agamemnonymous
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Read what you preach, jackass 16 hours ago:
Sure it still kinda works, it’s just not a very sensible metaphor that way.
- Comment on Read what you preach, jackass 17 hours ago:
It seems more likely that it’s a mistranslation of “thick rope”, which is basically the same as the word for “camel” in Aramaic. It makes way more sense that way. Why would a camel go through the eye of a needle? That’s just absurd. A rope is the same kind of thing you would put through the eye of the needle, it’s just way too thick. And the fact that a single fiber from a rope could fit if you peeled away all the excess, makes it a much more apt metaphor.
- Comment on I've got something special for you 1 day ago:
" also means seconds. 1h23m45s = 1h23’45”. Same for subdivisions of degrees, 12°34’56"N, which are actually also called minutes and seconds.
- Comment on The Faculty, any day 4 days ago:
Mystery Men is a phenomenal send up of the superhero genre. It’s simultaneously extremely 1999 and decades ahead of its time.
- Comment on Fresh 1 week ago:
So it is. So still not a bong, but it does add smoke to the sewer gas.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
That’s what I meant by “false positives”. They are measuring responses related to lying, but not exclusively and not reliably.
- Comment on It's a Sham! 1 week ago:
No sir I do not use shampoo for my wigs, only use real poo. Nothing but the best poo for my wigs.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
many graphs of sensors output not having anything to do with honest or dishonest responses.
Well, they sense physiological changes associated with dishonesty (stress/nervousness). The problem is they can’t pick up false positives (someone being honest despite being nervous under interrogation) or false negatives (someone who can remain totally unfazed while being dishonest).
So while technically they do have something to do with honest/dishonest responses, it’s nowhere near a direct enough correlation to be useful for the purpose.
- Comment on Thanks angry Italian chef, we're saved! 1 week ago:
My question is, if he’s going to work, how come it looks like he’s already messy from dinner service?
- Comment on Fresh 1 week ago:
Not really a bong if you bypass the water. That’s just a pipe with a decorative water feature.
- Comment on No looky for you! 1 week ago:
And it looks like sudsy vomit recirculating I’ve your dishes. Ain’t nobody wanna see that.
- Comment on science never ends 1 week ago:
I’ve taken to distinguishing between science(v), the method and science(n), the body of models and data. Science(v) is imperfect, but basically as close as we can get to objective truth. Science(n) can often stress conclusions further than their rigor justifies, but eventually regresses to the mean for the most part.
You can’t really question science(v) beyond its intrinsic epistemology, and no other method can really do any better. You can often question science(n), heck I can’t count the number of times “consensus” flip-flopped on red wine, coffee, fat, and so on. But eventually science(v) does bring science(n) to a stable empirical baseline.
- Comment on Consistency is key 1 week ago:
I cook them all the same, and just have everyone come up in order of preferred doneness.
- Comment on Sorry for not filling your weekend with shitposts. 1 week ago:
Can’t pretty much everything about our bodies ultimately be traced back to ancient fish?
Also congrats
- Comment on Do you think a story that mixes magic with super advanced technology can work? 1 week ago:
Sure. Maybe the advanced tech is powered by magic, maybe the “magic” is just lost advanced technology.
- Comment on Punctuation 2 weeks ago:
Shit you got me → Shit, you got me/jkJust wanna say this looks like the title of a sick hyperpop track.
- Comment on Punctuation 2 weeks ago:
Yeah I figured it was a profile for the dog, and the owner just saw him score and come back in a better mood.
- Comment on Michael Bay's "Skibidi Toilet" movie officially begins production 2 weeks ago:
If you’ve never watched it, it’s a surprisingly emotional story about the horrors of war, and the power of cooperation. Yes, really.
- Comment on Official poster for "Zootopia 2" 2 weeks ago:
What do you know? You have no way of seeing how hot the other bunnies are.
- Comment on Official poster for "Zootopia 2" 2 weeks ago:
Twozopia
- Comment on There he goes 2 weeks ago:
I remember thinking every single thought possible and them branching out infinitely from each individual one of those and also thinking the opposite of them all at the same time.
I ate a bunch of caffeine pills once. Between bouts of intense nausea I remember being in bed, feeling distinctly like a giant rectangular slab of jello, with my emotions and memories being little pockets of jelly suspended in my form.
- Comment on What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments? 2 weeks ago:
Buttery males
- Comment on Jo jay! 2 weeks ago:
That’s clearly a jacemat
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
Agree with them “Sure. Then they should be closed during school hours, right?”
- Comment on who are you? 3 weeks ago:
Best By dates are not expiration dates, expiration dates are estimates.
