It would be kind of interesting to see if there's a ratio of evil characters to their actors doing crimes. I mean the most obvious that comes to mind is Kevin spacey. Though it doesn't seem to be higher rates for celebs that play evil characters vs ones that play lovable good characters. Least most don't consider Bill Cosby or OJ Simpson to have played particularly evil characters. So I'd say in general money and fame cause an increase in likelyness of being evil, the on screen persona doesn't seem to be a huge contributing factor.
TheFogan
joined 1 year ago
100% exactly. Which is why I believe that free market private sector should never be allowed anywhere near things that aren't luxuries. I don't have a problem with free market giving us shitty movies, video games, televisions etc... but yeah, it should have been yanked from every level of schools, medical care, police, housing etc... decades ago.
Yeah to me the obvious end days was when the "half priced but with ads" plans came out. It's going the route of cable. the patern is so predictable.
Year 1: Ad free - 5-10,
Year 2: Ad free 10-15
Year 3: ad free 10-15, low price ad tier 5-10
Year 4: ad free 20-30, ad tier 10-15
Year 5: ad tier 25-30, ad free 75
Year 6: Due to low demand, ad free tier is removed. ad tier 40-50.
That's of course counting the shitification of their being 20 services, which are equally sharing shows of every genre so that no matter what type of shows you like, you'll need to use 3-4 services to get the main shows you want.
Well there's both sides, I mean while in theory it's just the free market making a stopgap for the weakpoints in medicare to buy time for them to be fixed. The reality is we already know what happens when corporations get their hands on something that shouldn't be free market. They rack up killer profits, and use those profits to buy congressmen and judges, and before long not only is congress not going to move forward to stregnthen medicare to cover those holes... but in fact create new ones to make sure that medicare becomes even less valuable without one of these plans.
I mean I'd imagine it's pretty expected.
Lemmy.World was kind of the go to instance for exiting redditers during the mass exit over the API changes, while a majority of subreddits protested. As we all know, most of the subs did not stay closed. So a majority gave up
Honestly I feel any situation in which they put a touch screen near you, and have an ordering system should be done like this. Waay off topic but my local sonic has touch screens on all of their 50 pull in spots, that can only be used to turn through ads before you hit the button to talk to the person over the shitty half working intercom system.
So 2 datapoints = the trend forever? I mean today I parked my car one space to the left of where I parked it yesterday. So I guess in a month it will be in the middle of the street.
I wish, has 4chan ever grown back to being a power to the people, rather than a Russian/MAGA group.
IMO I think the real problem is the resources. Is the DNC wasting any resources backing manchin that could possibly help win an actual democrat in a contested campaign? I mean I get a half democrat is better than a full republican, and we can't get a real democrat in his state. But is there an opprotunity cost of keeping these at best half democrats, on resources that could be used to get an actual democratic majority that doesn't require gutting the hell out of major changes to get our own partys vote.
Now imagine actual androids were taking jobs
Honestly to me that's the real crazy thing of the culture and system that's getting so frustrating. The work to survive is a product of a society that needed things to be done to make things move forward. If we figure out a way to say eliminate 99.9% of the need for work, are we going to turn things into say like many dystopia views, like the episode of black mirror where people were "working" by peddling on a bike, or the Jetsons where he sits around pushing the same button for hours.
Androids to me seem... meaningless for taking actual jobs. Most jobs don't need sentience or personality, they require the ability to follow instructions, do tasks and in some cases solve problems. The robots that will be mining rare earth minerals, or assembling chips etc.. shouldn't have any sentience or even need to communicate in complex ways.
IMO by the time thinking communicating androids are out... there won't be much real need for regular labor. 90% of Jobs will either be silly artificial tasks as pointless as bitcoin mining, or working will become something for a tiny handful of people.
I'd assume same reason most politicians are. In a capitalist society, those that pool the most money will tend to gain the most power and influence. So the churches that talk to the rich man and say "of course god is blessing you because you are such a good person" get more money, and thus more influence, than the churches that pay attention to the "It's harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven". "Succesful" religious leaders become the ones to teach the next generation of religious leaders. Causing more drift into the same idea.
Then of course the pro-corporate candidates also do really good virtue signaling. Because when the religious leaders do not want to focus on the Rich, they still need a bad guy to rally against, and since nobody needs the church to tell them murderers and thieves are bad... the church takes a more strong stand against things that are accepted by society that they can consider against their faith. (abortion, LGBT etc...)
Sounds kind of silly here. Capitalist governments specifically fight to prevent communism from taking hold. The question is do they turn into dictatorships on their own, or do they turn into dictatorships because outside entities are pushing them into more desperate levels. All governments when they are being threatened by another nation turn authoritarian.
I don't think anyones arguing outside nations didn't do major actions towards sabotaging every attempted communist society. To me that's a bit like saying homosexuality is bad because of the high rate of suicide among the LGBT. Ignoring of course that it's not being LGBT that makes you suicidal, but the actions of people on them.