In contrast to a monarchy, where people cannot choose their leader, in capitalism people can choose from which company they buy, or even create their own.
As another person already pointed out, these are obviously two different categories.
The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don't because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).
The point can be summed up as a question: Why don't people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don't they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?
These non-capitalist things exist, it's certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.
So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don't see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?
That's a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? The effect you describe would not be there if it wasn't for comments like this. Or at the very least, these comments make the effect bigger.
Because religion evolved to thrive in us.
It's like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.
Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn't have these beneficial traits went extinct.
Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it's necessary to spread your belief to others, are 'somehow' more spread out than religions who don't convey that need.
This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.
This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It's funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.
Right?
"I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!"
Activists (try to) do that as well. But it's much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader's interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don't do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
Dumm di dumm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles
Der Markt für Verbrenner verschwindet in den nächsten 10 bis 20 Jahren. Zeigt mal wieder deren Wirtschaftskompetenz.
What do you mean? Of course they do. It's not a contradiction, because they are adversaries.
making the shops pay more to use the payment service, so that the shops then increase the prices, so that you pay the same as before
Just nitpicking because I enjoy these thoughts:
When the shop increases prices, it has to do it for all the customers, including the ones without credit card. So a part of the cost is offloaded to other types of customers. While credit card customers should see a slight increase in price, it should not be as much as they saved previously. So still a net win for them, at the cost of others.
As others pointed out, the real scheme is probably entirely different.
Yeah, just for reference ... 2 weeks of 1920x1080 video at 60 fps is about 7 GB.
Snapshots, or recorded actions, should be possible with far less space than 2 GB.
Japan’s coal imports are overwhelmingly local – AUS and Indonesia.
That's roughly as local as France or GB to US east cost, similar distance and similar other differences. IMHO both connections aren't even regional anymore. But yeah, it's fairly short what coal import routes concerns.
Würde ich auch vermuten. Ihre bisherigen Forderungen waren es aber nicht, mit großem Abstand. Also mal schauen.
While you guys kind of have a point, the specific argument you put forward is rather weak. Transportation accounts for an almost negligible part of the overall emissions of a product. Bulk freight cargo is super efficient. If you want to moan about transportation emissions, look at single people sitting in tons of steel making short trips.
The point you still have is that emissions are caused in the process of satisfying a demand. Consumers do have a partial responsibility. However I would object in that the problem cannot be solved from the consumer's position. It is a market failure. Markets have no incentive to internalize their externalities, that has to come from a different place; e.g. politics. Carbon pricing is an interesting mechanic, since it utilizes that same argument for good.
That's true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don't think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don't care or cannot afford. I'm afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.
It's also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.
This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme's source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like "100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions", but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.
What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China's coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by "using" their "products", e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.
So yes, the downvoted guy saying "Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions" is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of "journalism" and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.
All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.
Eventually, things settle at almost perfect ratios. Everything between creates some kind of friction.
What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?
Doesn't have to be that random, but can be. Here, I wrote: "throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions".
The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.
Ok, but isn't that rather an argument that it can eventually be mastered by a machine? They excel at applying structure and method, with far more accuracy (or the precise amount of desired randomness) and speed than we can.
The idea of brute forcing art comes down to philosophical questions. Do we have some immaterial genie in us, which cannot be seen and described by science, which cannot be recreated by engineers? Engeniers, lol. Is art something which depends on who created it, or does it depend on who views it?
Either way what I meant is that it is thinkable that more computation power and better algorithms bring machines closer to being art creators, although some humans surely will reject that solely based on them being machines. Time will tell.
That depends on things we don't know yet. If it can be brute forced (throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions), then yes, "lots of work" can be an equivalent.
If it does not, we have a mystery to solve. Where does this magic come from? It cannot be broken down into data and algorithms, but still emerges in the material world? How? And what is it, if not dependent on knowledge stored in matter?
On the other hand, how do humans come up with good, meaningful art? Talent Practice. Isn't that just another equivalent of "lots of work"? This magic depends on many learned data points and acquired algorithms, executed by human brains.
There also is survivor bias. Millions of people practice art, but only a tiny fraction is recognized as artists (if you ask the magazines and wallets). Would we apply the same measure to computer generated art, or would we expect them to shine in every instance?
