Not only that but almost every delivery driver I see is always kinda skipping or trotting when delivering packages just to keep up.
They either need to increase the workforce on their routes too. Same thing for the USPS in many places while not relying on part time 'contractors' who are just mailmen but not yet because they don't want to pay benefits lol.
I know I'm practically begging for downvotes here, but it is also possible that some people are perfectly aware of the tradeoffs, pros, and cons of social media, and have decided that the positives outweigh the negatives. That you have different priorities doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else is stupid or ignorant.
It's ironic how the Fediverse on the one hand celebrates the fact that anyone can join and instances can all do their own things and hold their own views, and then it goes "but not like that" in this case.
It's ironic how the Fediverse on the one hand celebrates the fact that anyone can join and instances can all do their own things and hold their own views
Yes, all in contrast to corporate enshittification and algorithmic spyware.
and then it goes "but not like that" in this case.
Yes, because its corporate social media waiting for enshittification with algorithmic spyware.
If some instance wants to enshittify itself it's free to do so. The Fediverse makes it straightforward for its users to move to other instances when that happens.
If Reddit had been magically federated with the rest of the threadiverse, for example, it would have made reacting to their recent API decisions much easier.
I dont really see your point. Sure, instances can do that. But instances and its users can also not do that, and right now its just instance users arguing that we shouldnt do that.
Thankfully, "we" are not a monolith. People who don't mind some level of interaction with Meta can do that, those who want zero contact with it can do that, and all is well.
I think it moreso has to do with the fact that as soon as Fediverse networking became more popular, Meta immediately comes along and creates another social media platform that uses Fediverse as more of a flashy buzzword.
The point of the Fediverse seems to be "content where you want to see it, how you want to see it, when you want to see it". Promoting a more open ecosystem of specially tailored instances for what an individual user wants as their content.
Meta comes along with Threads, the nearly perfect antithesis of what the Fediverse is. Immediately gobbling up users due to both brand recognition and by seizing a customer base fleeing Reddit trying to figure out what the Fediverse is and not wanting to "miss out" on their communities and content as it migrates here.
@BraveSirZaphod I mean, if they're not, then that means that they're fine with hate speech and run away bigotry, and to be honest, that's not a truth I want to face
People don't care about principles when it comes to a social media site (or really anything for that matter). They want something easy to use, that everyone is on.
I'm almost certain there's a first to market FOMO kinda thing happening with influencers/scammers/advertisers. Everyone with that disgusting "grindset" mentality on Instagram just got a blank slate on an entirely new platform with a lot of media attention.
Its happening with every new Twitter replacement. Twitter for all its faults was actually a widely used resource for brands, companies and influencers. Now that it is so erratic they're all trying to jump on anything with a hint of success to replace Twitter.
Brands and government accounts are going to flock to Threads. They want a place for general announcements that has some consistency in moderation and stability. Musk has largely destroyed that on twitter.
I can see it for those types of accounts. The National Weather Service for example doesn't want to deal with random tweet limits and pricing changes and all that. All they need is a stable platform that is popular. If Threads can give them that, I can see it taking off. Already it seems to have more hype and activity than any other alternative in the last few months.
I didn't even think about the porn aspect. You're probably right. Although I'm sure people are going to test it and see how close Meta will let them get.
I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.
(The unsuccessful action of Ireland’s government to temper the UN statement of support for Israel.
In negotiations that bounced between capitals on Saturday, Ireland was joined by Denmark and Luxembourg in pushing for a statement to include an appeal to avoid escalation, according to diplomatic sources.
Ireland ultimately backed the unnuanced statement.)
Google, Amazon, and Facebook, of all people, pulled out of the conference immediately.
I have just read elsewhere that they're using the same account as Instagram uses. So if you have an Instagram account, and have done nothing with Threads at all, they're likely still counting you as a Threads user.
yeah my insta was not set up for threads when i opened the app. i had to purposefully consent to linking the two accounts. Seems to me like its 10 mil actual users.
