feetsoup · HackerTrans

7 months agodiscuss

The person he was responding to was claiming that "literally everyone creating media" is permitted to be used as a source on Wikipedia, which isn't true. There are some issues that are niche enough that the only articles written by 'reliable sources' on them are articles written with ulterior motives. Even if the line between reliable and unreliable is defined in a way we can all agree on, the problem still remains that Wikipedia is only as trustworthy/unbiased as the secondary sources it derives its content from (the claim in the OP).

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

Alternatively you could use 'most people', or any one of several equivalent expressions, and preserve the meaning of everyone as every one. There is an aroma of manipulation around using language that gives the impression of absolute consensus even if all parties involved understand its vernacular meaning. It's embellishment in service of influencing people and rightly denounced in any context where accurate communication is important.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

I think it could be better in that you get a more rounded perspective of what people think, and develop greater empathy for the hang-ups that people have and understand the patterns they develop along. It's certainly more comfortable to insulate yourself from those negative ideas, and everyone has to determine for themselves how much of it they can take, but ultimately I think it's positive for personal growth.

And these 'clinically retarded' people, as you call them, have all of the same rights you do, including the right to vote. It's antithetical to democratic and egalitarian values to imply that a value is lesser somehow because many of the people who hold it have intellectual disabilities. If anything you could just as easily say the reason people with disabilities hold these fringe ideas are because they aren't included in the public discourse, and we have failed to learn to communicate with them effectively enough to instill them with our values.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

I bet you're fun at parties.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

Pretty sure you can commit crimes in your bedroom, and pretty sure a crime is easier to get away with when you have a private space to do it/hide stuff in.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

Care to expand on this?

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

Fair enough, perhaps I'm bringing some biases into this since I think online discussion has a tendency to be very dismissive of less sensational or impactful topics. I really don't think you're defending the pricing strategy, trivialization of criticism isn't necessarily a defense of the object of criticism, although for how often the two are conflated I could see why you would think that is how your opinions are being seen.

I don't think households need to be spending 8% more of money they don't have (if we're considering rising household debt) when they go out shopping. The issue is probably more evocative than it logically should be for some people because of the aroma of deception around it. Making superficial changes to price to take advantage of human distortions in quantity to get them to spend more has at least a shade of deception to it (I don't say that as a valid argument, just hoping to lend some context for why people would get worked up over it).

If you don't think that's adequate to make it a 'problem'... well, fair enough, I'm not entirely convinced either. But I'm not seeing a very strong case being made for the contrary, besides 'other things are more important' and the interesting claim that consumers must not be impacted because they're still buying these products ("Of course they love their job, wouldn't they quit otherwise?")

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

Regarding point 2, it seems strange to ask 'what changes?' when the point of the article you're commenting on is showing how and why you spend more when presented with 9-ending items. If it was found to make consumers spend 8% more, quite a lot changes - and in a time of unprecedented household debt in the US, it seems like tactics contrived to get people to spend more are very much worthy of discussion.

Either way, it's a bit disingenuous to frame it as 'just a penny' (the actual quantity of money being spent isn't the point, it's the effect on people's spending habits) and bringing up some other problem to nullify concerns around this one is just bald-faced whataboutism. You can say you don't really care, and that may be true about addressing the problem, but making arguments for why this isn't actually a problem suggests you care about the topic in a way that compels you to dismiss it, at the very least.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

That's easy to say, but when it comes to shopping at the store, picking up several items and not actively thinking about it, are you really sure you aren't unconsciously interpreting that 9.99 differently from 10? Personally, I like to think that doesn't work on me, but at the same time I've caught myself saying something was '9 dollars' when I've been distracted and it was in fact 9.99.

And even if 9.99 really is 10 for you, it could mean that you're different than most people, rather than the methodology being faulty.

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

>In a functioning regulatory environment [...] you wouldn't have industries where any one company has more than 15% of the market.

Is that realistic? Intuition is telling me that's very idealistic but I'm prepared to be surprised

feetsoup

2 years agodiscuss

> In other words do we have a framework for deciding on additional punishment for repeat offense?

Yes, and you should be able to find how it's handled in your state fairly easily. The fact that you don't know that, and that you're generally focusing on the rhetoric rather than ideas, makes me wonder if you're interested in the subject or just arguing...

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

I'm curious about that last part, harmful extremes of consumption informing every other aspect of our lives, if you'd like to expand on that.

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

I'm assuming the person I replied to was insinuating that the people with an influential amount of voting stock are adequate representatives of the interests of small fry investors building up for retirement. My response is that if the former has the option to increase their share of wealth at the expense of the latter (like rearranging the leadership in a way that promotes short term gain at the expense of long term gain), they will take it. They're interested in their numbers, not any particular company, or the health of the market, or retirees.

Thank you for asking for clarification. I realize I responded precipitously and was too cryptic to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

THEIR numbers going up, is the part you may be overlooking in that.

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

To earn a return on your investment. Maximizing that return in the next quarter by threatening to take a controlling stake in the company falls into this category of course, but it's silly to think it is the exclusive mode. The point the other poster is trying to make is that it's absurd to pretend the options are 'unilateral control of the company is determined by shares' and 'shareholders are being negatively impacted by their investment'.

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

I think what they're referring to is the global increase in light pollution they cause. This article goes over the consequences for both astronomy and the broader human experience if you're interested.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01904-2

feetsoup

3 years agodiscuss

'Art made out of money' is conceptually played out; this is much more interesting. In this case, the art isn't sensible matter on the canvas, but the intelligible matter of its creation.

Clearly, it was effective on the museum director, if he laughed at loud and put it on display, and it's captivating in general if it being newsworthy is any proof.

I'm not saying the museum is wrong for trying to get the money back, just that this isn't fraud. The artist requested materials to make a piece of art, the museum granted the request, and the artist utilized those materials by way of 'taking the money and running'. Take that away and the piece doesn't exist anymore - it's just a blank canvas, which is as tired as it gets.

comments