frazw

joined 2 years ago
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It is brain washing. They have been convinced that Democrats are so much worse for so long that they think of they had voted another way, somehow they would be having an even harder time.

It has become a matter of faith not logic. This is just a test of their faith and it will all come good in the end.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

I think they are more like cell mates. Stuck in the same small room. Can't leave. Warden checks on them periodically and gives them terrible food to eat....

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I understand now. You are using the general definition of support so we are taking about different things.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes Discover is part of the Linux distro, not the valve added value. It is by virtue of their choice to base on an established Linux rather than anything. Again lutris and heroic both support steam deck not the other way around.

But none of this changes my original point. Valve wasn't you to use the steam store. The stream deck is a tool to get you to do that. You are free to bypass because they don't stop you, but they are willing to take a loss on hardware because they know it means more sales on the steam store. Or they wouldn't be here much longer.

You seem to think if I were to write an app for Windows and release it tomorrow that it means Microsoft support my app.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Never said it was locked. But being locked or unlocked doesn't change the motivation and is irrelevant to my point. The more people on the steam ecosystem, the better for them. It is far easier to use steam on the steam deck than any of the options you put forward. Even so, not preventing their use means people are more likely to buy the steam deck, which in turn means they are more likely to use steam as their primary store.

Epic, etc are not a default and at the beginning were not easy to get working.

Oh and you got it the wrong. Those things support the steam deck (usually via third party hacks), the steam deck doesn't support them, it you would be able to install them from the steam store with tight integration into the library by default. It just doesn't prevent them. That is a BIG difference. But yes, doing similar things on other hardware might not be possible or at least as easy. I'm grateful their are so many enthusiasts out there making such things possible.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (6 children)

"Sells hardware at a loss to hook you into the steam ecosystem and make more money by selling you software" FTFY

Don't get me wrong, as companies go I like valve, but to say they aren't making decisions based on making more money and just out of altruistic motives is madness. Businesses that aren't healthy and competitive die, even if they have rabid fans.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

When you shit your pants regularly, having lots of the same suit makes it easier to do a quick change and not have it noticed.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Strong "don't want to pick sides" vibes

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 156 points 1 month ago (20 children)

Yeah the logic always stuns me.

"If I vote for a Democrat they'll probably take some of my money through taxes and I'll be poor"

Trump wins and ruins their business, they lose all of their money.

"At least I'm not poor because of evil Democrat taxes"

They have truly been brainwashed. Whatever bad shit republicans do they still believe the Democrats must be worse, because the republicans told them so. Even though the republicans have provably been lying to them for years.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you give people no credit for admitting they were wrong or give them no chance to atone, then you give them no reason to do it and they will continue down the path they are on. To me it is preferable that she stops being toxic vs her continuing if those are the two choices.

I am not saying she should be forgiven, but if she is genuine, and that remains to be seen (she has a lot of work to do to prove that), then continuing to punish or otherwise vilify her, sends her the message that she's damned is she does and she's damned if she doesn't so why not continue being toxic. Why should she try to be better?

If she continues to atone and does some very positive things in future (again doubtful) there should at least be some consideration given that she may have changed.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Always felt like we are too good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Scotland are consistent only at being inconsistent. It has been like this for decades, through complete changing of the guard. What is it about our nation that makes it such a comical inevitability that we can make it to the quarter finals of the world Cup one day and screw up the four/five/six nations the next?

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago (8 children)

My most charitable thinking about this is that she s always just playing to win. The way she acted was just that, an act. She did it because she knew it appealed to a particular segment of society that could get her elected. Now there is a sea change she is smart enough to know MAGA is doomed and she had jumped ship early because she thinks it will be more politically advantageous in the long run.

She may be genuinely remorseful if she is good for her, but it doesn't erase the things she had voted for, against, and the things she said that harmed people or incited violence deliberately or accidentally.

That said, she is somewhat uniquely positioned to assist in the deprogramming of MAGA members so, though I don't trust her, the things she is doing and saying today are leading people away from Trump, and that is the most vital mission right now.

 

Democratic political strategy

 

Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.

40s big band

50s rock and roll

60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.

70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco

80s electro synth, rap

90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance

Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.

So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?

 

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

view more: next ›