Polyculture farming is good for the land and good for yields, but monoculture is easier for the government to rule over.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/14/book-review-against-the-grain/

“Your brakes operation will resume after this 10s ad”

I’m a different person, but also from lemmy.world and I don’t use an app. I don’t see any heart heart symbol around the voting buttons. It’s probably just your app.

You are assuming here that I know what I want. What if there is no obviously correct answer, and even in the Everett branch that generates the optimal content for the file I’ll still think it can be improved and tell it to destroy the universe?

What if there is no correct answer?

I just use this:

#!/bin/bash

keep_generating=1
while [[ $keep_generating == 1 ]]; do
    dd if=/dev/random of=$1 bs=1 count=$2 status=none
    echo Contents of $1 are:
    cat $1
    echo
    read -p "Try generating again? " -s -n1 answer
    while true; do
        case $answer in
            [Yy] )
                echo
                break
                ;;
            [Nn] )
                keep_generating=0
                break
                ;;
            *)
        esac
        read -s -n1 answer
    done
done

That said, it’s funny to see how much “weird” gets under their skin.

Not that funny, really. Conservatism is all about defining normality and attacking any deviation from it. “Weird” is the very definition for not normal. It’s the antithesis of their meta value. Of course they’d hate it.

My pet theory is that Apple started to use that term because “App” can also be short for “Apple”.

According to the caption in the article, that’s her mother.

Even when you are paying for the product you are still the product.

I’d argue it’s not the tent itself that sucks as much as the lack of access to things like toilet, shower, and electricity.

Find a camping store and steal a tent.

I won’t argue that corporations wouldn’t steal other people’s work given the chance, but being able to do this is hardly worth the cost of not having copyrights on their own material. A Disney/Pixar/DreamWorks/etc. movie is not a stand-alone product - it’s mainly a feature-length commercial for a franchise. No copyrights means that the corporation doesn’t get revenue from the the merchandise created and sold by third parties.

Charging the poor more is, first and foremost, stupid. Giving them bad products and/or services that will cost them more in the long run? That I can see. But you never want to charge them more upfront. You’ll always want to charge the rich more, because the rich have more money and are more willing to spend it (when it benefits them), and you want them to give you that money.

Joel Spolsky wrote a great post about this two decades ago (and it’s still relevant today). The idea is as follows:

Lets say you have two potential customers - one rich who can afford to buy your product for $2 and one poor who can only afford to buy it for $1. If you charge $1 you’ll be able to sell it to both of them and get $2. If you charge $2 you’ll only sell to the rich - also getting $2.

Joel says that if you find a way (e.g. - by creating different versions) to sell it to the rich customer for $2 and the poor customer for $1 - you’ll get $3. Which is more than $2.

You, on the other hand, suggest that it’s going to get offered to the rich customer for $1 and the poor customer for $2. But then the poor customer won’t be able to afford it. They won’t be it or maybe even steal it - either way you won’t get $2 from them. You’ll only get the $1 from the rich customer.

$1 is less than $3. It’s even less than $1. If you want to earn money - this is the worst outcome. Why do you think capitalists hate the poor more than they love money?

Movie pitch - to pay all its lawsuits, OceanGate launches one final desperate mission to the wreck of the San José.

It’s not like Marx himself would have passed that test.

And feel old? No thanks!

Which was only 10 years ago.