• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • 2 economist walking in the woods.

    Economist 1 says to economists 2: I’ll give you $100 if you let me kick you in the balls.

    Economist 2 says “sure”

    Then economist 1 kicks economists 2 in the balls and gives him $100.

    They continue walking and see a big pile of shit.

    Economist 2 says to economist 1: I’ll give you $100 if you eat that pile of shit.

    Economist 1 says “sure”, eats the pile of shit and economists 2 gives economists 1 his $100 back.

    They continue walking, eventually economist 2 asks “What was the point of what we just did?”

    Economist 1 responds “We just increased GDP by $200.”






  • It’s basically just Microsoft being shit heads on their development of the Windows Mixed reality drivers that creates that specific edge case. Hopefully the open source monado drivers will be a good replacement eventually. Most everything else should work fine.

    I only know because I had windows 10 LTSC when I bought my headset and tried to get it working and found reddit threads with the same issue. I tested the windows 11 IoT when it came out because I hoped it would support my headset then I found out they are dropping support next year.

    There needs to be a class action lawsuit about this to either open-source the drivers or to refund all those who purchased WMR devices.


  • Maybe it’s all in my head, but I tried it a while back and it felt less snappy than clean windows 10 but more snappy than stock windows 11. It also retains a lot of the annoyances of stock windows 11.

    Unfortunately I can’t use it because I have a WMR VR headset and it’s unsupported on the IoT and LTSC.

    There’s a YouTube channel called memories tech tips and he’s developing a script that you can add to your ISO that will have a similar effect to the LTSC. That in combination with Chris Titus techs ultimate windows utility after first boot makes setting things up much easier.





  • The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

    The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

    Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

    I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

    That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.







  • If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?

    While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.

    Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.

    I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.

    But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.

    Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.



  • The reason why subsidies in the US lead to corruption and subsidies in China lead to innovation has nothing to do with how long the industries have been subsidized.

    The US subsidizes industries to bailout corporate executives that made bad decisions.

    China subsidizes workers who innovate towards ends that we know we need to be working towards as a species. Such as building electric vehicles to address climate change.

    Even if the economy worked how you’re suggesting addressing climate change would be a worthy investment. It’s an end that has been obvious that we should be investing in for decades. The US refuses to do it because it would take power out of the hands of the corporate executives who they are busy bailing out.

    Well, where do you think the money for subsidies comes from? Taxes.

    This is logically incoherent. Money doesn’t exist in nature my dude.

    Take out a physical dollar and look at it… what does it say on it? If you do this you will find it says it’s a note from the federal reserve.

    Every US dollar in existence was originally spent into the economy by the federal reserve which is managed by the US government. That is a matter of fact. To suggest money comes from taxes is incoherent. Taxes are how the government destroys money not how it creates money.

    Now maybe to control inflation we should take money out of the economy through taxes. Especially in places where money is being mismanaged… if we do, the aforementioned corporate executives seem to be at the top of the list of places where large amounts of money is being mismanaged. Given that in the context of the automotive industry China is managing their wealth better than the US.