Aren't the animators supposed to appear in the credits? If so do the producers ever meet these guys?

I think he knew exactly what he was doing but "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent, it just means you can't prove mens rea.

/facepalm

No, not Antarctica, rather regions further away from the equator will become arable land even without it. And as it turns out, the further away from the equator you go, there's more landmass overall without even considering Antarctica. That's not a coincidence either because Earth's rotation naturally raises the sea levels at the equator while also lowering them elsewhere. In fact, if there was no rotation, all of Canada and Europe would be under water with one big contiguous land bridge spanning the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Either way, this disaster scenario you're dreaming up would take place over multiple centuries, not decades.

Though I personally think civilization will collapse from one of either receiving a direct coronal mass ejection or a rapid polar shift severely weakening the magnetosphere long before this happens, both of which are completely outside of our control and are far more likely to occur first.

Well so far it looks like they're planning on selling indulgences. Basically the idea Al Gore championed that turns out to be anywhere between totally pointless and totally a scam.

This isn't just fecebook, this is anything really. My main comments from that come from seeing slashdot posts back in the earlier days of posts getting +5 insightful moderation because some derp was complaining that Google maps was collecting data from his searches without paying him. Srsly wtf...just stop fucking using it? Not hard.

They do that literally every single time you click through EULAs and privacy policies. Right now that's the only standard that the law requires. If you want to change that, change the law first. It's never fair to penalize anybody for breaking a law that doesn't exist. And in the US at least, Congress has the power to subpoena them to find out more about what they're doing so that they can draft new laws.

None of this is even relevant anymore. Sure, there was a better case back then because that was the only means of instant telecommunication across large distances. But nowadays there's plenty of alternative means to reach people electronically. If there's somebody you want to contact on fecebook but you don't want to use it anymore, ask them for their signal username or something like that. That's exactly what I do. If they don't give you another way to contact them, then there's probably more to that than fecebook.

I don't know what capitalism has to do with anything. People lie all the time out of habit, but usually in a way that's immaterial. I suppose in one way it could apply is if a salesman tries to give you an impression that something is worth more than it actually is, but that's just part of negotiating, and as the buyer you ultimately pay whatever you feel it's worth to you. Even if you're not in sales, you do this all the time. For example, everybody embellishes their own work history and skills when they apply for a job with the expectation that the buyer -- namely those hiring you -- are supposed to realistically be able to judge whether you're even qualified for the job, and if so, how much your labor is worth to them.

Besides, historically, under other systems, especially socialism, the lies tend to be far more insidious and wide ranging. There's basically no negotiation on anything and you can only buy whatever the central planners decide to make available to you, and then tell you that it's the best in the world. In all regions of the USSR, take east Germany for example, the only car you could buy was a total shitbox that was uncomfortable to ride in, burned just as much oil as petrol, handled like shit, slow as fuck, and took thirteen years from order to delivery, but rest assured it was the best the world had to offer! But that's not even the worst. Take for example the nuclear reactor designs used in the USSR -- a choice they made specifically because it was cheap, nevertheless they were well aware of how things could (and ultimately did) go wrong, not to mention failsafe containment structures common in the west (and that saved TMI from a similar fate) were considered expensive and unnecessary. And if Gorbachev is to be believed, ultimately resulted in the downfall of the entire system.

Unless the lie is materially fraudulent, yeah. I guarantee you've done it yourself multiple times, though to you it's only bad when other people do it.

Because it costs trillions of dollars to retrofit a city?

Source? Billions at worst. Like I said, this is a solved problem, and places like Amsterdam have solved this for way less than "Trillions".

Yeah I don't get this whole "you have a right to social media" crap that people like to imply. Believe me, I despise fecebook, but asking anybody to provide services for nothing, or worse yet, the idea that "if the internet company uses my data it must pay me money even though it already provides something I value dearly in exchange" is just bonkers.

But...what if the "ok" side of "pay or ok" mandates that users are ok to consent, but in exchange fecebook has to disclose, in detail, everything their data was used for, who exactly it was sold to, and indefinitely recursively, what the buyer used it for, who they sold to, etc. And of course, fecebook is liable for any data brokers they sell to failing to disclose anything such as who it was sold to, data breaches, etc.

That's not at all why. We don't do domestic rare earth (mainly lithium) mining due to environmental (over)concerns. The cost of going through the whole environmental red tape makes it generally not worth it.

It took over three years of fighting in court with expensive legal costs just to get this done: https://electrek.co/2023/02/07...

And THAT was in a desert even. And of course, there's the whole "this land is sacred to indigenous tribes unless you pay the right price" crap that happens no matter where you do it.

The market is already oversaturated. Besides, whenever competitors come along, fecebook tends to rip off whatever features it has rendering the competitor's product moot given it doesn't have anywhere near the reach the former has, meaning few people will bother. In various lawsuits, emails from zuckerfuck have surfaced where he specifically admits to doing it for the express purpose of killing off competitors. First he tries a buyout, then when they don't sell he does that. Same shit apple does (though they're worse because they often don't even offer a buyout, they poach and then blatantly infringe on patents while suing the shit out of competitors that try the same.)

It's so bad that even when well funded competitors enter the market, it never works out.

But YouTube doesn't have an unwanted metaverse to build.

You made the rookie mistake of assuming I was engaged in some kind of a debate. You'd think the first sentence would have...well...you know.

Karl Marx himself stated that inevitably we would all end up being communists (based on his really bad understanding of anthropology that his philosophy itself is based on) but that the existing democratic systems would only get in the way and delay the inevitable, so a violent revolution to overthrow democracy and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary and justified to bring it about sooner. And then of course during this dictatorship of the proletariat, all other political parties must be banned, and all capital (including money, machinery, land) must be seized from anybody who has it leaving them only with their personal property. And then society as a whole must be conditioned over a long period of time under socialism until they start doing what they're able to give away their labor for free to each according to his need.

Now here's the kicker: No democracy or free speech or anything meanwhile, because that might allow counter-revolutionaries to interfere with the process, thus slowing it down. Democracy is only allowed once some arbitrary goal is met where the dictatorship (of those considered sufficiently proletariat enough) is satisfied that society is ready to move on to being stateless and classless, though there will still only be one allowed political party regardless, which is somehow democratic, nevermind that without a state or laws, democracy is moot.

Obviously there are a lot of problems with this, and all kinds of ways that this can (and in hindsight, does) go wrong. For starters, we saw what happens during this initial forced equality stage: Mass famine. Why? Well, it turns out that the people who owned factories, farms, etc, for any meaningful amount of time actually know how to properly run them, and capitalism filtered out the ones who didn't pretty quickly. So when you take it and turn it over to people who simply think they can run it (often just because they worked there previously, and are often the ones that capitalism filtered out previously) then the production turns to shit. Sure, people do labor, but it turns out that labor and production aren't the same thing. So much for Marx's labor theory of value...

And the people with the authority to run the government, especially the ones determined to be sufficiently proletariat enough to run it, turn out to be really bad at picking people to run said farms and factories. And when they make bad choices, it takes a literal act of congress to correct them, but it's hard to even get that considering such complaints about the people in charge could be considered counter-revolutionary rhetoric.

But don't worry, sooner or later the party promises that you'll get your democracy back, just it will be a single party democracy of course, and only after you've all been good boys, according to its rules that have to keep changing as they try to replicate the successes of capitalism but without having capitalism.

So yes, communism is very democratic, according to communists.

You hear that rsilvergun? If you feel so unequal, give China a try! They'll welcome you with open arms. You'll love it there!