Steve

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

I started buzzing my hair down to an 1/8th inch when I was 14. Then much if it fell out in my 30s also.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The most profitable league in all of sports...
Is being killed?

I don't think that means what they think it means.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (5 children)

comes with their school districts’ decision to install AI-powered monitoring software such as Gaggle and GoGuardian on students’ school-issued machines and accounts.

That's kind of standard practice on any company issued devices I've ever used.
Unless they're being given for the kids to own. If they have to give them back at the end of the year, then they don't belong to the kids.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Hypocritical for sure.
Not really unexpected, so not ironic.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

they say giving their biometric data to an unaccountable company crosses a line.

The company is unaccountable‽
That's some projection.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Not really. One can be dealt with if needs be, since they're US companies. The other can't because it's the Chinese government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nobody cares because they are US companies.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

First, it's not a TickTok ban. It's a ByteDance ban. ByteDance could sell TickTok to another company outside China and TickTock would be fine in the US.

Second, it was never about protecting user data. It was about preventing China from tweaking the algorithm to try to subtly influence public political opinion, instead of maximizing generic rage and political polarization, to exploit for ad dollars.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn't help any one else unfortunately.
But I subscribed to Google Play Music All Access during the original promo in 2013. Part of $7.99 promo deal way back then, was that it was a Lifetime Subscription. Even after raising the price on all the 2014 YouTube Red promo users at the beginning of 2024, I'm still locked in at $7.99. I've de-Googled nearly everything else, but I'll hold on to that subscription till I die, or YouTube does.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If there aren't workers, there is no need for unions.

But that doesn't happen anyway.
UBI doesn't replace work. People still work. Pilot programs and tests show, people might work less overtime, or call out when sick more, so they can go to a doctor, spend more time home with a new baby, and stay in school longer gaining higher degrees. But they don't quit their jobs. So there will still be plenty of workers to join unions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

How does it take leverage from unions?
It would effectively be a permanent strike fund.
Wouldn't that help unions?

It's also not so much "taking" power, as it's not giving power you feel is your right.
Which, is the same kind of thinking that let's copyright holders claim every count of piracy is theft of money they never actually had.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's an academic term used in anthropology circles, studying primitive, ancient, or even non-human social structures.

In ape or chimpanzee social groups, high-status individuals (male or female) may have more mating opportunities, be able to eat first, insist on the best spots to sit, whatever. The specific benefits can vary from culture to culture, species to species.

It doesn't mean low-status individuals are shunned at all. They're still part of the group. But for whatever reason, they aren't given as much trust, opportunity, or maybe respect, as others in the group.

In our modern social world, it would be the correct scientific or academic term for people who are unable to attract a sexual partner, or make many friends, or build much "social capital", for any of several possible reasons.

People who have a job, or even a career, but wouldn't be considered for management, would also be considered low-status in that context.

In short, yes. It's the correct terminology.

view more: next ›