I mean, this was their idea last year…

Forever “Subscription Mouse”

I feel like “AI Mouse” is right up their alley.

deleted by creator

I’m not usually impacted by celebrities but I was hit surprisingly hard by the death of John Bain aka TotalBiscuit on YouTube. Why? He just kind of seemed like a regular, fairly young gamer and decent dude who just wanted to let people know whether a game might be worth buying… and then suddenly surprise, cancer. A shit ton of treatment and four years later, gone. It just felt like a reminder that life is random and unfair.

Hi 👋 I’m your AI news assistant, trained on Apple Valley News! Have any questions about this story? Tap a prompt below or ask me about anything!

And a terrible reminder of how things are going for us humans…

That was an example of a situation where time zones make sense. Any time it is important where the sun is in the sky, the time that it occurs will differ depending on where you are in the world. When is lunch break? When do backups run? When can you see the eclipse? If we weren’t in an interconnected world, it wouldn’t matter much but we need some convention to communicate information that is dependent on where the sun is, as that very often dictates human activity.

It seems like a universal time makes sense but I can’t think of a way to get around the fact that activity will vary according to timezones anyway.

And there are no other external factors that could possibly influence their compensation besides their objective “worth” to the hiring organization?

Edit: To clarify, might personal bias from the employer lead to a higher compensation? If two CEOs are interviewed and one went to the same college as several members of the board, or if several members of the board know one personally, but the known CEO isn’t as accomplished… is it possible that the CEO benefitting from bias is going be hired? Will the benefitting CEO receive a lower compensation, higher compensation, or the same compensation?

Is it possible for a CEO to lie about their ability and get hired under false pretenses? Is it possible for a CEO to be hired for political or “public image” reasons rather than talent/productivity reasons? Are these reflected in their compensation?

I suppose the context of condiment vs. ingredient is enough. I don’t think many recipes use ketchup/catsup and most meals don’t leave tomato sauce out to be used as a condiment.

What I consider ketchup/catsup includes much more sugar and vinegar than what I consider tomato sauce. Is that not the case where you are from or is there a different word used?

We should stop using time zones

Check this out. I’m a business with at least one office in every US state. You want to know when my New York office opens so you can come by. Instead of seeing “Offices are open 9 AM to 5 PM” You now need to check every office… by state… by city? Time zones would be helpful even if we all used GMT, so that you could easily determine which time zone a business is in to set a reasonable time to be open.

DST can fuck off though.

The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent.

I see. So you are saying that every CEO is paid what they are worth?

Calling someone “blue MAGA” is the equivalent of saying “no you!”

However, it’s time to stop pretending like some small group of “MAGA” conservatives have hijacked the party and taken things too far. The monied interests backing Trump are the same as have been backing Republicans for decades. The Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. Mitch McConnell has been working to fill the federal courts with Federalist picks for a long time. Picking or just outright manufacturing court cases that would set new precedents. Hell, even those thinktanks are just recent iterations of the same interest’s attempts to shape the government as they see fit. Trump is just a nepo baby turned grifter who got lucky because his grift was actually effective at attracting and controlling the loudest segment of the Republican base.

Trump just transparently said “As long as I get filthy rich, get to be king, and you keep [metaphorically] sucking my dick, I’ll keep my followers in line and use my position to put your people in power so they can implement your ‘Project 25’ or whatever.” Republicans mostly objected to him because he lacked subtlety and was transparently greedy and petty. He ignored the game of slow, subtle changes and manipulation through “decorum” that Republicans had become experts in. Unfortunately for us, that worked wonders on a subset of the population

The people who helped those Republican politicians keep getting elected and basically wrote their proposed laws noticed Trump was popular. When it became apparent that Trump’s followers were loyal, the money jumped at the chance to fast track their vision and backed him completely. They helped tweak and hone Trump’s message to amplify his grifter magic. That plus some changes to election laws around the country, gerrymandering, and likely other more covert, extralegal vote manipulation got him back in power.

There is a series "The Alt Right Playbook" that covers a lot of bad faith and manipulative tactics, many of which are used online.

Thanks for being so detailed!

I use caddy for straightforward https, but every time I try to use it for a service that isn’t just a reverse_proxy entry, I really struggle to find resources I understand… and most of the time the “solutions” I find are outdated and don’t seem to work. The most recent example of this for me would be Baikal.

Do you have any recommendations for where I might get good examples and learn more about how do troubleshoot and improve my Caddyfile entries?

Thanks!

the problem is the human element

I absolutely agree. The difference is that the incentives of capitalism virtually guarantee exploitation and inequality. It’s a system that encourages the concentration of wealth and power. Antisocial and anticompetitive tactics maximize returns and ensure that bad actors willing to put profit above anything else benefit the most and rise to the top as leaders and bosses. It relies on competition and, assumes “market forces” will self correct an imbalanced system… eventually.

Unless you want a brutal, unstable system where power and wealth accumulate and get concentrated until a violent shift (hopefully) collapses that power and eventually market forces pick a new “winner” you need regulation to keep the profit motive in check and competition fair. Still, the rules of the system encourage regulatory capture as competitive actors try to gain advantage however they can, regardless of the impact on the general population.

Socialism, honestly, has become a weird catch-all term for critiques of capitalism looking to align the goals of society toward democracy and equality. There is a ton of theory and different methods of achieving or implementing such a society but that’s kind of where I see things.

