• 0 Posts
  • 159 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • But my claim is that the statement is false, not that they intentionally misled, so even if they were understandably confused, that still seems to be untrue.

    But it isn’t inaccurate, that’s the thing. The Twitter post says, “a Photojournalist and Writer/Editor for both Al-Jazeera and the Palestinian Chronicle.” That is factually true…

    claiming this some kind of intelligence community…but it’s understandable that they can’t even figure out if this guy works for al Jazeera? You’ll have to help me square this.

    The group is a discord channel for people in the intelligence sector, I don’t know what you need squared about that. Take it for what it is, an early alert gossip mill by people who hear things before most other people do.

    I have no need to rush to a conclusion on this. I’m just reporting what one of your links said. In your attempt to rush to a conclusion, you already were convinced of a falsehood. Maybe you should slow down too.

    I haven’t rushed to any conclusions, I’ve been sharing news articles as they come out.

    I can’t help but read your points as attempting to paint al Jazeera as some bad guy in this whole thing.

    Whether you pay them or not, posting articles from potential terrorists isn’t a good look. The same can be said about any media group associating with terrorists, the same happened with CNN, NY Times, and Associated Press on October 7th.

    How long ago was this tweet that is from some group that you claim is 10 hours ahead of the news? And we’re being critical of al Jazeera for not rushing out an article in that time?

    Not sure why you’re asking me when something was posted when I shared the link to it, that’s just lazy. I never criticized Al-Jazeera for not publishing a response, I simply stated that they haven’t, and my response about that was even understanding that not much time has passed?

    I think you’re the one rushing to conclusions and should slow down.


  • Eh, I wouldn’t say it’s false. The description of the guy comes from Al-Jazeera’s website where they say he is a reporter and photojournalist and he did write for Al-Jazeera. If Al-Jazeera is going to post his work and list his information on their website I think it’s understandable that people might think he is employed by them.

    As for the attack being unverified, the other link I provided stated that the IDF confirmed that address and house (which is time stamped after the article you are referencing). Additionally, a third party who is identified as a Hamas operative in Europe was referenced as a source for these claims in both articles. I don’t know how much more confirmed you can get unless you’re holding out for Anderson Cooper to be live from the living room?

    Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere that Al-Jazeera is denying he was doing anything, the only thing they appear to be denying is that he was employed by them. Even then, Al-Jazeera doesn’t seem to be making any articles about the guy, the whole thing was correspondence with representatives of Al-Jazeera, this stuff happened so recently I wouldn’t be surprised if Al-Jazeera hasn’t had time to post anything yet. For context, this information is <24 hours old, the first US article I see about it was only posted an hour ago.


  • Ah ok, my apologies. Yeah, there’s not much in the way of mainstream international news picking this story up. Pretty much it was just Israel saying they raided XYZ houses, these are the people they found inside. Individuals made the connection to Al-Jazeera and mainstream Israeli media picked it up, but they’ve backed off a bit once Al-Jazeera clarified.

    I’d generally agree with a general dislike of Twitter supporters, but no one has really stepped up to fill in Twitters void (at least that get the same level of traction as Twitter). Paying the Twitter tax still seems to get your information out faster and farther than almost any other alternative. I think the only way Twitter is going to fully fall will be if it no longer is profitable to run, otherwise large groups will continue to use it. One positive is that people seem to be diversifying from Twitter with Lemmy, Mastadon, Reddit, or something else (I guess Discord falls in the something else).

    Now if you’re just a regular person and paying for Twitter blue then I agree that you’re probably not trustworthy or at least a bit stupid.




  • The other part of it is none Americans on social media. For Europeans for example Biden looks center right for the most part. Then again Europeans have options further left.

    My biggest beef with Europeans is the military spending discussion and immigration. Yeah, it would be nice if we cut military spending and used it to better our own society. Yeah, it would be nice to move to a country with affordable housing, public transportation, great education systems, etc.