As "good, meaningful art" still lacks a good, meaningful definition, I can see humans moving the goalpost as technology progresses, so that it always remains a human domain. We just like to feel special and have a hard time accepting humiliations like being pushed out of the center of the solar system, or placed on one random planet among billion others, or being just one of many animal species.
Or maybe we are unique in this case. We'll probably be wiser in a few decades.
Teilweise juhu, prinzipiell jedenfalls. Praktisch bleibt mir völlig unklar, wo zu welchen Konditionen denn nun Bubatz zu haben ist. Oder ob damit gewartet werden muss, bis die heute gesäten Pflanzen geerntet wurden. Es finden sich haufenweise Informationen dazu, wie kompliziert alles ist, aber diese eine entscheidende praktische Frage habe ich noch nirgendwo beantwortet gefunden.
Falls da jemand mehr weiß, für Hamburg oder auch anderswo, das wär toll.
[Satire] Moritz Neumeier plant nicht mit Rente | Em Ende ist eh egal [6m41s]
Kam unerwartet krass. Mach mal was!
https://piped.video/watch?v=i9Xlle9vogo
[Bundestags-Petition bis 21.02.24] Keine Kürzung von Finanzmitteln für den Nahverkehr
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/15519217
> >Mit der Petition wird keine Kürzung von Finanzmitteln für den Nahverkehr gefordert. Im Zuge der Haushaltskrise nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom November 2023 wird nach schnellen Wegen gesucht, die Haushaltslücke zu stopfen. Es soll gespart werden. Dabei steht auch im Raum, die Mittel, die der Bund den Ländern jedes Jahr zur Verfügung stellt - die sogenannten Regionalisierungsmittel - zu kürzen. > > > > > >Begründung > > > >Die Bundesregierung hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, aus Klimaschutzgründen die Fahrgastzahlen im öffentlichen Nahverkehr bis 2030 zu verdoppeln. > >Die drohenden Kürzungen der Regionalisierungsmittel würden jedoch bedeuten, dass Züge gestrichen werden oder gar Strecken stillgelegt werden müssten. Fahrgäste würden von der Schiene aufs Auto umsteigen, was höheren CO2-Ausstoß bedeutet und das Klima geschädigt würde. Gerade im Verkehrsbereich droht eine Verfehlung der Klimaziele. Wir brauchen aber mehr statt weniger Klimaschutz und haben nur den einen Planeten zum bewohnen. > > > >Sinnvoller wäre es doch, klimafeindliche Subventionen wie das Dienstwagenprivileg zu kürzen, das den Staat 3,5-5.5, Mrd. Euro pro Jahr kostet. Hier ist ein viel größeres Sparpotential vorhanden - und das Klima könnte geschützt werden.
Die Ohrfeige von Beate Klarsfeld: Kraftvolle Zeichen setzen | Karambolage | ARTE
https://piped.video/watch?v=R9UezxjGnYY
Länge: 5:27
"Im Namen der 50 Millionen Toten und der künftigen Generationen in das abstoßende Gesicht der 10 Millionen Nazis zu schlagen"
Aus aktuellem Anlass. Video ist auch erst vier Tage alt.
Schwerpunkt: Demokratie feiern - Wie die Medien in anderen Ländern einen Rechtsruck verhindern
In Luxemburg und Wallonien konnten die Medien einen Rechtsruck verhindern, so die Politologin Léonie de Jonge. Was heißt das für Deutschland?
cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/8059485
> In Luxemburg und Südbelgien bieten die Medien Extremist:innen kein Forum – und konnten einen Rechtsruck damit bislang verhindern. Ganz anders in Deutschland. Plädoyer für ein Umdenken. > > Chassepierre ist ein kleiner Ort in der belgischen Region Wallonien, an der Grenze zu Frankreich. Die Champagne ist nur fünf Minuten entfernt. Man kennt sich – spricht französisch, macht zusammen Sport, geht vielleicht zur gleichen Bäckerei. Auf den ersten Blick trennt die Menschen wenig. Doch: Die Einen stimmen für eine rechtsextreme, die Anderen für eine sozialdemokratische Partei. Warum? Wegen der Medienberichterstattung, sagt die Politologin Léonie de Jonge. Dazu später mehr. > > [...] > > Während sich das Publikum in True-Crime-Manier aus sicherer Distanz gruselt, empören sich Teile der Medienwelt – kurz zumindest. Wird die Partei durch solche Auftritte aufgewertet, verharmlost und normalisiert? Oder ist es gerade mutig, sich der Bedrohung zu stellen, statt sie zu stigmatisieren und ignorieren? Kritik wird totgeschlagen mit immer gleichen Argumenten wie „Wir müssen die Vielfalt und politische Chancengleichheit wahren“ (Öffentlich-Rechtliche) und „Wir müssen ja mit allen reden“ (Stern). Müssen wir? Nur weil eine Partei demokratisch gewählt ist, heißt das nicht, dass sie demokratische Inhalte vertritt. „Nein, so sollten wir Medien nicht mit der AfD umgehen“, kritisierte etwa die Spiegel-Redakteurin Ann-Katrin Müller besagtes Stern-Interview. „Sie ist keine normale Partei, sondern eine, die in großen Teilen rechtsextrem ist. Sie will die Demokratie maßgeblich verändern, da haben nicht nur Parteien und Zivilgesellschaft eine Verantwortung, sondern auch wir Medien.“ > > Social Media mitdenken > > Diese Verantwortung schlägt sich nieder in Form und Wirkung. Form, weil Redaktionen frei entscheiden können, mit wem sie ein Gespräch führen und wie sie dieses anschließend für die Öffentlichkeit aufbereiten, und Wirkung, weil Massenmedien in Wechselwirkung stehen mit anderen Kanälen. Ein Interview, das clever aufgebaut ist und so die menschenfeindlichen Ideologien der Funktionär:innen, die inhaltliche Inkompetenz der Partei oder Lügen (Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit) entblößt, ist dann nicht mehr viel Wert, wenn keine:r weiß, ob – und vor allem wie – diese Formate AfD-Sympathisant:innen erreichen. > > Auf Social Media schrumpfen die Diskussionen auf eine Schlagzeile zusammen. Was bei den Menschen hängen bleibt: AfD-Klimaleugner darf mit Klimaforscher diskutieren, wie etwa bei Markus Lanz im Mai 2023, als Steffen Kotré auf Mojib Latif traf. Das ist eine Form von Legitimierung, die nur Massenmedien als traditionelle Schleusenwärter von relevanten Informationen leisten können. Die Sozialpsychologin Pia Lamberty erinnerte Anfang August 2023 im Medienpodcast Quoted daran: Menschen lesen oder schauen Beiträge nicht mehr von Anfang bis Ende. „Wir sehen Headlines und Teaser auf Social Media und glauben, informierter zu sein als vorher.“ Und: „Was wir immer wieder hören, glauben wir irgendwann.“ Selbst wenn es faktisch oder moralisch falsch ist. > > Redaktionen befeuern diesen Mechanismus mit „False Balance“, wenn sie etwa den Konsens von 99 Prozent der Virolog:innen oder Klimaforscher:innen wiederholt der 1-Prozent-Meinung gegenüberstellen oder rechtsextreme Ansichten von Minderheiten zu Wort kommen lassen. Sichtbarkeit normalisiert. Journalist:innen überschätzen sich maßlos, wenn sie glauben, die „False Balance“ im Gespräch ausbalancieren zu können. Reicht Common Sense nicht, hilft vielleicht ein Blick ins Landesmediengesetz: Rundfunkprogramme haben nicht nur die Meinungsvielfalt, sondern die Würde des Menschen und die demokratische Grundordnung zu achten. > > [...] > > Angefangen hat die Diskursverschiebung laut Populismus-Forscherin Paula Diehl 2010 mit Thilo Sarrazins Buch Deutschland schafft sich ab. 2018 trug Alice Weidel seinen Begriff „Kopftuchmädchen“ ins Herz unserer Demokratie, ins Parlament. Und im Oktober 2023 bezog sich CDU-Chef Friedrich Merz im ZDF auf Sarrazin, als es um die Gefahren des politischen Islams ging. Im gleichen Monat zeigte der Spiegel einen grimmigen Olaf Scholz auf seinem Cover mit dem Zitat: „Wir müssen endlich in großem Stil abschieben.