• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m not defending the police here, but

    Oh boy, here we go.

    could this man have had a heart attack due to the presence of drugs or alcohol in his system, combined with the fact that his heart rate was elevated by resisting arrest

    Totally. He could have also died from a brain aneurysm, aliens, a very advanced case of SIDS, or a witch’s curse. Or, you know, maybe he died from the whole not being able to breathe thing that was actually happening.

    He does not appear to be in good physical condition. I see that his stomach looks a little distended and he sort of waddles as he took steps around the bar area.

    He didn’t look like he was in great shape? Only fitness buffs and marathon runners with no booze in their systems get to live though being cuffed? Tf is wrong with you.




  • teejay@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml"Cancel Culture"
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Why is this getting upvoted? OP is using irony. The No True Scotsman fallacy requires refuting a counterexample as well as “The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc.” Check out the “Occurrence” section.



  • pihole misses a ton of things that ublock can do

    This seems like more of an issue of the adlists you use in pihole. Pihole’s blocking is only as good as the adlists you use on it. I’ve been running a pihole on my home network for years, and I find that as long as I take a few minutes to update the adlists (add new ones, remove dead ones) once or twice a year, it nukes nearly everything. And it’s amazing for blocking things on IoT devices where ublock origin will never be a thing.

    Also, they’re not mutually exclusive – one can certainly use both. I use pihole on my home network, and run ffox + UBO on my computers and phone.





  • teejay@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlEverytime
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This may have been the unfortunate reality 20 years ago. But security cameras are cheap and ubiquitous. If it’s on school property (including school busses), then this should be simple. Separate the kids, review the footage, and punish the kid who started it. The one who didn’t start it gets an apology and assurances that they’re safe and it won’t happen again. The whole “punish them both equally” is insane and sociopathic.








  • teejay@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.

    Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you’re paying $20/mo for premium, and you’re using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations – even measured over several months – compared to the tiny fraction they’d get from that same money via your premium subscription.

    It seems like you’re trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That’s fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.


  • teejay@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me.

    No one’s suggesting you pay more than what you’re paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you’re paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.

    which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos

    Now you’re moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn’t get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.

    It’s bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.


  • teejay@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    You could just, you know, send those creators money directly. Nearly all of them have methods set up for that already, and I’m guessing anyone who doesn’t would set something up in a hurry if you asked to donate to them.

    It’s a win / win. You get to sit on your moral high ground, the creators get paid, Google can fuck off.