Maybe people won’t pay money for it. Maybe they will. The problem isn’t that people may or may not pay money–it’s that you’ve placed your sense of worth in monetary value.

Read some existentialism, no joke. I don’t agree 100% but I read a bunch of Beuvoir over the weekend and one thing I did like was it made me internalize the idea that coming up with a project I care about and achieving it is worthwhile in and of itself regardless of if it “could” be done by someone/something else.

Think about it this way, there are mathematicians from 500 years ago who did a lot of stuff by hand for hours that I could work out with a calculator in seconds today. But does that mean all their work was worthless? If I create a fairly shitty drawing, but I’m proud of my having created it, am I wrong to be proud simply because my friend who is a great artist could make a better one in half the time?

It’s not just about the journey, but it’s not just about the destination either–its about the journey to the destination, and placing value only in one of those things will cause you to be at a loss for the rest of your life.

As a full stack cloud dev usually for me it ends up being some lag between when Azure claims a thing was updated and when it actually was.

(shout out to azure B2C custom policies for taking like 10 minutes to actually reflect changes despite giving me a lil green checkmark)

For easy indexing. Lots of influential literary works have this. There’s a universal standard indexing for both the works of Plato and Shakespeare, for example.

Why do you assume there is one?

I love this bot

No people are human beings. Nott potatoes.

This is supposed to be a community for actual questions, not semi-rhetorical questions that just serve as the lead in to a bad joke.

Because of conservation of mass, children must have as much dumb in them as adults do, but because they’re smaller, it makes up a higher percentage of their volume, so comparatively, the dumb has greater effect.

Simple physics.

nix

This post was sponsored by NixOS gang

(jokes aside, json is king. Yaml is a pain in the ass)

Hey I understand the frustration, but the person you’re replying too seems to me to be offering up their understanding of things in good faith, and if your goal is to maje the world better—good faith discussion is going to go a lot further in that.

Although if your goal is just to feel good dunking on that person, then I suppose this comment serves that goal, but I want to believe you do actually care about trying to make things better.

First off, thank you :)

Second off, I am having a hard time understanding what the statement “I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right” means. What do you consider “views from the left” that you agree with, and what does it mean to you to say you’re “on the right?”

Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”

I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.

deleted by creator

Follow up question, have you had a discussion with him about this? Have you two attempted to approach and solve this problem as a team already?

Homie, which states have ever actually implemented communism? Calling yourself “Communist” means about as much as North Korea calling themselves a" Democratic People’s Republic" if you don’t actually implement it’s ideas.

Additionally, all attempts at democracy, and all instances of capitalism, have resulted in tyranny, because it’s just really hard to build a society that doesn’t do that no matter what governmental system and economic system you set out to establish.

Even places like New Zealand or the Nordic countries which are much closer to a social democracy are tyrannical insofar as they participate, propagate, and benefit from a global network of capitalism that is only possible through the exploitation of hundreds millions, if not billions of people. Outsourcing your tyranny and exploitation to other places on the planet is still tyranny.and exploitation: it just has better PR.

Yeah the movie doesn’t paint them as good guys though? The narrator comes in and states that they aren’t at that point, and stereotypical Barbie leaves because she can’t see herself as taking part in such a system anymore.

Same. I was thinking the exact same thing at that point. A massive part of the movie’s message hinges on that line and I smiled so wide when I heard it because it clicked much of the rest of the film into place.

“Stereotypical Barbie” (the Margot Robbie one) actually seems to get it by the end. In fact, her main character arc was going from being like the other barbies—watered down stereotypes of feminism—to actually a feminist who has a better grasp of why just equalizing out positions of power, while still good, does not address the root of patriarchy.

That doesn’t make any sense though. Communism isn’t when you “give power to the state.” It’s a word used to describe a specific economic system that China does not have. The word that best describes what I think you’re getting at is “authoritarian.” Words mean things, and if a thing doesn’t fit the definition of a word, then it isn’t that word.

Man here. I disagree.

The movie is only “antagonistic towards men” if you think the Kens are somehow supposed to be a 1:1 realistic depiction of real life men which is something not only not textually supported but also actively and explicitly contradicted by the film

The kens aren’t stupid because they’re men, they’re stupid because they’re Ken Dolls. Both Kens and Barbies are highly hyperbolic depictions of how little girls play with Barbies and Kens.

Personally, I found the movie to be very empowering as a man too. I’d recommended rewatching it and trying to think critically about what the movie is doing. It’s a film, not an after school special where every character is supposed to be a direct black-and-white representation of “thing good” or “thing bad”