My bad then! I just saw options for a trial and a one-time purchase, didn’t realize there was a subscription.

Honestly glad to see the option. I’ll take a one-time purchase any day.

It’s a one-time purchase.

edit: It’s a one-time purchase for the “pro” version. I’ve been using the free version for a while and really enjoying it. I’ve been thinking of upgrading more to support the developers than for the added features.

Totally understood, and I apologize for implying you might have. It was not my attention. I just meant that, even though it’s something I avoid jumping to conclude, it does happen, and there’s reason to believe it’s the case with Rowling. She’s got issues. It doesn’t absolve her of anything, but there’s a little pity in my condemnation.

Yeah. I know that calling bigots secretly closeted is problematic, but IIRC she has outright said that, if she were a young person today, she would question her gender identity.

JK Rowling did that not too long ago. (She didn’t call it Jewish, but absolutely called it lies and propaganda that trans people and trans researchers were early targets for the Nazis and victims of the Holocaust.)

I don’t say this to obsess over the Harry Potter author, but to point out that you don’t have to go cherry picking to find this shit. She’s a prominent person using her platform to spread bigotry and misinformation.

It might even be simpler than that. Capitalism just doesn’t care past the next quarter. And when ownership is disconnected from labor or even from customer, than it’s just a really rudimentary collective intelligence. The shareholders just want the line to go up, and everyone in the corporate structure is accountable to the shareholders, so they all do their part, big or little, to make that happen. It completely dispenses with personal responsibility, whether for negative externalities, direct harm, or even the future as close as months from now.

The last time Google pulled out all the stops to fight ad blockers, I had to update uBlock Origin every now and then until the whole thing passed. That’s all.

So I’m not worried. But I am amused that they keep making ads more obnoxious, which pushes more people to use ad blockers. I didn’t even use sponsorblock until a particularly egregious bit of native advertising. They could probably gain ground by just making ads less irritating, but they absolutely will not.

Are we talking about the same Akinator? In my experience, it used to be great, but has been dogshit for years.

…Is this an element behind the “we’re a republic, not a democracy” bullshit?

I mean, I know it’s nonsense, and I know it’s fascists testing the waters for being openly anti-democracy, but is it also just playing into the names of the two major parties? It’s so silly I genuinely never considered it before, but it’s depressingly plausible.

I quit Spotify when the “New Library Experience” completely fucked the music library side of the app. If you mostly use playlists, it was a lateral change. If you used it to collect some songs here, and album there, and keep them all sorted, it’s like it dumped your entire collection on the floor and expected a thank-you for the new organization system.

My guess, as others have mentioned, is that Spotify tries to squeeze more profits by pushing certain songs, whether because they get paid to promote them, or the royalties are lower. That’s easier to do with their playlists and recommendations, so they pushed people to that side of the app by making everything else dogshit. And now, apparently, the curated side took it too far and is awful, too.

I still use Apple Music, which is one of like two services that actually let you organize your music in a sensible way outside of playlists. That said, after I cut cords with video streaming services and set up my own library, I think I might do the same with music.

And their recommendation engine sucks.

Netflix used to be famously good at suggesting films. Articles were written about it, and there was even a cash reward for anyone who could contribute to its performance. Then it just turned to shit.

And the funny thing is that it would have helped counteract the shrinking library. Sure, there would be fewer films on the platform, so you’d be less likely to find a specific title, but at least you could select a film Netflix recommended based on your past ratings and be fairly confident you’d enjoy it. Now? Absolutely not.

A big part of the confusion comes from the fact that different people will use these terms differently.

In a capitalist framework, there’s private property and public property. Either an individual (or or specific group) own something, anything, or it’s owned by the government.

In a socialist framework, private property is distinguished from personal property. Personal property is your stuff that you use for yourself. Your coat, your car, your TV, etc. Private property is the means of production, or capital—things that increase a worker’s ability to do useful work. Think factories or companies, where ownership in and of itself, regardless of labor, would make the owner money. Socialists think that kind of private property shouldn’t exist, because it means wealthy people can just own stuff for a living, profiting off of the people who do the work.

Housing can go either way. Owning a home for yourself and your family would be far closer to personal property, while owning an apartment building to collect rent would be far closer to private property.

Socialism, for the most part and historically, is an umbrella term describing social rather than private ownership. That would include anarchism, which largely synonymous with “libertarian socialism.” Lenin, on the other hand, used it to more specifically refer to an intermediate stage between capitalism in communism, so you might see people using that more narrow definition to exclude anarchists, democratic socialists, etc.

Thanks! I actually took time to make my comment shorter, so I’m glad I successfully got straight to the points. :)

Also, to be blunt… we’ve seen this before. We know from recent history what happens when the DNC nominates the safe, centrist, establishment candidate, who fails to appeal to voters and loses to a Republican. That was 2016. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. And who did the DNC rally behind right before Super Tuesday? That’s right… Joe Biden.

If you think it would help, sure thing!

Hoo boy. Against my better judgment, I’ll wade into this pool.

1. If voting for either party gets you the same result, fascists wouldn’t be so focused on elections and trying so hard to take the vote away.

2. Withholding your vote doesn’t do anything. When has losing an election pushed either party left?

3. Voting doesn’t prevent you from engaging in other forms of direct action.

Both parties suck. People will needlessly suffer and die no matter who wins. But there are also people who will suffer and die under one party but not the other, and the same can’t be said the other way around. Our democracy is fundamentally flawed, but voting is a tool at our disposal, and we’re in no position to turn anything down.

Yeah, that drove me absolutely up the wall. Russia’s economy was liberalized after the fall of the Soviet Union, and China even invited Milton Goddamn Friedman to consult on their economic plans.

For real, it’s scary how quickly transphobia can get a grip on someone, to the point it becomes a singular focus, and something people are willing to destroy their own lives for.

Specifically, I’m thinking of Graham Linehan. Other famous and successful people have let transphobia take over their lives and tarnish their reputations, but that dude lost his reputation, can’t get work anymore, even destroyed his own marriage… but can’t stop. I think he subconsciously realizes that, if he’s wrong about this, he lost everything for nothing, so he can’t ever even entertain the idea.

It’s amazing how quickly they’ll pivot from “I have science on my side” to “The science is wrong.”

They don’t form opinions based on evidence, they judge evidence based on their opinions.