nothing is “added on” to the workload. Again, these aren’t problems that were cleared up when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. Plenty of teachers are still on the edge of bailing as the system continues to decline.

This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.

Really great dialogue and discourse going on in this post. Thank you everyone for your opinions and viewpoints. Definitely have a lot to think over on my current stance. Exactly what I was missing lately from the social media I’ve been consuming (actual discussions with merits both sides hold).