Do you think that Facebook doesn’t cost money to build or run?

A crappy years-old ARM-powered smartphone SOC stuck inside a TV costs next to nothing.

No, the comment you’re replying to says “If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop”

They’re agreeing with you, I think you must have misread should as shouldn’t or something like that. It’s easily done :) I was just a bit confused reading the comment and reply.

I think you misread the comment you’re replying to?

• 7zip (archive tool) People still use Winrar for whatever reason.
• Firefox (web browser) - It’s well known but still under-used. Stop using chrome. Chrome will be the end of the free internet.
• windirstat (visualise used disk space) - I use this to clear free space
• musicbee (music player) - replaced VLC with this because VLC has had a bug that makes it not playback FLAC files properly for like... A year?
• Screen2Gif (gif recorder & editor)
• ShareX (screenshot/video tool)
• Open Video Downloader (GUI tool to rip YouTube etc.)
• uBlock Origin (ad-blocker) addon
• Sponsorblock (sponsorship skipper) addon

I fucking hate Teracopy with a vengeance. It’s such a buggy piece of shit. I have never seen it not fuck up and crash when you ask it to do something remotely challenging.

Robocopy is the only thing I use for serious file copy/move jobs.

Federal Trade Commission is maintaining its opposition to the deal but it cannot prevent Microsoft and Activision from completing it

Wasn’t the FTC specifically created to block/prevent corporate mergers to stop companies from becoming too big?

I reckon you’re 100% on the money here. The big tobacco companies push all this drama and concern about the health effects so that everyone thinks the industry needs to be more regulated, that allows them to kill off the smaller competition and push up prices.

Our society is fucking falling apart. A massive cost of living crisis, food bank usage is at an all time high, the gap between rich and poor has never been higher, entire generations are completely unable to buy a home, each year breaks through the ceiling for “hottest year on record”, we’re completely blasting past the paris climate accords, still massively subsidising fossil fuels, inflation is absurd, the NHS is falling apart, along with every other public service, and Brexit is not only hugely unpopular but is actively damaging our opportunities.

And what bold, decisive answers does Labour have to solve these problems?

close ties with business and a “competitive tax regime” to solve the housing crisis

not go back into the EU

not rejoin the single market or a customs union

not re-establishing freedom of movement

not committing to investing in renewables or other green policies

prioritising “””efficiency””” in the NHS, refusing to increase funding until they’ve undertaken an assessment

focusing on “””economic growth””” rather than green policy (which means sacrificing the environment for the benefit of the wealthy)

“getting people back into work rather than increasing their benefits“

“Deploy the power of artificial intelligence“ to help fix the NHS

ruling out any sort of wealth tax or increasing taxes for the wealthy

Labour under Starmer inspires no hope or enthusiasm whatsoever. They’re literally the party of, “I guess they’re technically not the Tories”. But make no mistake, they’re running on a right wing platform.

Labour claim to be “for the many, not the few”, but that’s not true. They’re “for the money, and none for you”.

If you want to vote for them because they’re better than the far-right Tories, you go ahead and do that, be my guest.

But I’m not going to be voting for a right wing party next election.

It’s not the first of its kind though. It’s just the first in Africa. There are already a bunch of these in Europe and America.

If the researchers are in Europe then it doesn’t work for the plant to be in Africa. I don’t know why you’re arguing such an obviously wrong position lol

Governments are probably already directly influencing Lemmy with the usual astroturfing at the very least

Labour are so fucking depressing. Why anyone supports them beyond “I guess they’re not as bad as the Tories” I don’t understand.

See, what you’re having trouble with here is that you don’t want to support censorship, even though you do. You don’t like the connotations, so you find some excuse that makes it more comfortable for you. It’s cowardly and dishonest. The word means what it means. Call me a pedant, tell me I’m not adding to the conversation, I don’t care. You’re still supporting censorship whether you want to wear that label or not.

The term predates that usage by well over 2000 years. Roman censors would essentially punish people for immoral behaviour by taking away their rights or by reducing their status in some way - for example, punishing them for speaking out of turn or publishing offensive material.

Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.

Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?

If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.

Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.

The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.

We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.

High unionization levels are associated with positive outcomes across multiple indicators of economic, personal, and democratic well-being

Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.

Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.

Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.

Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave

How unions help all workers

Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions

Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers

Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.

Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families

Sure, I’m happy to support building large scale experimental establishments to test the theories, but that’s not what this is at all. This is a commercial installation in Africa, of all places. Why would the European research teams build a research facility so far away? That doesn’t make sense.

Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.

Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.

Lower risk often means lower reward

For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.

Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.

I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.

I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.

I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.

Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.

There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.

As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.

That’s what everybody said about solar / renewables

I don’t think that’s true, can you back up your claim?

we’re going to need the technology

I support research and development of the technology, because it’s something which could be useful in the future. But this article is about building carbon capture facilities today, which is a big waste of money.

Censorship usually is taken to mean the suppression of speech or writing. If you’re legally prohibited from saying or writing something, you’re being censored, by definition.

Where are you getting your definition of censorship as meaning content being edited?