ContrarianTrail

joined 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago

Yle.fi which is Finnish state media, similar to BBC.

Joe Rogan Experience, Modern Wisdom, Making Sense, Lex Fridman Podcast to name a few I listen to the most.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Sure, but it's also a fact that many of the YouTubers whose videos I deeply enjoy wouldn't be able to make them if it didn't make them any money

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

How do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don't even finish most of the videos I start watching there, and the ones I do, I'll likely never watch again anyway. Subscribtion seems much more logical profit model to a company like that.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 hours ago

Ah, I see. Live and let live.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

As a non-US citizen, I'm getting the impression that a big number of left-wing voters are voting for Kamala not because she's so great, but because she's not Trump. Similarly, a ton of republicans are voting for Trump because they consider it a vote for the party, not for the candidate, and they sure are not going to vote for a democrat because (insert stereotypical grievances about liberals.)

To me, it seem reasonable to assume, that given the chance, there would be a ton of people on both sides that would rather give their vote to almost anyone else but either of these two, but they don't because they know that a 3rd party can't win and this would just risk the greater or two evils winning.

Why I referenced the prisoner's dilemma is because I mostly see this as a coordination problem. What if instead of tactical voting, everyone just voted for the candidate they actually consider the best one? It's not at all obvious to me that this would still mean that either of the two main candidates would win. This could very well give rise to a 3rd party.

Also, to return to my original point; it doesn't seem immoral to me to vote for 3rd party even if that causes Trump to win by one vote. You did the right thing, rest of the people didn't. If everyone acted like you, it seems to be that this would, in fact, lead to him not winning.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

say 20% of voters in swing states voted third party, it would let the greater evil in

Not in the case of ranked choice voting. If the 3rd party candidate doesn't win the vote goes to the number two choice.

Also, sometimes the lesser evil is still evil. Imagine if the vote was between Trump and literal Hitler.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

But how do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don't want to have to buy each video I watch.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if the right-wing content actually has increased, or if it's just the ratio of it compared to left-wing content as much of the left has seemingly abandoned the platform.

My feed was almost entirely non-political to begin with, and personally, I've hardly noticed any difference, though the little politics that do get thru tend to indeed lean right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

YouTube is my TV. I don't pretty much watch any movies or tv-shows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Politically, I’m pretty much right in the middle. The only news source I follow is fairly neutral, with a slight left-wing bias, whereas Lemmy leans heavily to the left. On the other hand, the podcasts I listen to tend to lean more right, so I’d say I get a balanced diet of views from both sides. This probably explains why, on most political topics, I don’t usually have a strong opinion one way or the other. Whether I’m seen as leaning left or right really depends on the group I’m with. On Lemmy, for instance, I’m basically considered far-right.

 

Every day, I see absolutely moronic comments getting upvoted while perfectly reasonable takes are downvoted. This would be a great opportunity to curate your feed by blocking these users en masse. Active curation like this is the only way to make social media even half-tolerable.

Whether you use it to filter out toxic users or to build an echo chamber, I think everyone should be free to do so. No one should be forced to share space with people they feel bring no value to the discussion - or, worse, make it more toxic.

 

This is especially true with luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Prada. People are either trying to impress others with fakes, or they’ve actually paid full price to become walking billboards.

Similar thing with iPhone cases that have a cutout for the Apple logo. That's just hilarious.

 
 

I often get the sense that I'm in the only one here doing manual labor but I'm sure there are others.

Identify yourselves.

 

For reference, the price for fixed-cost plans is around 10c/kWh.

As someone who’s been constantly running an electric heater in the garage while painting my car, I was quite lucky with the timing.

It’s not literally free, though. Transfer prices are fixed, and there are taxes and some other minor costs associated with it, so where I live, it still adds up to around 6c/kWh even when the price drops to zero. The cheap prices are due to an excess of wind power, but once the wind dies down, prices usually spike hard.

 
 

Because I don’t, and pretending to feels dishonest. I’ll listen if they want to talk about it, but I’m not going to act interested, and I certainly won’t ask about it on my own. What I’m trying to figure out is whether people actually care, or if they’re just playing a social game that I’m simply not interested in.

I’m probably on the autistic spectrum, which likely explains this to some extent. But that’s not an excuse - being an asshole is perfectly compatible with autism, so before dunking on me, please realise I probably agree with your criticism.

 

I read that half of Americans couldn’t cover an unexpected $1,000 expense. This sounds crazy to me. I understand that poverty exists, but the idea that an adult with a job doesn’t even have that amount saved up seems really strange.

What’s your relationship or philosophy with money? What do you credit for your financial success, or alternatively, what do you blame for your failures?

For the extra brave ones: how much savings do you have, and what are you planning to do with them?

 

Personally I'd say cave diving. I was contemplating between that and free ~~climbing~~ soloing but I honestly rather fall to my death than drown in a claustrophobic, dark, cold, silted up cave.

 

Browsing social media, it’s apparent that people are quick to point out problems in the world, but what I see less often are suggestions for how to solve them. At best, I see vague ideas that might solve one issue but introduce new ones, which are rarely addressed.

Simply stopping the bad behaviour rarely is a solution in itself. The world is not that simple. Take something like drug addiction. Telling someone to just stop taking drugs is not a solution.

 

The best conversations I still have are with real people, but those are rare. With ChatGPT, I reliably have good conversations, whereas with people, it’s hit or miss, usually miss.

What AI does better:

  • It’s willing to discuss esoteric topics. Most humans prefer to talk about people and events.
  • It’s not driven by emotions or personal bias.
  • It doesn’t make mean, snide, sarcastic, ad hominem, or strawman responses.
  • It understands and responds to my actual view, even from a vague description, whereas humans often misunderstand me and argue against views I don’t hold.
  • It tells me when I’m wrong but without being a jerk about it.

Another noteworthy point is that I’m very likely on the autistic spectrum, and my mind works differently than the average person’s, which probably explains, in part, why I struggle to maintain interest with human-to-human interactions.

view more: next ›