kplaceholder

I take issue with all the comments suggesting that the movement should be rebranding into "work reform", because reforming is absolutely not the point. Speaking as someone who subscribes to the anti-work movement, my problem is not that much with current laboral laws and, in fact, I'd go as far as saying that all jobs I have had so far have been reasonably respectful with me except for maybe one.

My problem with that is that we consider normal that, in order to deserve leading a meaningful life, we must be working for someone richer or for the economy. Our life must be dedicated to constantly providing products and services so that we deserve to enjoy what little is left of it. In more concrete terms, I don't like that we must get into wage labor in order to have access to fundamental goods such as food, water, housing, amenities or even free time. I believe all human beings living in a society capable of providing these are entitled to them, I also believe that our current society is perfectly capable of that, and that the only reason why the working class only gets conditional access or no access at all to fundamental goods are bullshit "number go up" reasons. I don't buy for a second that homeless people deserve their status because "they didn't work hard enough". Wage labor being such a central axis of our current way of life is what I'm strongly opposed to.

Furthermore, I regard the power balance between employer and worker to be fundamentally broken, and no reform can do away with that. When you sign a contract and accept the terms of a job, are you really accepting them or just avoiding the alternative, the threat of homelessness? For a lot of people who can't find jobs easily, not signing might mean starving or losing their home. How is that not coercion? Sure, if you don't accept the terms of your current job, you can just look for another (even though this is not a reasonable posibility for a lot of people), but any job will offer as little pay with as many working hours as possible because, due to the lack of meaningful consent, all employers can get away with that. And we accept it as normal and reasonable.

I also don't believe that abolishing wage labor will make people spend their whole lives not adding anything to society. If given enough free time, people will get bored of not doing anything and engage in work that they actually enjoy, of their own actual volition. I know I get involved into a lot of things given long enough vacations or subsidized unemployement. Now imagine if we just could get organized to find out what tasks need to be done, and each picked the tasks that they geniunely want to do, without being coerced. Without rich assholes and investors getting involved and often forcing us to work long hours on tasks that won't add anything to the world, but they make money.

"Reforming" laboral laws is absolutely not enough for this. Sure, I'd appreciate a reduction in my working hours, an increase in my salary, more vacations, etc but even if those goals were met, I'd still be out there protesting for the reasons I've just stated. Work, as we understand it today, is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed without it being abolished first.

You may not agree with me, mind you, and have a more moderate position stating that work must not be abolished as it can be meaningfully reformed. But then you are subscribing to a different ideology altogether. Which is legitimate and can be argued for, but it does not match the ideology of the anti-work movement. Sure, under late capitalism, some short term goals may match, but the long term goals are entirely different. My point being, "work reform" would be a terrible rebranding for the movement because it stands for a different ideology entirely.

Formally, "hubiera"/"hubiese" is only used within subclauses, i.e «si lo hubiera visto, habría hecho algo» etc. They never stand as the only verb and don't appear in simple clauses. You can't say "hubiera hecho algo", it's "habría hecho algo". Here, the subjunctive (hubiera) is doing the same job as "were" in english, and the conditional (habría) is equivalent to "would": «if I were luckier, it would have worked out». This is the case with subjunctives in general, they mostly only ever appear in subclauses other than very specific exceptions (such as negative imperative or vestigial expressions like «Dios quiera que...»). The trick is learning which subclauses use indicative and which use subjunctive :)

Informally, though, natives will tell you that it doesn't matter because it truly doesn't. The formula "if (subjunctive) then (subjunctive)" is understood by everybody with the same meaning as "if (subjunctive) then (conditional)", and you can even use it in formal settings such as when talking to your boss, at least in Spain.

Source: Am native, from Spain. Good luck with the language learning!

For me, it changes every few days.

Right now, it's "Like Chimeras" from the Cassette Beasts soundtrack. Well, to be honest, I've got a bunch of songs from the game stuck in my head, but my brain keeps ending up on that one always.

I figured, but is there any reliable way to hide the toolbar from the windows in KDE? So that the widget is not redundant. I couldn't find any.

Hey, same. What did you use?

I bought Cassette Beasts a few months ago but never got around to play it. I just want you to know that it was this post what made me finally play.

And all I can say is this:

No, you fuck off. "People liking something that they do not" is obviously not what prompted OP to claim astroturfing.

It probably has to do with how far this thread, and YTPremium conversations in general, are deviating from the average conversation on Lemmy. Stances on convenience, privacy, and blocking ads are harshly different in this context compared to any other thread about anything else. I mean, this is the userbase that will umpromptedly talk about the benefits of using Linux, Firefox, uBO and SearX because of privacy concerns in almost every other thread.

And this is happening in Google's favor, no less, a company that has shown time and again to not be above things like this.

In fact, why does YTPremium discourse keep coming back? Why not the other million premium subscriptions? Why do we not keep talking about Twitch Prime, which is in a similar situation? Why are the alleged lurkers so eager to stop their lurking and talk about all the benefits of YTPremium every once in a while?

There may be many reasons for this, both assuming honesty and otherwise, but one of the possibilities is certainly that an astroturf campaign may be going on at the moment. If, in addition to this, @Sheeple 's claim that many of the accounts supporting YTPremium are weeks old (tbh I don't care enough to check if this is true), then it is, with all probability, astroturfing.

