It’s pretty hard to imagine a way for groups of people with varying goals and interests to operate without some form of value exchange. This can either be barter, or some form of currency. Our specific kind of extractive capitalism based on creating endless cycles of debt and credit can certainly be replaced with any number of alternatives, but the idea of money itself is just too basic and useful to humans, imo.

I don’t know about the disposal of rubber, but the production of rubber has historically enslaved and destroyed entire populations and environmentally wrecked whole regions of the earth in Africa and South America…

The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least “techy” EVs I’ve seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

That’s all well and good, I agree with virtually all you said. It’s certainly the admins’ right to block or de-federate any community they want, based on risk or just because they feel like it, I have no issue with that. It’s simply my personal belief that discussion of crime is not a crime. Direct links to illegal content should not be allowed, but discussion about piracy in general should carry no more risk that learning about murder in a criminology class, which does not need to be banned just because it’s teaching people things they could in theory use to get away with murder.

I think we’re close to saying the same thing, I’m in total agreement that linking to illegal content should be banned, it’s the uneven enforcement of that principle across communities that I think is an issue. I know .world isn’t hosted in the US, so you don’t enjoy broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, but does anyone really think that discussing crime is itself a crime? If I say “here’s a scenario for how a group of people could rob a bank” what crime is that? If I say “hey I think there’s people dealing drugs on this street corner” what crime is that? And I can of course appreciate a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability, that’s their free choice, they own the server. I’m talking about, on principle, what’s wrong with allowing a community to exist so long as that community does not post or link to illegal content? That principle seems to work just fine for virtually every other topic but when it comes to discussion of filesharing, torrents, and the like, then suddenly the “don’t link to illegal content” principle isn’t good enough and it becomes “we must ban this entire concept for our own safety.” That’s the admins’ right and I have no issue if they want to do that, I just want to point out the glaring double standard between moderating communities so they don’t break the rules and banning communities so they don’t break the rules.

Linking to or posting content that’s illegal or in violation of copyright should not be allowed, but you don’t have to ban an entire community to do that, you just have to enforce the same rules that are in place for every other community on here. Maybe someone can explain this to me, but this seems equivalent to banning a cybersecurity community because encryption get used by bad actors sometimes, so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned since information about staying anonymous online is “sharing the tools and techniques” that could be used in assisting criminal activity. Ditto for cryptocurrency, ditto for secure operating systems, ditto for drugs, guns, and any number of other things where community discussion is allowed but illegal activity is not. I understand the need to draw the line at actually sharing copyrighted content, but discussion of lockpicks or linking to sites that sell lockpicks is not equivalent to going around illegally picking locks, except it seems that is exactly the case when it comes to piracy but no other topics.

Sounds like this “study” (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

“…the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake.” Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn’t control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn’t.

It’s just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don’t find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it’s almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today’s low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn’t preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of “X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn’t the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!” Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It’s a great tactic!

I think they should really go all out and just text “is it cool if I deliver to you at the restaurant parking lot, I got a real busy night, just come on down and help a guy out?”

I think it’s more the nature of the question being “hey is it cool if I don’t complete the delivery as written and just save myself some minutes by doing curbside when we promised door-to-door?” That’s what I’d have to guess is annoying to people.

I don’t think it has to be easy, these are tough jobs. So are most jobs, and mistakes do happen. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with expecting the service that the company is offering to actually be performed to completion. I get it’s tough working in something like an oil change place, but promising to do the whole job and then deciding to save yourself some time by not putting a filter on because “things are seldom so straight forward” would not, I’d hope, be acceptable to anyone involved.

I don’t expect perfection, but I do expect companies and employees (even gig employees) to fulfill the basic promises they make about what their service consists of. Surely not too much to ask?

Inflation and low wages are caused by people asking door-to-door delivery drivers to actually deliver door-to-door? Guess I’ll go save the economy by hopping out my taxi before they actually get to the airport then to save those folks some time and gas and tamp down that pesky inflation!

I really hope app-based 3rd party food delivery just dies soon. The incentives are so fucked up and at cross purposes between the customers, companies, restaurants, and drivers. Like literally no one is getting a good deal out of it except the app itself. Support places that actually want to deliver enough to have their own drivers, and you’ll almost always have a smoother, faster, and more professional experience.

I get what you’re saying, but I think the whole idea that if you actually want your point-to-point delivery, which is the service you paid for, you’re making the driver “go out of their way” is the whole weird debate people in the thread are having. Like, the service is the service, or at least it should be, if it’s making doordash “go out of their way” to dash ya know, to my door…well that’s not the expectation these companies set with their customers I guess is all I have to say there.

I think this is the right take. Americans have Section 230 (for now) that quite broadly protects communications platforms from liability over what 3rd parties (users) post to their platform about Piracy. We also have the 1st Amendment which more or less protects anything you say short of direct, specific calls to commit crimes and some types of slander/libel. It’s why we can say goofy shit like “now I’m not saying you should do this or encouraging anyone to do this, but if you were going to anyway here’s how:…” and get away with it.

In the EU, not so much. They have “methods and means” rules that can get platform owners in trouble for 3rd parties just posting about BitTorrent clients or providing advice like “Google X if you want to find Y” on their platform if it’s smells of possible piracy. We’re so used in the US to just being able to disclaim everything we say that this is a bit shocking. But talking about tools and techniques, even if you preamble with “now don’t ever use these for piracy bros, ok, I don’t advocate for using this advice in that way” is not going to save the user or even the platform owners from trouble. It is not just about posting direct links to pirated content or hosting/torrent sites. Maybe a point that is little-understood in the threads I’ve been reading on here about this.

Well its a good thing no famous or political person has ever been on trial then because obviously no jury on earth could handle that fairly if it ever were to happen. I think voir dire exists mainly to make sure that folks who think like that never make it on to juries. Just because some people couldn’t render an impartial verdict on a politician they had an opinion of doesn’t make it impossible for lawyers and judges to find a jury capable of doing so. People like that exist, and lawyers find them for trials all the time, I promise you.

Absolutely right. “Impartial” doesn’t mean you’ve never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don’t live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven’t heard or believe things about what they’ve done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you’ve let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It’s a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge “the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can’t get a fair trial!!” Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as “too famous” for justice, there is no such thing as “too infamous” for justice. And there is no such thing as “the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I’ve done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts.”

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if “I’m too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers” was a defense?