teamonkey

joined 1 year ago
[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Edge can’t be anticompetitive if no one is using it

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They couldn’t even be bothered developing their own apps for it. The mail app began to lag behind Outlook on Android, Minecraft was never ported to it when it could have been a killer exclusive app.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Labour gained 811 votes compared to the 2019 election, Conservatives lost over 20,000

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I understand it, the efficiency of a wind turbine increases with blade size, so multiple smaller personal wind turbines are less efficient than fewer, larger turbines that serve a neighbourhood, as well as costing much more and using more overall resources.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

In a co-operative the shareholders are employees and associated members, and they elect the board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative

Not that Unity is a co-operative, but there is another way.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I’m still waiting.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Honestly the one killer use case for AI is to transcribe how-to YouTube videos into a static web page with thumbnail images.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

It’s an entirely intentional deception. People get the fear that they’ll not be able to pass on their 3-bed semi-detached*, a dinner table set and the last dregs of a private pension to their kids, so they vote so that rich people don’t have to redistribute wealth.

  • Usual caveat for London 🙄
[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Capitalism has a definition. He’s saying that the markers that define Capitalism (as opposed to Mercentilism, Feudalism, etc.) are no longer there.

Specifically he’s saying that you can now no longer be on the top rung by privately owning the means of production, which is probably the biggest hallmark of Capitalism.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Its reputation for impartiality is also working as expected.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The government do appear to have a hand in picking board members and executives though, and it’s regulated by the govt-appointed body Ofcom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64383742

(And yes, I’m aware of the irony of posting a BBC news link)

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

AV+ was not a PR method and only offered minor benefits above FPTP. It would still lead to a concentration of power between the two main parties, but it would increase the overall number of seats gained by a centrist party.

AV+ suited the Tories (and Labour) only slightly less well than FPTP, but Lib Dems would have been a much bigger spare leg if it had gone through. For the Tories, it was a win-win result.

In other words, the LDs allowed themselves to make another compromise, being tempted with another minor power grab, and in doing so allowed themselves to be outplayed again, and didn’t even gain us the minor democratic benefits AV+ had to offer.

As for AV+ being a short leap to PR, I have doubts, even though I voted in favour of it. PR would be less beneficial than AV+ to the three main parties now, so why would the LDs try to push it through? Also the referendum would have been used as a weapon - “the people voted so we can’t change it” - just as has been done for election reform, the Scottish Referendum and Brexit since.

view more: next ›