How many Russians have died in Ukraine? Data shows what Moscow hides
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml Posts 16Comments 363Joined 2 yr. ago
133arc585 @ 133arc585 @lemmy.ml
Posts
16
Comments
363
Joined
2 yr. ago
If they use them purely on open battlefields then it’s not such an issue.
What is an "open battlefield" during a war is no longer a battlefield after the war is over. After the war is over, if you've littered what used to be a battlefield with unexploded bombs, you've ruined that area of land and made it extremely dangerous to civilians.
It is indeed surprising, but it's just words. He'll say this, then continue sending financial and military support. Nothing will come of this.
Liberalism in the USA is a right-wing ideology.
Oh it's absolutely understandable why a good camera (and subsequently a good screen to view pictures on) would matter to some.
It just doesn't to me, at all, and so it's not even the first thing that comes to mind when I think about a phone. I don't like tablet-sized phones because I don't use it all that much and when I do, there's no added benefit of a larger screen over a middle-sized screen (or some higher-resolution display). I don't use the camera at all, and so its quality doesn't matter to me. I don't use a stylus because I'd rather use a pen and notepad.
I'm not criticizing someone wanting those features, I just sometimes need to be told what features are important to other people.
In the USA there’s due process required for authorities to gain access to your private data
This is only the case when the data is being obtained by traditional means. As we've seen recently, authorities buying data from data brokers completely circumvents any sense of due process on a technicality.
Yeah, always invoke your right to remain silent. [...] It baffles me how criminals will sit there and let police interrogate them until they confess. Maybe it’s because they think they can talk their way out of it, but then why confess.
Oh absolutely. Even if you are entirely innocent, the police use psycological manipulation as routine part of interrogation. They'd sometimes rather you get confused as to whether you actually may have done something wrong, and eventually admit to something you didn't do, than to let you go as innocent. There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of "cooperating" (such a loaded and innacurate word in this context), whether you're innocent or guilty.
They're both acceptable in English. The rule is generally "an" if the following word starts with a vowel. But, it gets a bit tricky with initialisms (like URL) because URL is normally pronounced something like "you-are-ell", and not "earl". So the spelling starts with a vowel, but the pronunciation doesn't. Nobody would fault you for using one or the other in a situation like this.
Jesus, that's a rough read. What a horrible person.
So the fact that you didn't answer that but just skirted it and decided the conversation is over is rather telling. How do you justify his behavior? How do you claim that he isn't racist? How do you claim he doesn't have a lack of self-control and anger restraint? I'm genuinely curious how you can see what he does and think that there's a disconnect where repeated bad actions don't reflect poorly on the person doing them.
better cameras, larger displays, better battery life
Gotcha, that's exactly what I was asking. I can see how that could matter to some.
Why not? If the phone is physically still functional, and receives software updates, why does it matter if its 7 years old?
I'm not sure if you're constructing a strawman or if you think you're replying to someone else.
I didn't say whether or not it's abusive.
All I said was that your logic of "if their user count doesn't go down it's not abuse" is bullshit. I went on to bring up the "boiling the frog scenario" to further explain how users can become accustomed to abuse.
So what is he then? If he acts like those things, repeatedly, why is he not those things? Is he doing them for show?
TWiT only has any value because of the rest of the employees: the engineers, the co-hosts, and everyone else that puts it all together. Leo is not what makes the network have value (though of course he was at its founding). I think the network would be better off without him now. I too used to watch since the network started and was there for some of it live, and eventually it got to the point where I couldn't watch any show with him in it (which sucks because I happened to like SN a lot, among others).
the characterization of some of these events is a bit misleading
If you mean the editorializing from that drama website, then I'd agree that it has a very clear bias. That doesn't discount what I really wanted to stress though: the video clips and screenshots, which are primary evidence that themselves are not editorialising, very clearly show a pattern of problematic behavior. There is no excusing a lot of what I linked to in my previous comment.
I think he has his faults and they sometimes interfere with my enjoyment of the podcasts but if he was a truly horrible person, I don’t think many of the people I respect in the tech space would associate with him offline. “A man is known by the company he keeps” often rings true to me but it has also steered me wrong at times.
I'm curious who you have in mind here. But I'll say that people have various reasons for associating with others, even if they're not great people. Money, opportunities/connections/contacts, convenience, etc are all reasons that sometimes make people spend time with bad people.