“ AfD-Rhetorik ist auch in Medienberichten präsent, in denen es nicht um sie geht. Etwa wurden populistische Begriffe wie „Flüchtlingsstrom“, „Überfremdung“ und „Altparteien“ 2015/16 zuerst zitiert, doch irgendwann ohne Anführungszeichen übernommen. Alles beabsichtigt. Der damalige AfD-Parteivorsitzende Alexander Gauland sagte 2018 in einem FAZ-Interview, dass AfDler:innen „in der Tat versuchen, die Grenzen des Sagbaren auszuweiten“. > > Ein Blick ins Ausland zeigt: Es geht auch anders. Medienschaffende können sich durchaus als Hüter:innen dieser Grenzen verstehen – und den Rechtsruck damit verhindern. Untersucht hat das die Politikwissenschaftlerin Léonie de Jonge in ihrem 2021 veröffentlichten Buch The Success and Failure of Right-Wing Populist Parties in the Benelux Countries. Dass es Rechtspopulist:innen bislang nicht in die Parlamente Walloniens und Luxemburgs geschafft haben, in Flandern dagegen zweitstärkste und in den Niederlanden stärkste Kraft sind, liegt de Jonge zufolge nicht etwa daran, dass die Menschen dort finanziell abgesicherter, gebildeter oder weniger rassistisch wären. > > Tatsächlich war die Arbeitslosenrate 2020 in Wallonien doppelt so hoch wie in Flandern; die Einstellungen gegenüber Immigrant:innen unterscheiden sich kaum, so auch das Vertrauen in die Demokratie und politische Institutionen. Der Erfolg radikal rechter Parteien liegt, nach de Jonges Analyse, hauptsächlich daran, wie offen die Gatekeeper einer Demokratie mit ihnen umgehen. Demnach tragen die Medien und etablierten Parteien in Frankreich eine erhebliche Mitschuld am Aufstieg des Front National und in den Niederlanden an Wilders’ PVV. > > Zusammen gegen Rechtsaußen > > In Wallonien dagegen haben schon in den 1990er-Jahren alle Rundfunkanstalten einen Pakt geschlossen, den „cordon sanitaire médiatique“: Menschen, die rassistischen, demokratiefeindlichen Gruppen nahestehen, bekommen keine Plattform; Einladungen zu Live-Interviews und Talkshows sind tabu. Nach rechtlichen Streitigkeiten urteilte der Belgische Staatsrat 1999: Der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk habe das Recht, undemokratischen Parteien den Zugang zu verwehren. Auch kommerzielle Sender und die meisten Printmedien in Wallonien halten die Prinzipien hoch. Das heißt nicht, dass wallonische Journalist:innen nie mit Rechtsextremen reden. Es heißt, dass sie nur dann zitiert werden, wenn die Zitate kontextualisiert werden und antidemokratische Inhalte als solche einordbar sind. Reden von rechtsradikalen Politiker:innen etwa werden nicht direkt übertragen, sondern von Reporter:innen zusammengefasst. In der Luxemburger Presse besteht zwar keine formelle Absprache, wohl aber ein informeller Konsens gegen das Abbilden rassistischer und übertrieben nationalistischer Stimmen. > > [...] > > Die Stoßrichtung der Berichterstattung muss sich ändern. Erstens: Mehr inhaltliche Schärfe. Was bedeuten die Vorhaben der AfD konkret für den Alltag ihrer Wähler:innen? Denn diese wären die Hauptleidtragenden des Parteiprogramms, wie zuletzt eine Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung vom August 2023 zeigte. Obwohl die AfD eine äußerst neoliberale Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik verfolgt – etwa Bürgergeld und Mindestlohn kürzen will –, wählen sie überdurchschnittlich viele Arbeiter:innen und Arbeitslose. > > Zweitens: Mehr rote Linien und wallonische Weitsicht. Antidemokrat:innen haben kein Recht auf Sendezeit. Da tut sich was. 2022 tauchten AfDler:innen nur zweimal in fünf verschiedenen Talkshows auf, zeigt eine Erhebung des Branchendienstes Meedia. 2018/19 dagegen nahm Alexander Gauland selbst dann noch im ZDF-Sommerinterview und verschiedenen Talkrunden Platz, nachdem er „Hitler und die Nazis“ als „Vogelschiss“ in der Geschichte Deutschlands bezeichnet hatte. Nur eine Redaktion, hart aber fair, erteilte ihm Hausverbot. Die Begründung: „Wer die Verbrechen des Nationalsozialismus relativiert, kann kein Gast bei uns sein.“ > > Am Ende besteht eine Demokratie eben nicht nur aus politischen Vertreter:innen und Meinungen, sondern aus Werten und Menschenrechten, auf die wir uns als Gesellschaft geeinigt haben. Das, sagten viele US-Journalist:innen nach Donald Trumps Wahlsieg, hätten sie viel zu spät realisiert.
