HalfSalesman
@HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
- Comment on I hope i don't get downvoted for this 20 hours ago:
I oscillate between wishing I was attracted to basically everyone with every possible kink (outside of the unethical options) and no attraction at all.
- Comment on True wisdom 1 week ago:
You aren’t getting laid if you are broke, unless you are very very hot or very very charismatic.
- Comment on 7 for me 1 week ago:
Usually 3, sometimes 18 if its hot in my room. However, I’m considering switching to 5 & 20 as of late.
- Comment on who are you? 1 week ago:
Expiration dates are useful, but they are not usually a hard end point to a food’s safety or edibility.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it’s ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it’ll ever happen again.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
socialized healthcare
I mean, I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).
- Comment on Existential crisis 2 weeks ago:
Its not really that fey is a slur (IDK if it is and I’m bi) but that he said “That’s the problem” afterward. Like, saying its unfortunate that hes the gay dude of the power rangers and that the gay guy got named after him is a problem. Its a very “your dad is kind of homophobic” level but its still shitty.
- Comment on Existential crisis 2 weeks ago:
non-problematic
I mean, I don’t hate Bryan Cranston. In fact I still like him a lot… but I have some bad news.
Now he at least apologized for it and seems earnestly sorry. And doesn’t even remember saying it. But I think this goes to show that basically no one is “non-problematic”.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
So you’d rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.
I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I’ll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
I think that this is pure conjecture. Going “full competitive” would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you’d see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.
Again, it always boils down to leverage.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
Only have access to this account during work so late reply.
We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies
It doesn’t matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
scare away companies
There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don’t have to suck a corporation’s dick to keep their productivity.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can’t afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That’s still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 2 weeks ago:
that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
As an incentive structure for corporations and “people” purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
- Comment on Disney wolves 3 weeks ago:
“Ghoulish” are you sure you are using that word correctly?
Usually when people complain about internet porn artists and gooners they call them degenerates.
- Comment on Literal interpretation 4 weeks ago:
For some straight guys and gay ladies a girl could be mean to them and that’d increase how much they want them.
That’s a fairly small subset though.
- Comment on Literal interpretation 4 weeks ago:
Yes on the first thing, but its more of a mixed bag on the second. There certainly are people that’d prefer easy though.
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
You are attributing a lot of credit to legislation in the same sentence that you concede that there was a lot of violence before and after the events that actually fully ended slavery in the US. (ignoring that I guess technically we haven’t yet if you count prison labor)
A non-violent resolution is preferable in these cases if it can be done quickly. However, a violent resolution is better than letting it continue unabated and waiting as more suffering and death happens in the mean time.
Now, if you want to argue that your non-violent methods are more effective or tactical, I’m not really going to argue against that because sometimes that actually is the case.
But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
But they are though. [breaking the law]
Sure, maybe? Besides the point though, slavery was once codified in law. Breaking the law isn’t the issue: The harm is.
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
Sorry for the late response, I only have access to this account at work.
Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it’s not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That’s a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn’t terrorism because it’s popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.
Assassination could not also be popular? Given Luigi’s popularity I’d argue that we quite literally see that is the case.
A popular revolution would be far more bloody.
Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.
“Breaking the law” isn’t the issue. Its making decisions for the purposes of self gain that results in social deaths. Under-insured people dying to preventable disease en mass.
That said, sure, if we could jail them that would be preferable to killing them, but I don’t think what we do to the CEO is that important in comparison to the reason Brian Thompson was killed.
As in predestination? Or as in, we’re all automatons/there’s nothing “special” about humanity?
We are all biological machines operating in a physical reality. Our will is not free from anything, our will is dictated by that physical reality. Specialness and predestination are both red herrings.
Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn’t that.
Except that Brian Thompson’s assassination is literally inspiring a large group of people on the internet to gush and post about him and there are top down censorship activities to quell it. Maybe even inspiring enough to start a popular revolution.
- Comment on Transitioning in STEM 4 weeks ago:
Trans people seem to have a knack for hating men huh.
I’m not trans. I’m a cis male.
Go on, try it there’ll be no tolerance for people who advocate for this levels of evil
Evil? I’m suggesting such not to punish males. Its to minimize loneliness and sadness in the world.
- Comment on Transitioning in STEM 4 weeks ago:
Trans man here to say that nobody needs to give any extra cred to MRA bullshit just because a trans person is saying it. I have also been through the full dude experience including profound loneliness. I likewise thought I was prepared but wasn’t. Its hard. I miss how things were before too.
I don’t think the author was giving credit to MRA bullshit. MRA’s seem to often hate women and I don’t think the article implies any hatred, if anything he still tries to essentially that men are the ones that need to put in the effort to push past toxic masculinity. Describing it as a problem to be fixed at the individual level rather than at systematic level. Saying "If I could advise men, it would be first to look inward. "
I also know that in general, in 2025, all people are more isolated than 20 years ago. Furthermore, it is a known phenomena for a longtime that friendships are more difficult to cultivate as an adult. I doubt how different things would have turned out for me had I not transitioned.
Suicide rates differ for a reason. It is far more painful to be a lonely man than a lonely woman. Men are very quick to self loathing.
I also know that the “distance” I now experience from women is a direct result of 20,000 years of patriarchal violence. Of course women relate to me as a potential threat; I am one. And without the presumed vulnerability I possessed as a woman, men relate accordingly. Of course.
We should have fewer male babies. It seems like it’d reduce the amount of fear and alienation in society. (I’m saying this in good faith, I’m serious.)
