davidagain

@davidagain@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I present my girlfriend's daughter.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Top notch banter.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Type C⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  S

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Type C⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  O

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Type C⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Fast charging is a double-edged sword.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Type C⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  L

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tesla recalls all Cybertrucks ever made over trim falling off | Electrek⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Every wankpanzer ever? I had to check it wasn’t the onion. It’s not the onion.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why don't people going to college get HUD, Food Stamps, and free Medicare/Medicaid while enrolled? Instead of the parents footing the bill or the student working 3 jobs and school?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Republicans hate clever people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is this green or blue?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s teal.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They're coming⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, yeah, definitely. And my friend thanks you too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google removes pledge to not use AI for weapons from website | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Absolutely.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google removes pledge to not use AI for weapons from website | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Not any more, they don’t!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google removes pledge to not use AI for weapons from website | TechCrunch⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  When they removed their “don’t be evil” motto, I thought it was hilariously bad optics but probably came from some misguided thinking that if they stopped talking about the potential for evil, people would stop wondering whether they had bad motives and needed the motto to keep straight.

  It became clearer and clearer that they removed the motto because they felt it was holding them back from greater profits and was skewing employee behaviours in ways they didn’t want and bringing up objections to policy ideas that they wanted to avoid. It was never about the optics, it was about the profits.

  Now, when Google removes a pledge not to make portable killer AIs and skynet, you have to accept that it’s because they see making portable killer AIs and skynet as hugely profitable for them, and they don’t want any good intentions or moral behaviour getting in the way of that profit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Under your nose⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  SOMEONE’S TAKEN THE GREEN ONES TOO NOW! HELP!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Day 1 Reddit Refugee⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah that all makes sense now, thank you for explaining.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Day 1 Reddit Refugee⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a really good point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Day 1 Reddit Refugee⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve been here about a year now. Good times. Your voice counts on lemmy in a way it really really doesn’t on reddit. People will engage with you because you’re human and say human things. It’s much more welcoming for people who like to talk somehow than reddit ever was. Don’t know why.

  By the way, people talk a lot about how lemmy.world censors luigi, but I use lemmy.world and see, upvote and sometimes comment on plenty of luigi stuff without mod intervention. Maybe it’s just one of two communities (subreddits) where it’s enforced.

  If you’re a communist and don’t like to hear China (or sometimes for some weird reason Russia) criticised, and if you feel that the USA is the Imperialist power that needs to be broken first, you’ll feel most at home in lemmygrad.ml, hexbear.net, but also lemmy.ml if you want to keep access to stuff from lemmy.world.

  If you’re progressive or liberal, you’ll be fairly happy here on lemmy.world. If you’re a conservative, I don’t know where to recommend you.

  There are various country specific ones you might find suit you for other reasons.

  All in all I’m not sure it matters a great deal as much as it sounds in my post. People from different instances turn up and say stuff anyway.

  The best advice is that you don’t have to lurk as much as you used to on reddit, you can show up and engage and the conversation will start around you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Tulsi Gabbard Smears Are Unfounded, Unfair, and Unhelpful⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  …and by this, republicans mean that they don’t like hearing it.

  Republicans don’t see the distinction between “I don’t like this” and “I deny this”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Donald Trump, president in name only.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨fuckery⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So now we have both irrational and fractional fucks, we have all real fucks, and since we can have “twisted fuck” we can rotate any fuck through any angle and we have the entire complex fuck plane.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Mushrooms⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I love this post. Thank you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Womp womp⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t know why Janet thought that the working conditions would be nice at the evil laboratory. It’s not exactly evil to take good care of your employees now, is it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So sorry, there’s a typo in your second sentence and I can’t figure out what you meant to say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There wasn’t any way he could have communicated this that the Torygraph wouldn’t turn into “Strarmer lied and broke his promises to working people”. Saying it the precise way doesn’t make for good campaign slogans.

  I suspect they planned this. If he had said “we won’t raise income tax and we won’t raise employee national insurance contributions”, he’d be giving a massive hint as to what he was planning, and the inevitable interview question would be about employer contributions and he wouldn’t be able to rule them out, and then all the headlines would be about “Starmer promised to not raise national insurance but now he’s let on that he’s planning to after all” and all the news would be about Labour’s tax rises and all this arguing would be happening before the election. A bit of ambiguity and headline management is unfortunately necessary.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Your claim to be a worker because you did half an hour’s work in a month for a landlord’s income that’s so large you can afford to discount it by £300 a month isn’t the winning argument you think it is.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Then your income wouldn’t be affected in any real way by raising taxes on those shares and getting cross that Starmer taxing unearned income is affecting you badly is bothincorrect and missing the point.

  Starmer is raising tax on unearned income instead of working people’s taxes, which is very fair for a change, and you’re splitting hairs over definitions of who counts as workers. You’re so missing the point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Why are you so cross about this? He only means that he’ll tax their unearned income a bit more, and if they really are working people out won’t affect them much.

  The extent to which it affects workers is the extent to which they aren’t workers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If Starmer suggested taxing football income you would be being a bit daft if you claimed that it was going to hurt the guy you just replied to on the grounds that he earned fifty quid from football.

  “But he’s a worker too and he’s not rich and you promised not to tax him” is sillier than saying that he isn’t covered by the promise to not raise taxes on working people.

  That’s because (and this is the bit that’s not quite got through to you somehow yet) the vast, vast, vast majority of his income is from working, not from football.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  But if he said “income from owning shares isn’t eligible for PAYE taxation and therefore isn’t covered by a pledge to not increase taxes on workers’ earnings” he wouldn’t have a headline and you would be accusing him of talking like a politician and breaking promises.

  But no, he was asked this in the context of some disingenuous question like “bbbut you promised not to raise taxes on working people, and this will hurt working people, aren’t people with a hardworking fast food day job and a tiny bit extra from a few shares or renting out their spare bedroom just to make ends meet exactly the working people you promised not to raise taxes on?”

  And Starmer says no, and now we have a headline because a bunch of shareholders who are experts at hoarding money because it’s all they really care about are as pissed as they ever get because tHe GovErNmunT iS tAkiN aLL MY mUnnY. It’s the daily telegraph, for goodness sake. When did they ever care about ordinary people’s finances?!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Owning a house isn’t a job but maintaining one is.

  I think you just agreed with each other a little bit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Row as Starmer suggests landlords and shareholders are not ‘working people’⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Thank you.