Google doesn’t seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?

The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn’t seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(

No, it was kind of a standalone type web forum. Greyish background, iirc.

Pretty sure I was linked it from Lemmy, and I don’t subscribe to no sleep here.

I think he was talking about some of the questionable representation of the tribal peoples in the film.

A few I’ve been big on lately:

The Meat and Dairy Network Podcast - A British humor surrealist comedy podcast about the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry.

The Horror Virgin - A guy who hates scary movies has two friends who make him watch them.

The League of Ultimate Questing - High production actual play DnD podcast. Very funny with some fun hooks.

Midway Games stock is gonna shoot through the roof selling all the extra copies to make this system work. :P

If most of the boxes are Windows, probably Samba4.

But if you’re mostly using Linux, FreeIPA is actually really nice.

I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless.” What’s being conflated?

And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless,” clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.

Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).

Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.

That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)

So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.

But if we’re talking about a child for instance who is suffering from mental illnesses brought on by repeated or extensive childhood trauma?

That might be most analogous to getting an infection after your legs are broken maybe? I think I’d consider it an illness, even if it’s a purely cognitive response to extreme trauma in ones formative years.

If I read your point 2 correctly, you are saying that some mental illness is just trauma response, and therefore isn’t an “illness”?

How is that meaningful different from if I take a pipe and break someone’s legs. It’s clearly a response to (physical) trauma, and I think that we would all call that an illness, no?

Fair, and if the guy I responded to was saying that this was a grey area due to PP psychosis, I would have just agreed.

But he was making the case that this was a grey area due to the abortion laws forcing her to give birth. That’s a much different stance, and the one I was replying to.

While all that is definitely reasonable, it’s a pretty big leap from “the law prevented me from getting an abortion” to “I’mma just yeet this baby out the window.”

Those ideas are so far apart as to not even remotely justify one another, right?

Like, if someone gets cut off in traffic, and they get mad and mow down a dozen pedestrians, it’d be insane to be like, “Well, you have to understand, he got cut off real bad. Mowing down pedestrians is clearly wrong, but there’s definitely some real grey area there.”

Quick math says that’s about a 19-20% return annually for the 10yrs since 2014.

The average APY of the S&P 500 over the same time period was about 11-12%.

So definitely way outperforming the market, though maybe achievable with one or two good picks on individual stock?

Definitely not a good look regardless.

I think it might be a bit of a bold assumption that everyone who thinks Biden is too old to do an effective job and should step aside is a huge Trump supporter.

There are plenty of people who hate Trump with a passion that thinks Biden isn’t up to the task of winning this election.

Okay, to be clear, are you arguing that the dichotomy we are choosing between is Notch becoming a billionaire or a corporation reaping the benefits of his labor? I think if those are the options, I prefer the universe where Notch is a billionaire, lol.

I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but I’ll admit I’ve read your comment a few times, and couldn’t really latch on to what you point was.

But to just free associate off of what you said, I think there’s a lot of value to many in the safety of a job vs the life of an entrepreneur. I’m in that situation myself. I know I could easily make 1.5-2x my current salary if I just stood up and LLC and did all my work as a 1099 employee. I’d be able to keep all my current clients and basically nothing would change. I could set my own hours and not have a boss to answer to. But it comes with a lot fewer safety nets, and it means that all the unpleasantness and risk of “running a business” would all fall on me.

Am I running the risk that I could build a billion dollar product and giving all that surplus capital to my company? Sure. But the odds of that are terribly low, and honestly, it’s a gamble I’m more than willing to take to avoid having to deal with the overhead and risk of striking out on my own with no top cover.

The issue is that becoming a billionaire has more to do with being lucky than it does with direct exploitation.

If everyone in the US chipped 5 dollars into a pool, and it was randomly given to one person, that person would be a billionaire.

And yes, they have a huge concentration of other people’s labor represented in that cash. But the person who won the pool isn’t a bad person because of that. They didn’t exploit anyone themselves. Just because someone somewhere at some point under capitalism was exploited, that doesn’t lay the moral condemnation at the feet of the lottery winner.

Sure, but that argument is specious as hell, right? Like, if everyone in the United States decided to give you a $5 bill, does that instantly make you a bad person who exploited labor to get where you are?

“There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is simply a rhetorical device to outline the flaws in the system. It completely breaks down when used as justification to villainize someone.

Your position could be equally stated as, “anyone who has more money than me is a worse person than me, and anyone with less money than me is a better person than me.” It’s a misuse of the “no ethical consumption” idea on its face.

A fair point. It’s been a while since then. I didn’t recall that.

That said, he’s just an easy example. There’s a few other people who could be used. There’s a billionaire who was an early Bitcoin adopter for example.

And it certainly would have been possible for Notch to become a billionaire without hiring people. The company only had 25 employees in 2014, and was doing $330million in revenue every year. There’s certainly a path he could have tread to still becoming a billionaire without hiring anyone.

It would have been harder, taken longer, and not been as profitable for sure, but doable.

Sure, but if that’s the argument, then everyone who has ever bought a laptop that shipped with Windows on it is equally guilty.

Perhaps even moreso. Those people are giving money to Microsoft. He took a billion dollars away from them.

But like, this is classic motte and baily. Your initial position was “all billionaires exploit labor for profit,” but when under scrutiny you just retreat to “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so he’s guilty by virtue of simply participating in the system.”

You’re moving the goalposts though, you realize that right?

Your initial position was that you have to have exploited people to be worth a billion dollars (with an implicit “directly exploited,” since if you can’t make any money without indirectly exploiting people, which would make your point even more pedantic than I’m being.)

Other people later exploiting others to profit off your product is irrelevant. Hell, it’d be irrelevant if you made your billion dollars and then started exploiting people yourself. You still would have, in fact, become a billionaire without exploiting people to do so.