    Norway, Finland, and Belgium have great policies for their citizens, but combined have less than a million troops (active and reserve), spend less than $20 billion each year, and only let in 254k immigrant per year (50k Finland, 39k Norway, and 165k Belgium). In contrast the US has 2.6 million immigrants per year.

    It’s like NIMBY, pull the ladder up behind you, and leopards ate my face all had a threesome.


  • It’s directly beneficial in the short term. The statement obviously needs some caveats like the world coming to an end as a result of Trump’s reelection, but in general Trump policies are generally going to directly benefit the middle, upper middle, and upper class white people more than Biden’s policies.

    • DEI is good for society, but it doesn’t add money to my pocket.

    • Social Security is probably going to be gone by the time I can collect it, so cutting Social Security means I keep more money now.

    • I don’t have kids so cutting education funding or making it private would save me money.

    • I have a job with great insurance, cutting medicare/medicaid would save me money.

    • Global warming and emissions are a huge deal, but no truly meaningful progress is being made with Biden or the rest of the world. If you believe an apocalyptic scenario is the outcome of the current state of things, and we accept that that is inevitable, then why make things harder for myself now? It’s like being in a burning house with one person running around with a glass of water and another guy getting out his lighter to light a joint.

    Strictly speaking, if we take “everything is going to literally end” off the table as an outcome of a second Trump term then most likely his policies are going to be more directly beneficial to me.

    Thankfully I don’t feel this way, a rising tide lifts all ships, and we shouldn’t look only to next quarter’s profits. However, the far left shouldn’t bark and bite at people helping advance their agenda for not doing it fast enough, it just alienates the altruistic people who want to help.


  • I’ve had this conversation with my SO. Technically speaking the best move for me as a white male would be to support Trump. Instead I vote for Democrats hoping for positive changes for all people. For most of my life I’ve thought I was “far left” for American standards, but since I’ve joined portions of Lemmy and Reddit you’d think I was a fucking Republican.

    Certain portions of the left would rather spit in their own eye for unrealistic principles, even if it means that a worse alternative is the result.


  • This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.

    “She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”

    Additionanally:

    “According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”

    So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.

    As to the idea that they had been warned:

    “Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”

    McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”





  • I think that makes a weird sort of sense. I mean, if you’re gonna pay 1 person 3x what you pay the others you kinda expect them to shoulder more of the burden. Same goes for Doctors in general and Air Traffic Controllers, the barrier to entry is exceptionally high, the pay is high to match, but the expectations are even higher

    I can’t speak to the union bit, but I would say most aren’t in a Union in the US since most of the US doesn’t have Unions. If you’re in an area that has them then maybe they get a better deal.



  • I think that’s the thing, it’s not that amazingly well paid. Considering it only requires a high school diploma and a certificate it pays well, but overall you’re probably only making around $38-55k per year. I did find some exceptions such as the upper end of NYC techs making $65k, but even LA had a high end of $55k. Maybe the salary data I saw was wrong, but that’s not particularly well paying.

    The high paying job is the Pharmacist who is probably pulling in $120-160k, but the tech is doing all the real work.

    This guy probably looks at it like they aren’t conventionally attractive (which isn’t true) and they aren’t making stupid high salaries.


  • It’s certainly a respectable job, but it’s not an overly well paid job which is probably that guys quibble. As with many jobs it depends on the specifics, but it seems like the job pays around $38-55k depending on where you live. It looks like some areas can get a bit higher (NYC had some data indicating $65k/year).

    For a job that only requires a high school diploma and a certification that’s not bad, it’s just not particularly good either. If you have two people making roughly that amount it’s probably good enough to live comfortably, but not live very well.

    It’s the Andrew Tate mentality where the only acceptable partner is either an “Alpha” making $10 million a year and is conventionally attractive or doesn’t work at all and is even more conventionally attractive.


  • Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

    In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

    As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

    Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

    Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.