In the US alone, Instagram has over 150 million users. Even if the only country accessing it was the US, the number should be much higher than 10 mill, were they automatically adding the users.
They're not counting all Instagram users. However, if you have an Instagram account, all you have to do is download the Threads app, and it'll log in with the same saved credentials. The barrier to entry is extremely low, so a lot of people have at least tried it.
Ruling class is laughing their arses off while watching working class destroying itself. And then they will buy out all the damaged properties for pennies from bankrupt locals. Great consequences!
What exactly will they learn? They will just pick up the scraps and open shops elsewhere. The only loosers will be the “protestors” too poor to move, while unable to get a job in the wasteland they helped to create. Because no business will dare to open a shop on a street where public burnings are as comon as summer rain.
“Breeding animals for consumption is fine, except this one.”
It is slightly odd how people are like, “cows? Gimme that burger. Sheep? Mmm, mint sauce. Chicken? Batter that baby up”. But then suddenly everyone turns into a vegan when it’s a dog or a horse.
I’ve got no interest in eating dog meat, but where’s the consistency?
I’ve got no counterpoint, but I had the same realization, and it has made me question not being vegan. I’m like 80% without trying, but also replacing eggs and cheese is difficult
Reducing without a strict diet is much easier for people. Small wins. If you can make a “I only eat meat, what are veggies?” person reduce their meat intake at all, that’s a super big win. Changing your entire meal prep is a huge undertaking and most people just won’t do it because it’s too overwhelming. Reducing meat to a side, and being more mindful? Way easier.
A large portion of health issues and causes of death chickens face are egg related. Sometimes the eggs get stuck, sometimes they break before being laid and cause an infection, vent prolapse, cancer, etc. That’s not to say I don’t think we should eat eggs, with a lot of cooking there is just no good substitute, but even the most pampered hen doesn’t have it easy.
I am firmly of the belief that most of the issues in the meat/dairy industry would be resolved if everyone simply consumed less of them as opposed to becoming vegan. That’s how I live my life and I’ve gotten praises from doctors and nutrition specialists about my diet. Exercise is another thing tho…
Right, that’s what I tell people too. I still eat fish on occasion, and if I order food to go and it’s accidentally meat, I will eat it to not waste it.
Have had a few relatives look at me blankly, like they’ve never considered it, when I tell them they don’t NEED to be vegetarian but reducing meat/dairy requires little effort. Sometimes they will send me pictures of the reduced meat meals they make now, which I think is so cute haha. Meat even just as a side dish and not the main course goes a long way :)
Me and my partner do this. We often eat vegan food but if we add a bit of cheese it doesn’t matter. We’ve still consumed way less meat and dairy than we would have a few years ago
People aren't consuming less, though, they're consuming more. Global meat consumption is still rising. Despite supporting myself on a retail-industry income, I'm still able to be 100% vegan, and support zero animal cruelty.
Less is great. None is best. Your only rationale in your comment for why eating less animal products is better than going completely vegan is... that's the way you live so you want that to be the case?
I like to get eggs from my neighbors who have backyard chickens if they have extra. I can see them, know they’re not in pain, or mass produced :)
Cheese I still have no idea. Their isn’t anything easily available, like almond milk for dairy milk. The vegan ones I’ve tried (years ago) are gross and full of emulsifiers. Always striving/looking though.
It’s purely for a cheap optics win. President Yoon is a fascist incel that has been taking L after L, so he worked to ban dog meat despite almost nobody eating it except the absolute poorest of society. Dog meat isn’t a delicacy, it wasn’t something people ate because they saw it as high status, it was largely abandoned by an increasingly westernized South Korea, except for those who couldn’t afford anything else. Barely anyone was eating it.
Instead, it’s virtue signaling by a fascist looking to grab cheap publicity wins rather than actually making good systemic change. Dog meat wasn’t an especially pressing concern, it was an almost gone practice out of necessity, coming from food insecurity, especially during and after the Korean War.
