kplaceholder

I take issue with all the comments suggesting that the movement should be rebranding into "work reform", because reforming is absolutely not the point. Speaking as someone who subscribes to the anti-work movement, my problem is not that much with current laboral laws and, in fact, I'd go as far as saying that all jobs I have had so far have been reasonably respectful with me except for maybe one.

My problem with that is that we consider normal that, in order to deserve leading a meaningful life, we must be working for someone richer or for the economy. Our life must be dedicated to constantly providing products and services so that we deserve to enjoy what little is left of it. In more concrete terms, I don't like that we must get into wage labor in order to have access to fundamental goods such as food, water, housing, amenities or even free time. I believe all human beings living in a society capable of providing these are entitled to them, I also believe that our current society is perfectly capable of that, and that the only reason why the working class only gets conditional access or no access at all to fundamental goods are bullshit "number go up" reasons. I don't buy for a second that homeless people deserve their status because "they didn't work hard enough". Wage labor being such a central axis of our current way of life is what I'm strongly opposed to.

Furthermore, I regard the power balance between employer and worker to be fundamentally broken, and no reform can do away with that. When you sign a contract and accept the terms of a job, are you really accepting them or just avoiding the alternative, the threat of homelessness? For a lot of people who can't find jobs easily, not signing might mean starving or losing their home. How is that not coercion? Sure, if you don't accept the terms of your current job, you can just look for another (even though this is not a reasonable posibility for a lot of people), but any job will offer as little pay with as many working hours as possible because, due to the lack of meaningful consent, all employers can get away with that. And we accept it as normal and reasonable.

I also don't believe that abolishing wage labor will make people spend their whole lives not adding anything to society. If given enough free time, people will get bored of not doing anything and engage in work that they actually enjoy, of their own actual volition. I know I get involved into a lot of things given long enough vacations or subsidized unemployement. Now imagine if we just could get organized to find out what tasks need to be done, and each picked the tasks that they geniunely want to do, without being coerced. Without rich assholes and investors getting involved and often forcing us to work long hours on tasks that won't add anything to the world, but they make money.

"Reforming" laboral laws is absolutely not enough for this. Sure, I'd appreciate a reduction in my working hours, an increase in my salary, more vacations, etc but even if those goals were met, I'd still be out there protesting for the reasons I've just stated. Work, as we understand it today, is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed without it being abolished first.

You may not agree with me, mind you, and have a more moderate position stating that work must not be abolished as it can be meaningfully reformed. But then you are subscribing to a different ideology altogether. Which is legitimate and can be argued for, but it does not match the ideology of the anti-work movement. Sure, under late capitalism, some short term goals may match, but the long term goals are entirely different. My point being, "work reform" would be a terrible rebranding for the movement because it stands for a different ideology entirely.

One of my favorite meme jrends. I miss it so much

Yeah, can we just agree to stop using unexplained acronyms? Even as a terminally online person, I struggle to keep up with the new ones that keep popping up daily and it's exhausting. Some time ago, I also had to look up what CSAM meant because suddenly everyone was saying it out of nowhere and it was critical to the context.

Some time ago, I met an HR person at my job. She wasn't actually part of the workplace HR team, rather, she was more like a classmate of mine, but she had worked as HR in the past and wanted to continue to do so in the future. She was kind and polite, so I never had any beef with her, but she consistently had the shittiest, most inhumane takes on how to manage and interact with people I had seen in a while lol.

Meeting her made me arrive at the conclusion that you just said. Empathetic people that get into HR with the idea of helping make the world a better place would eventually resign or, at least, be very ineffective as HR. The only people capable of staying in HR for a long time are sociopaths who don't mind lying and being obtuse in job offers, and ruining someone's life so their boss can squeeze a couple of extra cents. The profession itself only serves to make companies more ruthless and adds nothing of value to the world.

Is that canon? It seems that digitalization is not a thing in Pokémon.

In Legends Arceus they explain how Pokémon can naturally become smaller and Poke Balls are just empty containers which trigger that reaction. Kinda makes sense given that Poke Balls apparently were invented before anything digital.

Idk if any game ever explains how they are then stored in the PC, but according to PokeSpe, Poke Balls are physically sent and stored in literal boxes.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason why your machine is called Pearl-II instead of something like Peridot? I also like your names btw

Just chiming in to say that this is the kind of thing on Lemmy where you just know that OP is from the US, even if they don't state it directly. Most electoral democracies have a lot more than two options.

In my country, the current Parliament formation is representing 11 distinct parties, including those that only get like one seat. The electoral race always feature like 5 major parties and then some, and they are definitely not the same 5 parties from 40 years ago. It always baffles to think about how the US has only ever been governed by either one of the same two parties, and I find kinda sad that third parties aren't viable there.

I find kind of funny when a Lemmy user from the US attempts to be generic but their assumptions that the US is the norm are very telling. I don't think it's ill-intended or evil or anything, but it's still funny, and I see it often in here.

I mean, he did recreate a cataclysmic event in the process, and the projected crisis was bound to happen in 1000 years... One can never be too prepared I guess.

What is that even trying to say? That there is such thing as going too far when fighting the energy crisis? lol

Formally, "hubiera"/"hubiese" is only used within subclauses, i.e «si lo hubiera visto, habría hecho algo» etc. They never stand as the only verb and don't appear in simple clauses. You can't say "hubiera hecho algo", it's "habría hecho algo". Here, the subjunctive (hubiera) is doing the same job as "were" in english, and the conditional (habría) is equivalent to "would": «if I were luckier, it would have worked out». This is the case with subjunctives in general, they mostly only ever appear in subclauses other than very specific exceptions (such as negative imperative or vestigial expressions like «Dios quiera que...»). The trick is learning which subclauses use indicative and which use subjunctive :)

Informally, though, natives will tell you that it doesn't matter because it truly doesn't. The formula "if (subjunctive) then (subjunctive)" is understood by everybody with the same meaning as "if (subjunctive) then (conditional)", and you can even use it in formal settings such as when talking to your boss, at least in Spain.

Source: Am native, from Spain. Good luck with the language learning!

For me, it changes every few days.

Right now, it's "Like Chimeras" from the Cassette Beasts soundtrack. Well, to be honest, I've got a bunch of songs from the game stuck in my head, but my brain keeps ending up on that one always.

I figured, but is there any reliable way to hide the toolbar from the windows in KDE? So that the widget is not redundant. I couldn't find any.

Hey, same. What did you use?