That said, my wife has no concept of expiration until something is obviously covered in mold, and says some wild stuff. “Oh that’s got lemon juice in it, it doesn’t expire” like babe, lemon juice isn’t some timeless magic spell.
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
its a weighted vote based on how much money you are willing to spend.
Correct, which means capitalists with orders of magnitude more money has more influence than a boycott. A company with lots of money can weather a boycott longer than people stay committed. A company with massive market share cannot be effectively boycotted. Look at Nestle, constantly being boycotted but they’re rich enough and diversified enough to ignore the boycotts. This isn’t a lack of conviction of the consumer, it’s a fundamental property of the system.
Then if they get better lawyers you make better law. There are several examples of an eternal cat and mouse chase in the modern world
You keep trying to put bandaids on a gushing wound. We’ve shown beyond any doubt that the bandaids are incapable of keeping up.
I want to own my own things and I want to own whatever factories I spent money constructing. My personal property. And to stop me from abusing my workers or whatever there can be laws that stop me
I want my own things and don’t want anyone to siphon enough money from the value created by others to afford constructing a factory. No one earns that much money. Those fortunes come from being a parasite.
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
you do it by boycotting them
No, you don’t. “Vote with your dollars” does not count. So long as some people have more money than others, that gives some people more vote.
then make better laws
Then better lawyers, repeat ad infinitum. There’s no such thing as a perfect law, there’s always some loopholes. If you can’t lobby your way around it, that is.
Have you looked at the news in the last few months??? Voting doesn’t work as nicely as you would like it think it does
Certainly. But it’s even worse when it comes to private companies. As weak as the countermeasures baked into government are, they’re ironclad compared to the countermeasures in capitalism.
No system is perfect. The goal is to find one that’s least bad.
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
Price - Cost = Profit
Shareholders take their cut from the Profit side. Under the capitalistic owner-worker relationship, workers take their cut from the Cost portion. Customers want to minimize the price.
The shareholders and the workers are directly in conflict, and the shareholders are the only ones who get to appoint the board of directors. Shareholders want to maximize Profit, which means they want Price to be as high as the market can bear, and Cost (including workers wages) to be as low as the market can bear.
This directly, mathematically, incentivizes shareholders make things worse for workers and customers, and then roll those profits into the next business venture. Clever lawyers can justify their Cost by saving bigger Costs, as can lobbyists. Heck, if you’re clever enough you can get legislation drafted to specifically target your competitors. Every antitrust law just invents a new fun little puzzle for clever lawyers.
The difference between a government and a company, is that I can vote out the greedy people in my government. I can’t vote out greedy shareholders. Both will eventually become corrupt, but only one is built with countermeasures.
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
Private property that isn’t personal is someone elses property
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Everyone is entitled to personal property, the things they have for personal use (e.g. your house or toothbrush). Private property is not someone else’s personal property, it’s the things for group use which generate value to the group (e.g. the industrial equipment necessary to create your house or toothbrush) which under capitalism are owned and controlled by investors.
The leftist position is that those “means of production” being owned and controlled by investors leads to the investors paying their staff as little as possible while charging as much as possible, so that they can thrive on the difference between prices and wages.
The leftist solution is for those “means of production” to be owned collectively by the people who actually use them to produce things. There’s a whole spectrum of exactly what that looks like.
On one side are those who think the government should own everything. The argument being that, assuming you can trust the administrators to not be corrupt, that is the best way to coordinate resources. This is logically sound, since the resources which would be wasted on marketing, and redundant R&D in competing companies, and other capitalist inefficiencies, could be directed productively. The flaw is in the “assuming you can trust the administrators to not be corrupt” part. That’s a big reason why the USSR failed.
On the other side, there are those who think that the basic concepts of market economics are sound, the problem is simply the capitalist-worker relationship. The argument being, capitalism can be subverted while retaining the benefits of market economies through co-ops: instead of revenue being paid in part to wages with the remaining profit being divided along shareholders, the revenue after costs is divided totally among the employees, who are themselves the only shareholders. This preserves the competitive innovation of the market, while excising the parasitic capital class.
Only the most extreme zealots in the Soviet camp ever push for abolishing personal property. That’s a fringe position even for the left.
- Comment on Something something far-left 3 weeks ago:
The rational left (i.e. not the authoritarians) only want the “government” to own everything insomuch as the “government” is profoundly democratic.
Don’t confuse “private property” (industrial machines and other means of productions held privately by an investor class in order to extract profit via the arbitrage between the productive value of employees and their flat wages) with “personal property” (your house, car, clothes, dishes, toothbrush, etc.). There aren’t many leftists who think there shouldn’t be personal property.