TL;DR still a good thing, but ultimately just a publicity stunt to distract from the fascist President Yoon butchering the economy and targeting women, minorities, and disabled people.
There’s none, it’s based on what society tells you to feel empathy for. Dog eaters and corrida enjoyers are no different from people eating massively produced industrial chicken, they just live in an environment where it is normal to do that.
The base difference is that dogs evolved side by side with our species to develop and return emotional bonding and feedback with humans.
All other animals we managed to domesticate, at best, tolerate us or fear us. Cute little photos of cows and pigs enjoying being hugged and petted are exceptions, not norm.
I’ve been trying to understand, for years, what happened to turn dogs and cats food in asian countries (beside famines, hence desperation) but every single source I was ever able to find always gets muddled in exotheric notions of ”medicinal" use or some other folklore high tale.
For context: in Vietnam, cat meat is often served as being “little tiger”.
To the extent of my knowledge, the rest of the world never needed to wrap an animal in an exotheric tale to declare it as potential food.
This is an interesting angle. Makes me wonder, do we have a moral duty to reciprocate love and loyalty, or the potential for it? And if not, what basis can there be for treatment of human beings?
My concern is not morality and neither is that the issue here.
The animals we call farm animals today came from what are considered prey animals and the process of domestication was essentialy a process of reducing fear and wariness towards our species.
Dogs came to be from an apex predator that, we speculate, found advantageous to actively associate with our species for mutual benefit.
I think there is a much easier explanation. People keep rabbits and guinea pigs as pets. They are much more of a “prey animal” than a wild hog, for example.
Humans simply find rabbits, dogs and cats more aesthetically pleasing / cute. That’s the whole secret to it. Some animals are liked by humans and get a bare minimum of compassion and some don’t. And that’s the biggest factor in our decision of which animals deserve to rot away in their own filth until slaughtered and which can enter our homes as “entertainers”.
Those two species got a “promotion” more recently into the realm of company animals but they started as food, due to being prolific and easy to keep. They are more sustainable as well, as a tangent comment.
We can argue on all fronts. This is speculation, for what it is.
How can you tell this happened more to dogs and cats than any other domestic animal? Many people report farm animals to establish emotional bounding too, typically cows wanting to play and cuddle, way more than the average cat. Cows are also considered sacred by a notable percentage of humanity.
I’m pretty sure there are thousands of other examples of traditions providing tales about why some animal is eaten. One Christian example that comes to me is Easter lamb.
I think your point is still the cultural bias I talked about earlier.
Then let’s turn this on another angle: dogs came to be from a predator, and an apex one, capable and willing to prey on our species, unlike all other species we managed to domesticate.
Cats are not even domesticated, for all objective parameters. Cats are still predators, both potential and active. It is not without reason domestic cats are being viewed more and more as destructive for wild species.
I can go out on a leg and speculate these two species became viewed as food wrapped in myths, with tales of obtaining special powers or some other strange purpose besides avoiding death by lack of nourishment.
All other species we managed to tame came froma what are commonly considered prey animals and it was mostly a process of reducing the animals wariness to us.
Cows are considered a representation of one of the many indu gods and have a very unique status as such but are nonetheless still a source of food through the milk they provide.
Your examples are true and valid but I will insist those are exceptions and not norm. I live in a rural area and sheep, goats and cows are part of the landscape. The animals tolerate human presence, often understand it as a source of food and safety, but are wary, suspitious and generally keep their distance. Even pigs, that are considerably more inteligent than all farm animals don’t easily mingle with humans. But any dog, even a feral one, will approach us willingly.
A very welcome bonus to my job is going to places where usually other people won’t go and often find varying degrees of feral dogs. After the initial suspition, I find myself approached by the animals, observed, sniffed and “bothered” for pets and play. I wish I could do this with other animals but other animals avoid me and do their best to keep me as far away as possible.
