sweetpotato

“Dark humour” enjoyers when I joke about the military…

So should we be fearing a new crash?

I’m sorry I assumed that, people’s goal when making comments on semantics is usually to obfuscate the point

As far as I’m concerned, the 92-01 war had the support of the US along with Russia. But that’s way besides the point I’m making.

I didn’t mean that it’s 30 years strictly against the US, I am only saying that these people have been tortured by war for 30 years and all people care about is to call the Talibans terrorists, not the people’s suffering by the world powers’ interventions.

Instead of playing with numbers, we could just focus on the issue of portraying every enemy of the US as a terrorist and mocking anything these people go through just because someone the west doesn’t like prevailed. Of course they are religious fundamentalists and oppressing, especially to women, but they are a legitimate government as much as you don’t like it and the people have the right to sort their society morals on their own just like the west did - it feels stupid to articulate such obvious statements, but people don’t get it.

It’s funny cause they legit have a terrorism problem with the once US funded IS. If you people had ever cared to see what has happened to Afghanistan after the Talibans took over you’d know that the terrorists are constantly bombing public spaces, public infrastructure etc.

The Talibans may be extremists and fundamentalists but terrorists? That’s a CIA talking point - any violence against us, the west, is terrorism.

The US abandoned Afghanistan in ruins after 30 years of war, bombing people and infrastructure and now they have to rebuild their country on their own, forgotten by the world. They are starving, they are extremely poor and because they are so vulnerable, the IS was able to establish itself there and terrorise the people. So I don’t get the irony here, you people are just hypocrites and don’t remember who caused all this in the first place.

First Arab country to do so, sad

Yeah same. I just try to cook a meal on Sunday but it doesn’t get me through the entire week. Not to mention I usually need a second meal at night when I work out. It’s too much.

I stopped reading at “make bread”. Waaay too little free time for that

So we’re talking about de-extinction at a time when 70% of the planet’s biodiversity has been lost in the last 50 years?

You couldn’t make Home Alone 2 today because the creators would sue you for copyright infringement.

It’s as if they don’t want you to be able to get out of your house and socialise except for some paid time at private properties (cafes, restaurants etc). And no this isn’t just a US problem, it’s a Europe problem as well.

Is this supposed to be ragebait or what? This review is obviously non-sensical end of story

The moment you realize that any clean energy we produce and have been producing for the last 20 years, that the renewable industry boomed exponentially, only serves as additive energy and not as a replacement for non-renewables, because our demands in energy have been exponentially ever-increasing since the 1950s, as the economy doubles in size every 20 years since then. So no matter the remarkable advances in solar and wind, we still needed more energy than that, because that’s how exponents work.

But yeah, let’s continue doing business as usual, this will definitely work.

My point in the first bit is that a non-profit is legally binding, at least in paper, to direct the maximum amount of subscription money to the creators. That could be the subject of corruption by people obviously, but it’s an important guarantee that it won’t happen. If it happens it’s a scandal. If Nebula amasses profits it’s not a scandal, it’s an expected behaviour by a private company. Do you see the difference? In the first case there is a legal safety valve, a guarantee.

And if anything changes like I’ve said I cancel my subscription and support it only for as long as it is truly non profit. So the hypothetical scenario you mentioned before is outside the topic. I am talking about a non profit, when they decide to change this, it’s a different company and a different discussion.

Oh and another important thing that I forgot to mention here is that, as I don’t care about any creators, I don’t want my subscription money to be shared proportionately to the size of the creators in the platform. I don’t care about the big ones, I only care about mine, so that’s a really important detail I don’t like about it as well.

In the second part is the not ideal part is the fact that there are owners that are not all creators. There is a 50% of the money that is directed to the creators and another 50% that goes to the people that own Nebula. That’s profit I don’t want to give to them. I think I was pretty clear. Yes 50% of the profit goes to the creators and 50% of the company will be sold to them if they ever decide to do so, but the other 50% is profit for the owners. The owners have profit for doing nothing, for being the owners, that’s bad and really far away from what I could get behind.

I’m not talking about ideal scenarios here, I’m talking about something that has been done already and it’s perfectly within legal and technical capabilities. A simple non-profit that is transparent about their earnings and their code.

I think we’ve overanalyzed it though.

No I certainly do not think that people with money and power should be trusted. That’s why I want it to be non-profit, the day this changes by its board of directors like you say, this hypothetical company loses my subscription and goes to the same list as Nebula. I don’t get how this is a counterargument.

I don’t see how the owners being a group of youtube creators is an argument. I don’t care about just any creators, I care about the creators I like and respect. A 50:50 split is of course better than yt, but it’s not just the running costs. Why wouldn’t I subscribe to the creators I like through ko-fi for example, where they take 95-100% of the money?

Creators having a stake in a company is of course good but it’s just not what I look for.

That could indeed be the case, I can’t know for sure, but supposing it motivates creators and encourages more creators and audience to join, it for one takes away from Google which is always a good thing but when it’s not open source and when the owners are profiting off of a big percentage of my money for doing nothing, I cannot get behind it. I’d rather support individual creators, it’s simply closer to my ideal scenario.

I understand this, but the problem is that every popular platform starts off not making money and showing a good face. The problem is that there is nothing telling me it won’t make Reddit’s turn when it decided to go public. That’s how corporations work, and the promise of the owners will never be enough when it comes to being fair to the creators and subscribers. It’s true that it’s unquestionably better than a YouTube monopoly, but I personally will only support individual creators until a platform that is truly non-profit emerges - I just don’t see how Nebula is a step in the right direction, it follows the same old model. I understand the problems of decentralisation and that’s why I was talking about a non profit - just like the Proton Foundation is.

I don’t like the fact that it isn’t open source, it isn’t decentralised, it runs for profit like every other corporation, the money from the subscriptions don’t go exclusively to the creators (or considering there are running costs for the platform, the only money deducted from the creators being these running costs), but instead 50/50.

If a decentralised video platform is too hard to achieve, then I’d want nothing less than a open source, non-profit company, being open about their running costs and how much from the subscriptions they require to cover them, for me to give them my money.

I don’t think you can easily judge a judge. Once you get the job, which very few do as you have to go for an additional degree for two years after law school, you’d have to really fuck up to lose your job.

Only the government/state can impeach a judge by popular vote of the officials. But there is no clear legal ground for this, it can only happen when they feel like it, or when there is evidence for criminal activity, bribery, which any serious individual can get away with pretty easily, or for a grossly immoral decision and a public outrage for that. That’s why it’s so rare.

No actual humans are not glad, because this is not support for Palestine or anti genocide or anything like that. This is just talk to appease to voters.

Actual thinking humans can deduce that since Israel had the 100% of support from the democratic party no questions asked, not when bombing children, not when needing funding to attack Hezbollah in the north, this means that the person replacing the president from the same party, while also being the vice president of the current democratic government, will do exactly the same. As has been the case for every major foreign interest of the US.

There could have been some room for wishful thinking if she was someone new but like, she is the current vice president, the levels of gaslighting democrats are reaching is beyond me.

For all I know, you taking the pic could’ve done it