Those of us who remember The Oregon Trail also dwell in dark corners.

I agree, but as an American it also doesn’t surprise me at all. Dehumanizing others is one of the top tactics to make awful conservative policies more palatable.

That’s funny because I bet Firefox will keep running my MS applications just like it does now. That’s what I do on Linux anyway.

But if I’m not forced to use those tools, Libre Office it is!

Mint has been on kernel 6.8 for months now, and that kernel version was first released less than a year ago. They made a change a little while back to be more up to date.

So it’s not bleeding edge, but it’s also not far behind now.

It does mention “the people” though.

I’ve always have trouble with this one. The second amendment is a big problem in this country, especially combined with our hatful culture. DC v Heller should have gone the other way because it would have saved lives and allowed some progress.

But when I read the amendment, to me it comes across very much like “the people have the right to guns so that the militia can be called to arms” and not just “the militia gets guns.”

The amendment is outdated and the framers could never have anticipated our current state, much less been in favor of it. Maybe they even misspoke and did only mean for the militia members to be able to keep their guns at home. But what they wrote sure reads to me like the conservatives want it to, at least as far as the individual right to own guns.

This is just an academic discussion anyway. These weapons are part of the personal identity of at least tens of millions of Americans, plus we have a fully Republican government incoming, plus the court that would have to do something about it is even more conservative and corrupt than before.

Several years ago I got to have lunch with the head of HR at my then-employer. It was a mid sized publicly traded global corporation, and the HR VP was generally the old white sanitized robot you’d expect.

The one discussion I remember was him describing how diversity is legitimately an asset for businesses that produces better results. It wasn’t “we believe in equality” or “we show the public that we care” or “we have to.” It was literally that it makes the big number get a little bit bigger. And to be clear, I’m a white guy like him.

So when huge companies cast it aside I think the most gracious possible interpretation is that the soulless drones that value only money see more benefit in having the support of the right wing government and the worst parts of the population than having a better performing workforce.

There are much less kind interpretations obviously, and some of them are probably right.

This should absolutely happen. And it’s not just because corporations bad. It’s because it would fix the process of risk analysis and decision making.

It’s one thing to have an accident or run into unintended consequences of business decisions. Maybe some of those could carry the death penalty in extreme cases of negligence, but probably not the vast majority.

But if the company spent decades lying and conspiring in order to make some money while destroying lives and killing people left and right? The government should seize all shares of the company (yes even the ones in our 401ks) overnight and detain the officers and directors of the company for the criminal investigation.

a heinous crime

Friend, you’re going to have to be WAY more specific than that.

“We” as in society, the government, and the legal system, will never hold them accountable.

Shielding against personal responsibility and liability is one of the bedrock features of American corporations. Piercing the corporate veil is the rare exception and is seen as a big deal. And that’s because the veil protects rich people.

“We” as in highly motivated individuals who may or may not have a plumbing company with their brother, seem the most likely to do something about it.

Oh yeah no disagreement there. The way that social media of all types democratizes content creation and celebrity status is great.

For me personally, the YouTube model is great where individuals can basically produce their own TV show or documentaries. But all the other big corporate social media services are meh in comparison. When it comes to interaction rather than consuming, that’s when I love Lemmy.

I’m not sure what’s worse, kissing the ring or taking that Trump post seriously. He obviously did not write it, and he also obviously only makes statements like this to threaten others and secure their loyalty. Here we are a month later, and some of the richest tech bros in the country are expected at his inauguration.

That is sounding more and more like a benefit to me. Social media that functions as social media for humans and not just another giant corporate surveillance and marketing machine wearing a fun app costume.

Perfectly said, and I’ve been reaching the same conclusion lately.

I too attempted harm reduction while being disappointed in the democrats. And we all know plenty of people stayed home or went third party for some of those reasons.

But damn it, this country turned out to vote FOR Trump. The democrats didn’t just miss the mark and Trump got lucky or whatever. Trump won decisively because he’s the kind of asshole that a huge part of our culture loves.

I remember seeing something similar in the W days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

My Lemmy client says your comment is 1h old. Is it possible to learn this power?

people who repeatedly ruin companies

You mean those bold leaders who have the rare ability to take risks* and make the tough decisions**?

• Risking their “number go up” fun money, not their actual lifestyle, or health, or home, or food supply, etc. Or just risking other people’s assets much of the time.

** The decisions that will hurt people they don’t care about and won’t have to deal with, in order to hopefully make their “number go up” score improve.

One of the nice things about Lemmy is that people are willing to actually discuss things with multiple sentences and even paragraphs (gasp) rather than it being a fire hose of quips and one-liners.

Judging by how things have been going, it would probably be something stupid like fossil “fuels” having unique valuable properties as a high tech material, but then the aliens arrive and say “you fucking lit it all on fire?!?!?”

A good start would be defining what those words mean to him and to his company.

For instance, given nothing but the recent news about Meta and the quote from the OP, it sounds to me like Zuckerberg thinks “masculine energy” means “act overtly bigoted, and punch down whenever you can.”

I’m a man, and I like to act masculine in the “help those around you” way rather than the racist, napoleon complex “I am a strong boy because I offend people and I have good taste because I hate everything” way. And I don’t appreciate him putting more negativity on the word than there already was!

A part of me is with you. The end goal is equally applied rule of law, so it’s important to respect the system when you’re trying to improve it, right?

However, I think you could argue that the jury and its power to nullify is very much an intended check within the system. It’s kind of an ideal situation where “the people” get to bookend the legal process. They vote for the people making the laws, and they have the final OK before somebody gets sent to prison.

But that is all assuming people perceive the system as working for them to a reasonable degree. If it’s simply broken then why would people go along with the BS while hoping and voting for a better system? They can still vote for a better system while reducing harm in other ways.

There’s also the pragmatic side of me that wants to see good results for humanity (which includes our environment) regardless of the text of the local laws. And yeah, it’s very much a two-edged sword when random citizens do what they think is “right.” Bad examples of it are everywhere. But taking things case by case, what Luigi did was akin to shooting a serial killer between their murder stops. And more importantly, it shines a giant public light on the fact that real people suffer and die so that other people who are already set for life will make $10 million next year instead of only $9 million.