Your remark on the lambs. The christian/jewish/islamic carried over the tradition from previous people. Sheep were often offerings towards supernatural entities but started as a resource/food source (wool and milk and finally meat).
We domesticated a highly emotionally intelligent animal. Who cares if there’s “consistency”, if they were killed to make it consistent it wouldn’t be better.
Cows were domesticated for the explicit purpose of being livestock, not companions. I do think they are intelligent, but I don’t believe their emotional intelligence is higher than that of a dog. Dogs literally evolved(bred) eyebrows to facially emote. Having been around cows, and known many farmers with cows and dogs, their emotional intelligence isn’t as apparent. I am not trying to say cows don’t deserve compassion and rights, and frankly eating them is definitely immoral to some degree (yet I still do it). If we were feeding our livestock food scraps and not this corn eco-nightmare and humanely slaughtering, I dont think it would be. But dogs aren’t livestock and are clearly very social animals akin to our similarly protected animals like dolphins, whales, cats, etc. We make excuses for some cultures who are actually dependent on whales/seals etc because of actual longstanding tradition, sustainable harvesting practices, and somewhat humane (or at least no different from a predator/prey in nature), but we don’t need to make the same excuse for an industrial society not dependent on dogs and filled with nonsense about dog and cat meat’s healing properties
I guess for me, whatever difference in emotional intelligence a whale, dog, or cat has from a cow just isn’t enough to categorize them differently. For me it’s splitting hairs. I suspect it’s a symptom of working backwards to a solution from a problem. As a society we don’t like killing these animals. Why? Because we live more closely with them / enjoy their personality. Let’s call them emotionally intelligent and ban the consumption of meat from these types of animals.
Seems like an arbitrary definition arising out of an emotional response.
All this being said, I still eat meat. But I forced myself to come to terms with this, with as little guilt as possible. That helps me reduce and avoid my meat intake and support more alternative forms of protein. Something I think everybody could benefit from.
It’s not the emotional intelligence alone. It’s the result of dogs being bred for cohabitation/work, while the cow was livestock, which includes em int. It’s not splitting hairs, it’s genetics and evolution fueled by deliberate breeding.
You say I’m absurdly reductionist then follow up with an absurd reductionist statement like “all animals are not alike” Your cognitive dissonance is amazing.
I agree. The only counter I can think of is that for thousands of years most dogs have been bred as companions or workers. To me it feels like a violation of some ancient pact to slaughter them. I doubt this has much merit. Just a feeling I get.
Hey what can I say im not sure how else to descibe it. Its just a vibe. I understand that sparing one intelligent animal over another is completely arbitrary. I’m not trying to reconcile some dissonance either. I’ve eaten whale and horse in the past, and if I got really hungry Fido might end up on the menu too.
I have a real hard time feeling sorry for that woman in the article, who supposedly has lost her husband. He willingly signed up to go kill other peoples’ husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. Dispicable
When I was in high school I thought I was going to be a cop. Mostly because I was an unoriginal idiot and a friend wanted to be a cop. Went so far as to go through the explorers program where you hang out with cops and they show you stuff. You go on ride alongs. Spend a lot of time with cops.
As it happens about half the guys teaching this program were swat.
They were drooling for any excuse to suit up and kick down doors.
This was 20 years ago, at the time they’d tell you that 90% of officers never use their firearm on duty.
It colors their perception of any situation. Affects their decision making.
Could this be a prank? Maybe. But could I put on the armor and kick in a door? I mean they did call in a threat…
Yeah. I took a communications course from a former cop/hostage negotiator. It was actually pretty informative. There is a national program to teach police how to be effective and empathetic communicators trained to defuse high stakes situations.
One of the more unnerving “benign” interactions I’ve had with a cop was when the officer standing guard duty at the DMV subjected my wife and I to ten minutes of exposition about his various weapons and the effects they had on people while we waited for the line to move us out of conversation range. It’s never been more clear to me that somebody desperately wants an excuse to do violence, to anybody he might be allowed to.