All I really care about is good insightful content about the things that matter to me and (fortunately/unfortunately depending on your pov) twit is one of the few places to get the kind of long form discussion that I like.
The long-form discussion is not solely enabled by Leo; it would happen just as well without him. In fact, in many situations, it would probably happen better without him. I'm not saying for a moment the network doesn't have value or produce some quality content. My point was, and is, that Leo is a rather nasty person and that if I were an advertiser I would not want to be associated with him.
Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they’ll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content.
This is logical nonsense. If their numbers don't go down, that doesn't make their actions not abusive, it simply indicates that people are willing to put up with the abuse (because they get enough value out of the platform despite the abuse). Whether it is abusive or not is not a numbers game.
People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it.
This means that people still derived enough value from the platform, despite the ads. That is, stopping using the platform would be more of a net loss than accepting ads on the platform. And yet, this doesn't have anything to do with whether it is an abusive practice or not.
In fact, you're touching on something here: ads were initially very brief and intermittent; they've gotten progressively worse and more invasive and so, just as boiling a frog, you can't take peoples' acceptance of the situation at face value. If you've conditioned someone to put up with (worsening) abuse, their seeming acceptance of the situation doesn't mean you aren't being abusive.
What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?
Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.
Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn't even the first time I've seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they'll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.
If you truly believe this drivel, you're doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.
He cheated on his wife with his producer, Lisa, who I think he later went on to marry after leaving his wife.
He showed sexually explicit texts between Lisa and himself on air, not just once, but twice. If that wasn't enough, he also showed his penis on air in much the same way.
He's made racist comments on air, including saying "they all look alike" in reference to black people, and saying blacks and hispanics are responsible for all crime.
He's abusive to his employees, such as when he said "Fuck you you’re dead to me" and threatened to punch Brian Brushwood in the face, after (show hosts) Brian and Justin Robert Young were banned from TWiT with no public reason provided. They didn't badmouth Leo or TWiT, not that that would excuse that behavior anyway. He seemingly can't control his anger, even on air, and verbally attacks his engineers for any mistake they make. He also is no stranger to attacking his guests/co-hosts on air.
Sarah Lane, co-host of one of (if not the) biggest shows on the network at the time, spoke about workplace sexual harassment (it might be worse than it looks). His interview with Cali Lewis is rather uncomfortable to watch; there is a tasteful and appropriate way to have the conversation, and then there's the creepiness with which he approached it. Not to mention how inappropriate it was in the context to really have the conversation at all.
Not that I'm generally a fan of this sort of website, but there's a website devoted to documented Leo's disgusting actions. If you can get past the editorializing, it is still useful to document things that actually happened. You can ignore the editorialising entirely and just watch the video clips they uploaded if that suits you.
Overall, my opinion of the man is:
- He has absolutely no sense of appropriate behavior in a given context. Some actions are acceptable (calling out your engineers for repeat mistakes) but not in all contexts (on air); likewise for attacking guests.
- He is a sexual pervert who can't put in the required effort to keep his professional and sex life adequately separate.
- As an employer, he doesn't treat his employees with respect. That's not to mention workplace sexual harassment.
- He only got as far as he did because he had a massive advantage of having his previous TV shows and radio shows--this is how he got most of his early advertisers (most of whom stuck with the network).
From what I've seen, when they say "pushing it down your throat" what they really mean is "existing while gay". If it isn't hidden, it's apparently being "pushed down your throat".
Also, in the real world, people saying how "awesome it is to be trans lgbtq" are saying how awesome it is to be yourself as someone who is lgbtq. They aren't saying it's awesome compared to not being lgbtq (though one could argue there is value in having different-than-the-majority life experiences). It's just another way to imply that lgbtq people are actively trying to "convert" people to being lgbtq.
I can't speak to phrenology per se, but phrenology's modern analogue is, in my opinion, the "genetics" argument. Whereas phrenology was some attempt to "explain" how the apparent shape was indicative of underlying brain structure, contemporary "scientific" racists will use genetic differences to "explain" whatever behavior they want to attribute to it.
Anyone have a non-paywalled version? It would be nice if you would post the entire article contents as post body if you're going to post paywalled sources, @HowRu68@lemmy.world.