Manticore

joined 2 years ago
[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Phone proximity is used, so if your phone is in proximity to his, the algorythm can note a relationship between his interests and yours- or even the interests of people who also interact with him.

It's possible his behaviour is learned from a narcissistic parent, or that enough of his customers are involved in learning about narcissism. OR you also mightve been at a Cafe near a clinic for long enough your phone tried to ping the office wifi, and you just noticed it because of your interactions with him.

Google also uses your relationships, so maybe a person you know is interested, or you watched a video about (blank) and a lot of those viewers also watched narcissism videos. Your brain is asking the connection to the contractor because it's an intuitive logical leap.

Phones spy on us in a dozen different ways, mostly pattern recognition. They track location without GPS (by recording wifi pings), and track interests without the microphone. So they can claim they're not tracking those specific things while still gathering scary amounts of data.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

So a loan of $10 million has like $5mil taxed right away? You get $5mil to spend, and still owe the bank like $12mil? Those interest rates are insane, and will definitely affect the working class more than the ultra-wealthy. Specifically businesses, which will increase giants' monopolies. And you can't make businesses an exception, because then the ultra-wealthy will borrow through those.

The money is not the problem. Money isn't real, it's just a tool that represents power and resources. There's nothing you can do to tax or control money itself because what wealthy people have is all the resources, and they can leverage them with or without money.

You can't tax your way out of hierarchal Capitalism. The rich are paying as much tax as the current system legally asks of them - which is very little, when your wealth is in resources and not money.

The poor and workers are more affected by taxes and costs because most of our worth is in money. Once you have enough to start investing and have resources, your worth can grow rapidly.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Well if it doesn't, sell your stock to yourself a la Elon Musk, who sold X at a loss to XAI (a company he also majority owns). The 'loss' of ~6bil in value (iirc) means he can now gain ~6bil from any other sources without paying gains tax.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 22 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

Billionaires technically don't have much personal wealth. They leverage their illiquid assets as collateral to take out massive loans. Which they can later cover with taking out even bigger loans.

The liquid wealth of the wealthy is very low, technically in debt. This is another way they can avoid paying tax as they technically don't have much of anything, and the reason why 'declining to take a salary' is typically meaningless.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago

It is more accurate, but for most people it probably makes it more work. If most [Group A] need [Item A], it gets labelled that way so they can be sectioned that way. It probably would be better, especially for more uncommon shapes, to use measurements. But most people don't want to do that for everything, they want an easy answer so they can go home. A lot of women I know have never bothered to get their bra size professionally measured, and that's a readily available service that saves so much literal pain.

Reminds me of mens/womens deoderant. IIRC the real difference is that one is creamier (for body hair) and the other is powdery (for shaved skin). So sometimes men might want women's deoderant or vice versa, and the labelling CAN obfuscate that.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I recommend re-lacing. Autocorrect changed it to 'replace', but changing how your shoes are laced really helps. I have a very high arch, and found that I didn't actually need much arch support in the shoe itself, I just needed the tongue not to be pushing down on it. It means the shoes now feel tight and secure around my ankle and toe, I don't have to go up a size to fit my arch. Much more comfortable!

Feel like giving it a try?

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago

I guess they can't fight the suit because it's too expensive. Because they were in NZ first, they have no claim to a patent here as far as I'm aware.

Like, Burger King is called Hungry Jack's in Australia, because a small business had already registered under that name. And they deal with it.

This US business might claim Cinnabon(?) but the entitlement of this claim is maddening. Imagining joining a DnD game halfway through and demand now the sorcerer as to roll a new character because you want to be a wizard... fuck off lol

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

It's normal for men to have wider feet, with a wider and longer toebox compared to the length of the foot. Length is only one dimension of several. (Though a lot of people don't think to re-lace* their shoes for arches.)

It's unclear how much of that is upbringing. The toebox length is gendered, but toe and foot width go up wen spending a lot of time barefoot, and toe width goes down in pointed shoes that can eve n make toes 'tuck' and cause bunions.

A women's 9 1/2 double-wide fits me about the same as a plain Men's 7. Women's dress shoes are rarely in wide, and NEVER double-wide. Though I've found success with Aussie brands because going barefoot is normal there and so the shoes are often wider for everyone. We're also seeing the toebox become a more slanted natural foot shape, instead of the weird point symmetrical one.

Bodies can be complicated, and one size/shape isn't for everyone. The way we live and dress absolutely changes the shoes we need, too.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 28 points 1 week ago

Sure, but the children are people; they do not have the experience of wisdom to make choices and rely on adults to teach them wisdom from their experience.

It's not your job, but those kids are the ones paying for their parents' value system, and so the adults teaching them aren't teaching them well. Children are people, and are being let down. Theyre not kitset projects for parents.

One day those people will be expected to make their own choices, and the only foundation they'll have to decide with is what they're taught now. It's not your job, but it's everybody's civic responsibility to contribute to a healthier collective society, and children are a part of that.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'd separate it into individual bills and hide in half-assed places. Searchers would end up scrambling and getting sloppy, rushing to find bills before anybody else. Like an Easter egg hunt, their greed would be their undoing, because I can tell you from experience that 2hr is not enough time to find 100 of anything in a madhouse, even $100 bills.

But also money in my country are coated plastic so perhaps I could hide a portion of it in the shower trap, which is easy to quickly hide (but gross). The easily found Easter Cash would discourage anybody slowing down enough to be thorough. Consider the mind games an investment.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

God I loved that character. Wish he lasted longer, I found his absurdism waaaay funnier than his son's rape jokes.

What a way to go though.

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

I'm not. Most people are very passive politically and only know what the evening nees mentions. Most of them probably don't know who AOC is (or perhaps only knows her by 'AOC' and the forms used her full name).

Harris is their default poll vote because they recognise her name

view more: next ›