That guy almost needs to be reported as a danger. He knows all the weepon effects and has put himself in a position where he may be able to legally find out.
I overall agree with your points but I will say that the type of person who probably excels at a life-or-death job like swat is someone who lives for that adrenaline rush in the first place. The problem is in their over-activation, like an overly-active immune system.
I watched the Uvalde PBS Frontline documentary and what stood out to me is that all those cops were glorified ticket cops one-step removed from mall cops. The only two guys showcased to seem to know what they were doing and had a willingness to do so were the border patrol’s equivalent to swat, BORTAC, who seemed professional and were the ones who entered the room first and ultimately eliminated the shooter.
Do they actually send a SWAT team? I just assumed that was the term but they actually just trigger a high priority multi officer response based on what they say.
Your comment doesn’t really answer my question. Do they actually send a SWAT team?
I don’t really care about how they are armed. Is it called swatting because a SWAT team is deployed, or is it because that happened once or sometimes but it’s not always the case?
okay to answer your question it doesn’t matter if it’s swat or not
Swatting is a criminal harassment act of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police or emergency service response team to another person’s address. [wikipedia]
If you make the stakes high enough in the 911 call, absolutely. You don’t want cops to waste time checking things out if a real hostage situation is playing out of whatever.
I mean the main reason they do that is they have to take it seriously. If they decided to ignore anonymous tips, then how many actual situations would they fail to prevent and handle.
Swatting is just taking advantage of the fact that they have no choice but to take it seriously.
That being said, if it’s a place that gets swatted regularly or a place that’s likely to be swatted due to various reasons they should have precautions in place with people they can trust in order to double check before acting, or at least be prepared to go in with their guns still holstered.
Taking things seriously doesn’t have to mean busting in, guns drawn, in the complete absence of corroborating evidence. They’re the police. They can take risks, like… lookin’. Knocking on doors and asking what’s up.
Oh shut up with these intellectually dishonest arguments. You know there’s a problem you know the police are overly aggressive to civilians but hey that’s fine I guess and swat to every situation, come on.
This is about American police being way over militaryized. Swatting is not a problem in many other nations so it’s a solvable issue but if we’re just going to say it’s acceptable then nothing will ever change.
Bomber blows up the neighborhood and Joe bob did fuck all.
To be clear, I’m not making light of swatting, and not accepting the culture of modern cops to go all tactical to every little thing. Injustices are happening, people are getting hurt.
I personally want to live in a country where a bomb threat is treated with maximum seriousness.
Are you suggesting that unarmed negotiators don’t have an amazing success rate?
They are public servants who volunteer to do a dangerous job. Considering the way they treat innocent people now, yeah I’d much rather hire competent people who are willing to do the job properly.
Nope. I don’t have numbers. But I have seen competent, compassionate people talk desperate people out of some dire situations without harm to anyone. We should always start there. Every single time.
I spoke to the tactical-happy nature of cops, and how that’s a serious issue. I pretty specifically constrained my area of discussion to bomb threats. I acknowledge that for other issues of less terroristic nature, a negotiator is great. (Wellness checks, domestic issues, substance issues, etc)
Thanks for clarifying the anecdotal source though.
Until they figure out what is happening, if anything at all, the SWAT teams certainly stand the chance to do more harm than good. How about some recon first? Deaths are happening, and if nothing else innocent and completely bewildered people wind up with police guns pointed at their heads. Most of the time it’s cleared up but the victims are left with “Oh sorry folks, someone called and said there was a hostage here.”
I don’t know what they could do with a mosque. I think it is a very valid assumption that someone could be in there with a gun and a very valid assumption it could be an asshole “pranking”.
Be nice to see some harsh criminal penalties for people who SWAT and maybe some more advanced tech like cameras in the building they can plug into and see.