The Causes of the War between Hamas and Israel (William Spaniel) [20:37]
Piped: https://piped.video/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY
> On October 7, 2023, Hamas initiated an offensive against Israel in a manner unseen for a half century. This video goes deep into the broader source of the conflict. Unlike traditional explanations, it highlights bargaining frictions as a key cause. It is not sufficient to simply point to the substantive issues in dispute between Hamas and Israel. As long as war is costly, both sides should prefer avoiding a war in principle. Thus, we must explain the conflict using bargaining frictions: first strike advantages, long-term shifts in the balance of power, uncertainty over the outcome of war, or leader biases. > > Hope you like some lines on maps, because there is going to be a heavy dose of them today! > > * 0:00 Hamas and Israel at War > * 2:25 The Substantive Conflict > * 5:53 War's Inefficiency Puzzle > * 10:37 First Strike Advantages and Preemptive War > * 13:04 Power Shifts, Preventive War, and Saudi Arabia > * 16:13 Information Problems and Turbulent Israeli Politics > * 17:36 Leader Benefits and Violence as Advertisement > * 19:02 Which One Caused the War? > * 20:40 Can You Get KFC in Gaza?
Warum Holz doch (nicht) klimaneutral ist (Joul) [9:41]
Alternativ: https://piped.video/watch?v=KZNvClrM6Rw
> Ich gehe hier aus verschiedenen Perspektiven durch, was zu berücksichtigen ist, wenn man die Auswirkung von Heizen mit Holz bzw. Holz als Brennstoff aufs Klima bewerten will.
Das Video packt in die knapp 10 Minuten vier Detailstufen, bei denen die Schlussfolgerung mal "klimaneutral" lautet, mal "nicht":
- Stufe 1: Klimaneutral, weil nur CO2 freigesetzt wird, was vorher aufgenommen wurde.
- Stufe 2: Klimaschädlich, weil wachsen viel länger dauert als verbrennen
- Stufe 3: Kann klimaneutral sein, wenn viele Bedingungen beachtet werden
- Stufe 4: Klimaschädlich, weil Wald statt nur neutral eigentlich eine Senke sein könnte
Inside the HAMAS Operations Order from Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (Ryan McBeth) [21:10]
Watch now (21 mins) | Analyzing the Highly Organized Military Operation Against Israel
YouTube Cut:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvYwfl7dgTY
- https://piped.video/watch?v=RvYwfl7dgTY
Based on documents and "pocket litter" recovered from HAMAS casualties, it appears that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was well in planning for over a year and had the assistance of Iran.
Work. (The History of Working Hours, by Historia Civilis) [Video, 33:15]
https://piped.video/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo
Sources: Juliet B. Schor, "The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure"
---
David Rooney, "About Time: A History of Civilization in Twelve Clocks" E. P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism" | https://www.jstor.org/stable/649749 James E. Thorold Rogers, "Six Centuries of Work and Wages: The History of English Labour" | https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/rogers/sixcenturies.pdf George Woodcock, "The Tyranny of the Clock," Published in "War Commentary - For Anarchism" in March, 1944
---
GDP per capita in England, 1740 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270 Nominal wages, consumer prices, and real wages in the UK, United Kingdom, 1750 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-prices-and-real-wages-in-the-uk-since-1750
Update: Petitition zur Prüfung eines AfD Verbots erreicht 240tsd Unterschriften in 2 Monaten
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/10792055
> cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/4310476
Update: Petitition zur Prüfung eines AfD Verbots erreicht 240tsd Unterschriften in 2 Monaten
cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/4310476
has resolved one of your map notes – how to do it yourself?
Running around with StreetComplete, the app sometimes tells me to leave a note instead, which I do. Short time later, I receive an email that another person has resolved my note. That's nice, but wouldn't it be better to do it all on my own?
I think I need a more powerful Editor for that, and installed Vespucci. Now I'm scared to break things. What are the next steps, how to proceed?
[DE] Rund 500.000 Fahrräder werden jedes Jahr gestohlen. Die Aufklärungsquote mickrig. Dabei ist das Fahrrad für viele das Hauptverkehrsmittel für Familie, Alltag und Beruf.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/4130830
> Quellen: https://m.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/fahrraddiebstahl-500-000-gestohlene-raeder-pro-jahr-19194030.html (€) > > https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/570624/umfrage/fahrraddiebstaehle-und-aufgeklaerte-faelle-in-deutschen-staedten/
PI is what
The volume of a cylinder is found using the formula V = πr2h. Using π = 5, r = 10 and h = 10. Find the volume V.