Within that eventual ideal society there is still the ability for people to exploit each other for power. The human element doesn’t disappear. The idea is that it is harder when the goal of the system is to ensure everyone has what they need and everyone gets a say in how things are done. The system needs to be built and tweaked with checks and balances to ensure that power doesn’t get concentrated without the ability for the greater population to redistribute that power.

Basically, unless you are a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism (no government involvement) then you recognize the danger posed by unfettered capitalism. Socialism attempts to change the incentives so that society can be designed, fundamentally, to minimize the danger posed by that human element. It recognizes that a democratic and fair capitalist society is an oxymoron.

I have a challenge for you. Again, assuming you are not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, think about the ways that our capitalist society could be improved by new regulation or the removal or adjusting of existing bad regulation (Edit: regulation is meant to include laws, taxes, etc). How many of those regulations don’t exist - were proposed and shot down - because those empowered by capitalism (Edit: **who have achieved disproportionate wealth and power via capitalism and wish to maintain their status) have fought tooth and tail to prevent them? How many of those bad, restrictive, existing regulations were implemented, or twisted, by those empowered by capitalism?

Edit: Look around the world at the questionable actions performed by the United States and ask why did the US do that? What was their incentive? More often than not, it involves preserving and furthering the power of those who already hold a disproportionate amount of power in that capitalist society.

When I was a kid my mother’s boyfriend bragged of doing exactly this. He heard them having a conversation in another language at a gas station, approached them, and started speaking to them in German. When they were confused he allegedly said exactly the phrase. You are in America, speak English. He thought it was hysterical.

He may have been full of shit, but the fact that he felt it worth bragging about said enough about him.

As another IT guy here, it could also be a shitty method of analysis that he got from ChaptGPT. As an amateur coder/script writer, the kinds of code I’ve seen people use from these bots is disturbing. One of my coworkers asked me for help after trying to cobble together something from bots. There were variables declared and never used, variables that were never assigned values but that were used in expressions… it was like it attempted to do that ransom note made from magazine letters but they couldn’t spell coherently.

Pet ownership is inherently selfish and self-deluded,

I can see that perspective and I don’t totally disagree. Dogs and cats (which are devastating to local ecosystems), seeming to be explicitly domesticated animals with no place in the wild, are potential special cases. The only alternative in my mind would be to neuter/spay the lot of them and that seems just as fucked up as owning them… so that’s honestly not really something I care to get into. I haven’t spent much time thinking about that topic.

pet owners cannot be expected to be responsible.

That’s a statement with insanely broad implications. Replace pet owners with “gun owners” or “drivers of cars” or “airline pilots”. It’s a subset of people that are not so special that they cannot be made responsible. Anyone with the capacity to understand and who is of sound mind can be expected to be responsible if society holds them to that standard.

Unless your point is to reiterate your objection to having a pet being irresponsible, in which case… ok.

WE LICENSE THOSE ACTIVITIES

Honestly, I’d be perfectly fine with more strict licensing of pets. Technically, my region does license dogs but it’s more of a system to make sure you vaccinate them and a fee to help fund pet-related efforts like animal and rabies control.

My only concern is that the licensing body needs to be robust and funded well enough to not pass an unreasonable cost onto applicants… which I feel applies to pretty much any licensing system.

Two of my friends that ended up with rescues that were mostly pitbull had to go through a whole process with several visits and interviews and a follow up some time after the rescue was placed in their custody. That was the rescue agency though not a licensing body.

…and how many neighborhoods, insurance companies, etc have rules against pitbulls?

There is no way that the full picture of breed ownership is tainted by purposely reporting the breed as one that wouldn’t cause the owner to pay more for insurance, get dropped by insurance, kicked out of their rental unit, etc?

Most of the dogs I know have significant amounts of pitbull in their blood. Their owners are not pitbull fanatics - they just rescued a dog from a service and found out it was 50+% pitbull. The one friend who has close to pure (90+%) pitbulls literally rescued them from the streets. Like found the dog with no tags and no chip somewhere near where they live, spent weeks advertising to find its owner, and decided to keep it when no owner surfaced.

Even if they were psychologically identical to every other dog

That’s literally my point - they basically are. I won’t argue that pitbulls are more capable of harming someone due to their physical characteristics. That’s just physics.

Horses are also large, powerful animals and they cause at least a few deaths every year by trampling or kicking humans when provoked, spooked, startled, or whatever - I’m not really a horse person. Obviously, large powerful animals can absolutely cause more damage than lap-sized animals. That doesn’t mean they are the equivalent of a monster from a horror movie that could rip someone to shreds at any moment with no provocation. Not does it mean that anyone who owns one is an irresponsible, naive threat to society.

If you are a responsible owner, the dog or horse isn’t an unreasonable danger.

Sorry you feel personally attacked when someone says pitbulls are dangerous.

I don’t feel personally attacked, but many other people feel personally attacked when someone questions their opinion on pitbulls. I just feel bad for the animals.

Ah yes, I see. You have made assertions that align with the typical narrative and stereotype around a breed of dogs, then demonstrated the assertion’s validity by stating it is a belief held in your neighborhood.

I have completely changed my mind and will now ignore all of my own experiences and knowledge on the topic because a random person asserted a stereotype and stated that people believe and act on a stereotype. I guess that’s it. Debate over.