The problem isn’t that the police respond, it’s how they respond. The fact that the police themselves are so dangerous to the presumptive victim on whose behalf they’re responding – as tacitly acknowledged by “swatting” being treated as a serious crime going beyond mere misuse of police resources – is the much bigger problem here. Frankly, going after swatters is at least 50% a misdirection tactic: an attempt to shift the blame away from the reckless police.
Patrick Tomlinson was swatted over 40 times in 2023 alone. It took WAY too many times before the police would simply knock on his door and ask him if everything was okay. You’d think after the 4th or 5th time they might figure it out.
You’d think Patrick would have set up a big sign like “Hello, if you’re swat, chill! It’s just a prank bro! Just come in and have a beer.” But no, so the guy basically resisted /s
The frustrating thing was that the police had him on a list. They KNEW the history. But half the time they still rolled up ready for war. It was a banner day when he was woken up at 3 in the morning only by two normal officers knocking on the door to let him know it happened again.
“Mar-Jac Poultry’s estimated annual revenue is currently $227.1M per year. Mar-Jac Poultry’s estimated revenue per employee is $337,500” growjo.com/company/Mar-Jac_Poultry meaning that this proposed fine is less than the income this child generated for them.
The child was hired by Onin Staffing, and there is no proposal to fine them. “Onin Staffing’s estimated annual revenue is currently $235.9M per year.” growjo.com/company/Onin_Staffing
Why are there even kids working there? How old was this “teen”? What is wrong with the USA (rethorical question)?
Your numbers (i assume correctness) are making it even more worse. Disgusting even. That’s like fines not bound to income. A major kick in the nutsack for the poor and a slightly more expensive, but totally neglectable, parking-ticket for the rest.
Which would exactly change what? Still a teen that shouldn’t work in such a place. Maybe an hour a day filling shelfs in a supermarket. Not working at a deboner in a soul-crusher.
It doesn’t change anything. It’s an explanation of why the kids are hired. They’re immigrants that came across the border illegally and are being exploited. They are being helped along by Republican state laws. It’s all racism.
He told me that he called and asked for help and he thought at least maybe the police would come and check out the house, somebody might come and knock on the door and instead nothing happened. He ended up escaping eventually on his own. When I asked Health and Human Services about this, they told me that yes, they did not have a policy of calling these children back or going out once they were contacted.
Patently HHS didn’t think it was important to follow up on phone calls they receive. WTF?
Adam Conover also has a video breaking down the issue.
In the latest research, mothers of children with high levels of screen time were more likely to be younger, have never given birth before, have a lower household income, have a lower education level and have postpartum depression.
This paragraph highlights another factor in developmental delay - non-present parents (or other caregivers).
I think it’s still the most ridiculous thing. Either that, or farting on Jenna Ellis during the legislative hearing and giving her COVID. I’m really not sure which of those is more ridiculous.
For a while, mainstream/right wing news especially told voters that many people under the poverty line couldn’t be that badly off since such and such a percent of them had basic conveniences in their living places, like fridges, dishwasher, etc. It was one of those 90s strategies to create resentment against public programs.
One of the greatest money saving tips we got up here in Canada is that cancelling Disney plus ($12/month plus taxes) would help struggling families deal with inflation and make ends meet.
Thanks chrystia freeland, you out of touch ghoul. That $12 a month will surely overcome the several hundred dollars a month increase in costs to food, shelter, and gasoline/heat since 2019.
To be non partisan, the federal leader of the opposition also suggested Canada could opt out of inflation by embracing bitcoin, right before it Collapsed 60%
As you can see, the people in charge up here have nothing but the best, most well thought out advice for the average Canadian and those bootstraps will be pulled up any day now.
I feel your pain. Canadian conservatives are doing exactly the same BS as the ones in the US. Conservatism is the problem, no matter what is the name of party/country/society.
edition.cnn.com
Hot