DandomRude
@DandomRude@lemmy.world
- Comment on law enforcement partners 5 days ago:
You could actually list every billionaire in the world. It’s simply impossible to become that absurdly rich without getting involved in these schemes. They all know each other and would never allow anyone who was even remotely decent to rise to their level.
- Comment on law enforcement partners 6 days ago:
Absolutely, and they are undoubtedly one of the key players responsible for the global resurgence of fascism—for example, in the form of the current U.S. regime, but at the same time also in other countries, first and foremost Israel, but also in Europe, and in every remaining democracy. Their unlimited resources make this possible, and they want more and more.
As I said: These are humanity’s worst enemies.
- Comment on law enforcement partners 6 days ago:
The Walton family is certainly one of humanity’s greatest enemies.
- Comment on Banksy works cost public almost £150,000 1 week ago:
Yes, it’s quite possible that Banksy anticipated this reaction, since it’s really anything but surprising—after all, it wouldn’t be his first “self-destructing work of art.”
Of course, it would be a true work of art if those responsible for the destruction of this “public property” were personally held accountable, but unfortunately that’s quite unlikely; nevertheless, the art lies in drawing attention to the state of free speech today and also to the fact that those responsible, unfortunately, always get away with it without any consequences.
In any case: Once again, very skillfully done.
- Comment on Banksy works cost public almost £150,000 1 week ago:
Banksy is an internationally renowned artist whose works are worth far more than that amount.
The situation is very clear: His works were removed because those in charge did not like their subject matter, as they criticize the officials’ actions.
On the one hand, this demonstrates the authorities’ inability to tolerate criticism; on the other hand, it reveals their irresponsibility: They are willing to spend such a large sum to silence criticism of their actions—if that were not the case, the works could just as easily have been removed from the affected buildings in a way that preserved them, so that they could even have been sold at a profit, provided there had been a willingness to reach an agreement with Banksy. This would have resulted in no financial loss.
However, this was apparently not the desired outcome, as those in charge are clearly offended by the message of the works and wish to avoid having to justify their actions.
In short: The financial loss consists of the costs incurred by those responsible in order to censor a political artist. Therefore, it would only be fair that the public not foot the bill, but rather those who initiated this action.
- Comment on modern classic 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, and you can finally play some Super Nintendo as if you were sitting in a cheap furniture store.
- Comment on modern classic 2 weeks ago:
Nope, not at all.
- Comment on modern classic 2 weeks ago:
They left the CRT TV in the wall? Even though they’re obviously not retro fans?
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Yes, that seems plausible to me. I can’t say why the movie theater near me isn’t putting up posters or any info anymore, but since I don’t know the details that led to this decision, it simply seems like an awful idea on the part of management to me.
It could be that the film distributors no longer provide the necessary promotional material, though that also seems pretty silly, since it would hardly incur any significant costs. It is also possible that there are some major players that don’t want that because it would benefit them (small companies can’t compete with big capital that is needed for online ad campaigns).
Maybe it’s also due to some city regulations.
I can’t say for sure which or any of these might be the case, but I could very well imagine that it’s due to incompetence on the part of the theater’s operators. Although this is a nationwide, I think even international chain, that doesn’t seem to me to guarantee that there’s a plausible reason. Maybe it was a cost-cutting suggestion from a completely incompetent consultant who looked at some Excel spreadsheets and came up with the idea that the labor costs for putting up posters were an expense that could be cut. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.
But anyways, I just noticed that the movie schedule at my local theater is no longer visible when you walk by. To me, that’s a loss, and I think some othersmight feel the same way—because while you can, of course, find information online, since this is a local offering, it seems ridiculous to me not to provide the relevant information on-site as well, especially since it could be done very, very inexpensively.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Of course, I have a general idea. All I’m saying is that it was convenient to see what was playing at the movie theater when I walked by, as I do almost every day. You might not be able to imagine it, but the lineups also vary by country—even from city to city.
I just don’t actively look up the movie schedule, which I could do, of course. But I just don’t.
It’s like, say, the menu at a cafeteria: I could look it up online, but since you’re constantly walking past it at work anyway, it’s nice when the weekly menu is posted right in front of it. That way, you can see what’s for lunch even if you hadn’t actually planned on going to the cafeteria.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Even young people don’t have the movie theater’s app because it’s completely useless. Only people who go to the movies regularly—and are therefore already regular customers—might use such an app. Of course, there are also promotional campaigns by the operators designed to encourage people to download their useless app—but I’m pretty sure most people only do that to get the discount and then delete the app right away.
Young people, in particular, can of course be reached through social media ads and the like, but you don’t seem to realize how expensive that is. I can hardly imagine that a local movie theater—or even a chain with many local locations—could achieve a halfway decent ROAS through this or other online marketing channels.
So in my opinion, it’s simply idiotic to ignore the prime advertising space this movie theater already has—after all, it costs almost nothing to hang a few extra posters on its own building. They could even do that alongside the food ads, which would make optimal use of this free advertising space. But they don’t do that; instead, they’ve removed all the movie posters for a single screen with food ads no one cares about.
I can’t understand the reason for that. If it has to be one or the other—which isn’t necessary at all—I think movie posters are much more effective. I mean, let’s be honest: Which is more useful to potential customers? Knowing which movie is currently playing—something you notice as you walk by, regardless of your age—or an ad for a small discount on tacos or something similar, that are still very expensive even after the discount?
Oh, and just to be clear: Of course, it doesn’t matter at all whether they’re actually posters or screens displaying the movie lineup.
The point is the informational value, which, of course, exists in the real world as well, not just online.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Well, I rarely plan to go to the movies—only on rare occasions, when I know a new movie I want to see is coming out.