Or maybe it's not, and everyone here is just sharing sincere opinions that just happen to align a little too well with YouTube's own marketing campaign. But you got to understand that, given all these factors, at the very least it's sus as fuck.

Not to be rude, but I'm struggling to believe half the comments in this thread are legit. Do you really mean to tell me that Lemmy, a platform notoriously populated almost exclusively by anti-corporate tech people that really value FOSS and privacy –hence the reason why all of us are here instead of Reddit– has this many users thinking it is a remotely acceptable idea to pay for a Premium service for one of the most invasive companies online?

I think most of us understand the many underhanded techniques used by Google to achieve an almost monopolistic control of some aspects of the internet, but when talking about YouTube, suddenly all the logic is reduced to "if you use a service, pay for it, or else let them show you ads"?? what????? Also, what's with comparing adblocking to stealing????

My own answer to the topic of this thread is that no, I won't be paying for YouTube Premium anytime soon, possibly ever. Google has betrayed my trust many times in the past, and on top of that I don't consider adverts as a legitimate source of income, so I will block any and all ads everywhere without paying an extra cent.

"But if you keep using their service, so you need to give them some form of revenue! Otherwise you just want free stuff!" I only keep using their service because Google has spent many years dumping on other platforms so that YouTube is –almost– the only platform that still exists where all the good creators are, so I will begrudgingly watch them on YouTube because there aren't any options. But I will resist Google's many insidious attempts to monetize me to the best of my ability while doing so.

That said, it's really dishonest to claim that people who block ads on YouTube just want free stuff and don't understand that services have a cost. Personally, I pay for Nebula because I do support the project and the creators involved. But YouTube won't see a cent from me, not with my consent at least.

Now imagine that you had some issue with the administration of your Lemmy instance. You still have both options above, plus a third one: migrate to another instance.

In theory, yes.

In practice, I strongly disagree with a number of decisions by the admins of my instance, but I'd rather keep ownership of the comments I have posted and would like to be notified if anyone ever replies to them in the future. Since I care more about the latter than the former, I'm not planning on moving instances at the moment. Guess I could create another account elsewhere, but I'd still have to check out the account on the old instance every once in a while. Plus I'd like to have a unified posting history. It sucks, and the technology is not quite there yet, but I hope true migrations between instances become a thing sooner than later. As far as I have been told, true migrations aren't yet a thing even on Mastodon.

It's possible that it eventually ends capitalism, or at the very least forces it to reform significantly.

Consider that the most basic way a company can obtain profit is by extracting as much surplus value as they possibly can, i.e spending less and earning more. Extracting high surplus value from human workers is easy, because a salary doesn't really depend on the intrinsic value of the service a worker is providing, but rather it's tied to the price of that job position in the market. Theoretically, employers can all agree and offer lower salaries for the same jobs if the situation demands it. You can always "negotiate" a lower salary with a human worker, and they will accept because any amount of money is better than no money. Machines are different. They don't need a salary, but they do carry a maintenance cost, and you cannot negotiate with that. If you don't cover the maintenance costs, the machine will outright not do its job, and no amount of threats will change that. You can always optimize a machine, replace it with a better one, etc. but the rate at which machines get optimized is slower than the rate at which salaries can decrease or even become stagnant in the face of inflation. So it's a lot harder to extract surplus value from machines than it is from human workers.

Historically, machines helped cement a wealth gap. If there was a job that required some specialization and therefore had a somewhat solid salary, machines would split it into a "lesser" job that many more people can do (i.e just ensuring the machine is doing its job), driving down salaries and therefore their purchasing power, and a specialized job (i.e creating or maintaining the machine), which much less people can access, whose salaries have remained high.

So far, machines haven't really replaced human workforce, but they have helped cement an underclass with little purchasing power. This time, the whole schtick with AI is that it will be able to, supposedly, eventually replace specialist jobs. If AI does deliver on that promise, we'll get stuck with a wealth distribution where a majority of the working class has little purchasing power to do anything. Since working class is also the majority of the population, companies won't really be able to sell anything because no one will be able to buy anything. You cannot sustain an economic model that impoverishes the same demography it leeches off of.

But there is a catch: All companies have an incentive to pursue that perfect AI which can replace specialist jobs. Having those would give them a huge advantage for them in the market. AI doesn't demand good working conditions, they don't undermine other employees' loyalty by unionizing, they are generally cheaper and more reliable than human workers, etc. which sounds all fine and dandy until you realize that it's also those human workers the ones buying your products and services. AI has, by definition, a null purchasing power. So, companies individually have an incentive to pursue that perfect AI, but when all companies have access to it... no company will be sustainable anymore.

Of course, it's all contingent on AI ever getting that far, which at the moment I'm not sure it's even possible, but tech nerds sure love to promise it is. Personally, I'm hopeful that we will eventually organize society in a way where machines are doing the dirty work while I get to lead a meaningful life and engage in jobs I'm actively interested in, rather than just to get by. This is one of the possible paths to that society. Unfortunately, it also means that, for the working class, it will get worse before it gets better.

Besides what you have already been told, there already was war in both Ukraine and Israel. Ukraine's open military conflict with Russia has been active since at least 2014, and Israel has been in conflict with Palestine and neighbours since its foundation following WW2.

Wesern media not covering them until it was relevant to the US national interests and them not happening are entirely different things.