At some point, as a trans guy, you need to stop leaning on your experience “as a former woman” to compare your life to, especially in the negative. Being 22 is not the same as 42 no matter what your gender presentation at any point. Many people experience nostalgia for their youth.
Based on my own reading/discourse, trans women usually seem to feel very little youth nostalgia in comparison. They might complain that they’re older now, but that’s usually more of a melancholy over “what could have been” had they been AFAB.
Just as when cis guys make these complaints, I question this person’s definition of “you dont get to”. In fact the article describes him making a career out of doing so. Even specific instances of “going viral”, and the affirmative feedback he received. It seems that you do get to.
I’m pretty sure he was talking about social pressures. Sure, he got to because he was very motivated to push against that societal expectation, that doesn’t really mean that average men can get away with that unless they dedicate their whole career/life to it.
Which leads to pointing out that the whole thing is an advertisment for the author who is “a Professional Corporate Speaker and Stress Management Coach”.
I think calling it an advertisement is a stretch based only on that, but even if it was that doesn’t invalidate the point being made.
And it has anti-trans hate material suggested items in the middle of it:
I think that’s just because those are controversial yet related articles on Newsweek so their algorithm picked them. But yeah, those do seem to be especially trashy and obvious anti-trans articles. Its kind of gross that they ever ran on Newsweek to be honest…
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:
I never said “political ends”. I was reasonably specific “fewer people dying in the long run”.
Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.
I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”. When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump’s case, he’s now literally the commander in chief of the US military.
I also want to point out that I don’t even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn’t that I simply want to “take out the trash” or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
Not condoning violence against a fascist is rolling over and letting them get away with fascist shit. I take it you think Brian Thompson deserves sympathy as well?
Regardless of whether Kyle Gass is doing fine, it still reveals either a weak character on Jack Black’s part or significant ideological disagreement with my own beliefs. To an extent that I find him much less appealing as an actor or performer.
If violence against a corporate ghoul, fascist, or nazi saves more lives in the long run, it is 100% justified. If Crooks had not missed we’d be living in a much better world right now and far fewer people would be in serious danger.
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
I’m still sore about Jack Black being a coward and throwing Kyle Gass under the bus so IDK how much that would help with my enjoyment.
- Comment on Transitioning in STEM 4 weeks ago:
Transitioning to a point of passing in my understanding (mtf or ftm) comes with pros and cons.
I often think about this article as well when it comes to trans men’s negative experiences once accepted as men: www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169
- Comment on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game 4 weeks ago:
Well, I know people would watch it.
I did not watch the Minecraft movie myself, no desire to experience a full theater of people throwing popcorn around screaming chicken jockey.
Movie industry is fucked.
- Comment on Minecraft confuses me 5 weeks ago:
My point exactly.
I mean, perhaps a bad use of word “fix”. Its not like I was endlessly doom scrolling or watching short form videos. I was mostly playing Halo, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3, and GTA 3/Vice City. And when I was allowed to be play on the Xbox I had friends over and we split screened all the time. I miss split screen.
What’s a D in internationally understood scoring? Like 40%?
A ‘D’ is 60%-69%
What the fuck.
lol I mean, that shit is happening way more frequently these days than they were back then. I was probably an odd one out in that age group in the late nineties seeing as the internet was still “a place you visited”.
I work in an after school program (one man IT department, paper pusher, and bus driver mostly) and there have been numerous times when its been brought to my attention that some of the kids had seen stuff they were not supposed to on the internet at home which they’d then talk about here getting themselves in trouble.
I once heard an 7 year old boy say loudly “I have a great sweaty gyatt!” on the bus, in a way that clearly indicated that he knew exactly what that meant. I decided to be lenient and told him that someone else had gotten written up for using that word around the youth counselors and that was my warning to him to not say it unless he wanted to get in trouble.
- Comment on Minecraft confuses me 5 weeks ago:
Bah.
I know a lot of kids end up messed up and addicted to screens or whatever but my parents let me use computers and the internet as much as I wanted and I’m sort of glad they did. My dad only (attempted) to refuse any access to my Xbox one summer after I got some D’s. I pretended to not use it but I was still waking up like 5-6 hours before him so I’d get my fix every morning anyway.
That said, I stumbled into seeing DBZ hentai when I was like 8-9 on the internet. I did not let my parents find out precisely bc I was worried about them taking away the computer from me. I don’t think that meaningfully negatively impacted me either but obviously its hard to know.
- Comment on Anon uses Windows 5 weeks ago:
Fair enough, maybe I could give it another try.
- Comment on Anon uses Windows 5 weeks ago:
I know, I own one. I just also have a desktop with a 4070 super.
- Comment on Anon uses Windows 5 weeks ago:
For me, learning the GUI isn’t the biggest issue but taking full advantage of my hardware and some online game’s anti-cheat.
I know Linux driver support that Nvidia has put out has brought it to a pretty good place, but my understanding is that its still not at parity and there is a performance impact to switching.
- Comment on Anon uses Windows 5 weeks ago:
Window’s 11 is pretty annoying to use on various levels. I only upgraded to it because my brother encouraged me. Hes always been a little bit of a mainstream tech cheerleader though. Hes always cheered on Intel, Nvidia, and Windows. Its funny though right now I (somewhat resentfully) have a Nvidia because of my performance demand and he has a Radeon because of budget.
I think I might need to start trusting myself on my hardware searches a lot more. Of course I probably wont be buying new hardware for a while anyway.