I used to walk past the movie theater a lot, though, and see the posters and that’s how I found out about movies I didn’t know anything about or maybe knew of them but forgot. So it happened at least on occasion that I’d call some friends to go see the movie I’d just discovered by walking by the theater - on the weekend or something, not right away, of course.
I never really cared about the food options. Of course, I’d still buy popcorn and stuff, but a discount on it—after which the popcorn is still outrageously expensive—was just as little a motivation for me to go to the movies as any fancy seats or whatever. That’s all well and good, but it’s never been a reason for me to go to the movies. I went because of the movies—which I’d now have to research on my own, something I don’t do.
So: It may well be that I’m the exception. But in any case, I haven’t been to the movies since they replaced the posters with food ads. As I said, that’s simply because I don’t actively look up the lineup and therefore don’t realize that there might be a movie playing that would interest me—I certainly don’t care at all about the current popcorn prices, though.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Well, that’s how it was for me at least. The movie theater is right in the middle of town, which is why you’re constantly passing by it anyway. I don’t actively look up the current movie lineup, but I used to always be up to date because I passed by that theater almost every day and saw the posters.
Now I’m no longer informed about the current lineup, but instead only about the absurd prices for popcorn and stuff—I can’t say that motivates me to go to the theater’s website to see what’s playing.
Like I said: I haven’t been to the theater since they took down the posters. That’s not because tickets and popcorn would be too expensive for me, but because I have no idea which movies are playing right now. I don’t go out of my way to find out myself, but I used to walk past the theater and think, “Oh, cool, movie xyy is playing—I should go see that with friends this weekend.” That effect is now gone so I don’t go to the movies anymore.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Yes, that’s true, of course, but you’re not going to sell much if you don’t promote the lineup that actually draws in the customers, would you?
I mean, before, all you had to do was walk past the movie theater to find out what was playing. Like many others, I walk past it very often, and I’ve often spotted a movie that interested me and then come back a few days later to watch it.
Now I have to actively check their website to find out what movies are currently playing, which I don’t do very often.
The theater operators must be fully aware of this—as well as of the fact that the food options they’re now exclusively promoting are so expensive that they’re more likely to deter potential visitors than attract them.
It’s as if an attractive tourist destination were to advertise overpriced tourist-trap restaurants instead of the sights that make the destination appealing in the first place—and that would at least make the inflated prices somewhat understandable.
That should be obvious to any marketer or, for that matter, the management in charge. Customers, of course, aren’t interested in which products yield the highest profit margin for the company, but rather in what they get for their money—after all, no one goes to the movies for the popcorn, but for the films themselves. I’d say anyone who doesn’t understand that is completely out of place in this business. The experience has to be the movie; everything else is just an afterthought.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, I guess I should. I just can’t quite understand how anyone could fail to realize how absurd it is for a movie theater to use its most prominent advertising space not for promoting its movie lineup, but for food offerings.
To me, this strongly suggests that this movie theater—which is part of a large chain—now sees its main product as food rather than movies.
I have absolutely no sympathy for that, and I can only applaud it when a company like that loses customers because of its own idiocy.
- Comment on 2 weeks ago:
My local movie theater in the heart of downtown has taken down the all movie posters outside the entrance and replaced them with a single screen that only shows ads for overpriced popcorn “deals”.
Before, anyone walking by knew which movies were currently playing; now, all they know is just how outrageously expensive the popcorn is.
I haven’t been to that theater since.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
That reads exactly like this absurd video message from a power trippin reddit mod after he was removed for promoting a scam.
It’s just as completely out of touch with reality that you almost have to feel sorry for guys like that, because it’s obviously pathological.
On the other hand, though, these people are a threat to others—for freedom of expression and open discourse, the cornerstones of the Fediverse.
- Comment on Anon works in an office 4 weeks ago:
I think that’s precisely where the central problem of our time lies: in the imbalance between the value created and the social significance of jobs, on the one hand, and the compensation paid for those jobs compared to administrative and management positions, on the other.
The best example of this, in all its absurdity, is that billionaires are getting richer and richer—or rather, that they exist at all.
- Comment on Has anobody seen Odyssey? 4 weeks ago:
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The “Cinesiasts”, for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
- Comment on X is hosting a competing cage match during world cup finals 4 weeks ago:
True enough … well… I’d say that hardly makes it any less homoerotic, tho…
- Comment on X is hosting a competing cage match during world cup finals 4 weeks ago:
Hmm, where does this fascination come from—the fascination fascists have with watching sweaty, half-naked, hairy men wrestle with each other?
I wonder if it might have something to do with repressed feelings?
- Comment on Palantir CEO Alex Karp predicts he will get 20x richer from AI—but middle-class workers will get left behind 4 weeks ago:
What he fails to mention, however, is that the product of the company of which he is CEO is by no means intended to protect a country’s citizens, but rather to prevent them from defending themselves against unscrupulous, anti-social monsters like him.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 5 weeks ago:
I think non-disclosure agreements and the existence of billionaires are mutually dependent.
- Comment on US Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “I'm thrilled to report that after 35 years, on July 4th, we will end the subsidies for wind and solar projects” 1 month ago:
Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.
I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.
You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.
I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.
Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.
Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.
As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect.
As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.
But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.
Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.
If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.
Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.
However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.
I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.
I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.
- Comment on Lemmy Shitshow 1 month ago:
I’ll spare you any “hot takes” in the future by no longer participating in your “community” all together. That way, I won’t have to deal with the thought police who rule over your shower thoughts.
I can understand that moderation is time-consuming, but it’s pretty absurd what you’re pulling. It’s nothing short of arbitrary censorship, because there’s nothing in the world that can’t be called “political” in one way or another
So, in short: Mission accomplished—another user silenced who was disrupting your addiction to entertainment with pesky remarks about reality.