lanfeust6

4 ms·

1.
by lanfeust6 5d ago
I use a similar heuristic, but I think what we "do" for leisure is still consumptive, albeit an active sort. Reading, for it's part, exercises cognition better than something like TV. I rank listening to music way above audio
2.
by lanfeust6 5d ago
you might find this interesting - https://untranslatedjp.substack.com/p/japans-book-scene-is-q... Japan's libraries allow cafes and bookstores to operate, which can increase traffic.
3.
by lanfeust6 8d ago
I like the smaller scale. Once, I really cared about having qwerty, but now I don't care with the way touch has progressed (using Futo). It's the experience of the BB I miss. I'm not sure how far Linux phones have come but la
4.
by lanfeust6 8d ago
I miss my blackberry
5.
by lanfeust6 10d ago
Related: https://www.bensouthwood.co.uk/p/eight-architecture-myths-bu... Modernist builds aren't really cheaper.
6.
by lanfeust6 10d ago
Since the topic is preference qua aesthetics, your "point" wasn't analogous.
7.
by lanfeust6 23d ago
> These are some prominent Effect Altruism guys https://www.chalmermagne.com/about I don't see the link with Chalmers. I know Wiblin is.
8.
by lanfeust6 23d ago
> benefits like reducing pollution Not over burying the waste, as mentioned in the article. And, it has the added externality of using more energy... leading to more pollution.
9.
by lanfeust6 23d ago
Littering is mostly cans, disposable cups and food-related containers; not bags straight from the grocery store.
10.
by lanfeust6 23d ago
The article goes over this. Plastic in oceans is from east asian countries without a good municipal waste system, not from developed countries.
11.
by lanfeust6 24d ago
That's how I roll, but I also have a couple of sandboxed apps like MS Auth that I sideloaded. I learned last year that, not shockingly, major sports venues now require showing digital tickets for entry, but thus far it's been poss
12.
by lanfeust6 29d ago
Petty projection, that's all you have. Maybe one day you'll grow up.
13.
by lanfeust6 29d ago
It doesn't. Thought terminating clichés are rhetorical devices, I pointed out what real world data reflects. You're free to actually address it unless you want to redefine poverty to suit vibes.
14.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
No, I'm taking the only definition of monopoly, and you're creating new "contexts" whenever it suits you. I addressed your arguments and you have no rebuttal, so this is what you resort to, taking your ball and going hom
15.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
That would also not be an inter-species relationship.
16.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
It's funny, because extreme poverty rates as defined by the UN have been decimated in the last century, and continue to drop, because of growth qua capitalism. You're reflecting the populist notion that wealth is zero-sum. If that
17.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
I guess I can't because in the first place every "enshittified" example you could muster was not contingent on monopoly, at all. You misunderstand what monopoly is, and are working your way backwards from it as the conclusion
18.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
I threw you a softball, and you couldn't even name one. You're still confused about what neoliberalism is. It really is just "vibes" to progressives apparently.
19.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
> It's not their job to break up monopolies and ever-shifting financial abstractions a few steps ahead of the law that enable monopolistic behavior? It's not their job to prevent companies from selling products that are a bit s
20.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
> they used to send 9 year olds to the mines Yeah, at the advent of the industrial revolution. And prior to that 80% of people had to work the land, with no ammonia, just horses and manure. Labor conditions from over a century ago, befor
21.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
lol well the majority of the top 1% globally didn't make their fortune serving food, to other wealthy patrons no less (how's that for circular reasoning). We're in a consumer society, B2B sales is a thing but it's a side
22.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
Average voters don't understand much about the economy, but that doesn't mean they aren't reacting to externalities like housing costs, prices, or other worse outcomes.
23.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
lol Trump's party has not been the least bit neoliberal, it is populist and protectionist. Brutal immigration crackdowns and tarrifs are the opposite of neoliberal. Even Biden was a departure, with tariffs and CHIPS act. None of that i
24.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
> You speak as if these things are unrelated. State the connection, because it seems like your next argument is going to be "the government didn't stop them", as though that's their job. > Increasingly, we don&#x27
25.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
You're forgetting anti-trust. Standard Oil controlled 90% of the oil production in the U.S. until it was splintered into numerous companies. We're not really at the point where this needs to be done for tech. Also, dynastic wealth
26.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
Motivated reasoning. You want to believe it. > do you really think they want poor people hanging around? Which by your rationale would include everyone who isn't rich (and tautologically would mean "no one is rich anymore"
27.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
> Ever-growing wealth disparities Higher concentration of wealth is not new, it's happened many times and dissipated many times. Real-wages are still growing, which is what we care about qua improvements in our well being (and what
28.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
Notwithstanding that this sum is smaller than people think, seeing bipartisan stances does not in itself reflect a failure; it can just as easily be a good thing. All this reveals is that you have a pet issue that isn't being serviced
29.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
Their wealth is more contingent on our consumption than employment status. If that goes, then you're looking at a zero-sum society where no new wealth is generated. Ultimately people will remain enterprising status-seekers. Rich people
30.
by lanfeust6 1mo ago
In a post-scarcity society, having a meagre policy to keep people alive and not-unruly is cheap. It's also getting way ahead of ourselves, since it's nowhere in sight. Software hiring was up this year.

More ›