What are your favorite improv excercises for practice and warmup?
My group loves to play a game which we call "What are you doing there?". It goes like this:
Setup:
- A small stage, on which one or two people play
- The rest of the group watches them in a half circle
- People can enter the stage from one side of the circle. Another person then leaves the stage from the other side
So the whole group rotates in a circle through the stage.
---
A person starts doing something on stage, for example playing the violin in pantomime.
Then the person next in line steps up from the audience, and asks the signature question: "What are you doing there?". Person A responds with something different, for example: "I'm reading a book.", and leaves the stage. Person B now reads a book in pantomime until asked by person C.
---
As always, many variants are possible. Recently, we mostly played the group variant, where two (or three) people are on stage simultaneously, playing a scene including words.
Something changed about XP Boosts. Now, how can you tell which lesson activates a boost?
Before, completing the last lesson of a group (e.g. completing 5 of 5) activated a 15 minute boost. Which allowed me stop doing lessons at 4/5 and do practice instead. Later that day, I could complete lesson 5 to get a boost for a new session.
Now, these activation steps seem to be randomly scattered across lessons. Sometimes it's lesson 2, sometimes 5. Never the last one.
Did anyone else notice this? Any idea why? How do you deal with it?
It leads me to learn longer than I actually wanted (because I accidentally trigger boosts), or leads to me 'wasting' boosts, both of which feels bad.
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot (FOSS)
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
Anliegerinformation: Mundsburg ab 14.10.2023
https://lsbg.hamburg.de/resource/blob/689562/b6b545d8a22c72c9d4a9de478b1af647/mundsburg-anliegerinformation-oktober-2023-data.pdf
> #### Was wird gebaut und warum? > Die Fahrbahndeckschichten im gesamten Knotenbereich befinden sich überwiegend in einem schlechten, z.T. mangelhaften Zustand, Unfallhäufigkeiten wurden verzeichnet. Um weitere Schäden zu vermeiden und die Verkehrssicherheit weiterhin gewährleisten zu können, werden nun im Rahmen des Bauprogramms „Instandsetzung Hauptverkehrsstraßen“ die Fahrbahndeckschichten im gesamten Knotenbereich erneuert. Außerdem soll ein geplanter Umbau der Lichtsignalanlage an der Kreuzung Lerchenfeld / Schürbeker Bogen im Rahmen der hier vorgesehenen Arbeiten realisiert werden. > > #### Wann wird gebaut? > Die Arbeiten beginnen am 14.10.2023 und sollen bis spätestens 31.10.2023 abgeschlossen sein. > > #### Wie ist der Verkehr während der Bauarbeiten geregelt? > Die Lichtsignalanlagen in den betroffenen Knotenpunkten müssen während der Bearbeitung ausgeschaltet werden. Fußgänger und Radfahrer werden in den bestehenden Wegen geführt, Fahrbahnquerungen sind auf Notwegen oder über provisorische Ampelanlagen möglich. Die vorhandenen Querungsmöglichkeiten in NordSüd-Richtung (Lerchenfeld / U-Bahn-Haltestelle Mundsburg – Winterhuder Weg) müssen während der Bauarbeiten gesperrt werden. Hierfür wird eine Umleitung in beide Richtungen über Oberaltenallee - Mundsburger Damm – Lichtsignalanlage Höhe Heideweg – Hamburger Straße eingerichtet. Parkmöglichkeiten wird es im gesamten Baufeldbereich nicht geben. > > Der Kfz-verkehr wird wie folgt geführt:
Siehe Quelle: https://lsbg.hamburg.de/resource/blob/689562/b6b545d8a22c72c9d4a9de478b1af647/mundsburg-anliegerinformation-oktober-2023-data.pdf
> Die im Baufeld vorhandenen Bushaltestellen werden nicht angefahren. Umleitungen und Ersatzhaltestellen werden von der Hamburger Hochbahn eingerichtet.
How to remove the first Home Screen (Discover)? [Solution: Disable "Swipe to access Google app"]
I managed to disable it, but I can't find how to remove it entirely. Anyone knows?
I'm talking about the screen all to the left.