That write up does seem to ignore the doubling down here:

https://lemmy.ca/comment/13913116

Calling out that JD Vance was the only one to answer is pretty troubling to me after reading about some of his new-right ties. It’s way, way too close for my liking to a mouse telling everyone that will listen that the cat was amazing for inviting him and all his friends to his house in a week. ie. Playing into what just seems like an obvious strategy.

That said, I’m pretty ignorant about the CEO. I just remembered this lemmy comment and I didn’t notice it included in the write up that was being linked.

OP was not actually posing anything coherent

Yeah, agreed.

I’m not hugely on board with the comment answering the second question though. For me, it’s a bit too similar to saying that meteorologists lied to us because they said there was a 60% chance of rain and it didn’t happen. In the context of this question its a lot more complicated than that though

That seems like a statement. I’m still lost on how this answers the question

Yeah, I was think there is easier momentum for non-hardware tech. Social media is mostly its users so if they leave there isn’t much. Disney showed some of the weaknesses of streaming services but they’re aren’t many non-US alternatives. There are YouTube alternatives but there most of the content creators are entrenched there. Most of the rest of Google’s offerings have European alternatives.

I wish there was momentum to boycott US tech companies

What specifically in the original post did you have issue with? There’s not a lot too that post, and you have agreed with part of it, so it seems like it would be faster to list out the issues

Here’s a review focused to some extent on how accurate the science in that book is:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2

The author seems pretty focused on pushing a single message so I’d be careful with that message myself. (As someone who aspires to have a diet that’s mostly vegetables with a few cheat days for meat.)

Fruits tend to get listed as low GI supporting the poster’s statement.

Also, you’re simplifying the chemistry and metabolic pathways to the point they sound the same when they’re obviously different. I’m not an expert but I as I understand it table sugar is short chain and good to go, fruits (if they’re not pre cooked) tend to be a bit more complicated and have a few more steps along the way (and I assume each requires some energy to unlock and also result in some chemical energy that isn’t completely digested). Also, what you’re saying goes a lot against what I understand from the carb count on the packet from fibre vs. what your body unlocks. That said, I’m very ignorant and far from an expert

Are you both from the US? It was rough getting used to how much you all like to drown out the food with various sauces

When did Ukrainian come into it? I went back to the article but half of it was behind a paywall

Oh, I didn’t say I had a preference. And I see your point that one is just a conjugation of the other. I’ve just seen capitalism as a term used more for explanation and when I’ve seen capitalist said it tends to have a negative connotation at best but more often it is half spat out

The question says capitalism (not so loaded term) your answer said capitalist (more loaded term and you’ve taken time to use the loaded part of the term).

That said, I accidentally replied to a question in lemmy.ml so the person asking the question is probably more aligned with your way of thinking and explaining than I am. Sorry about that

Duplicates of famous art isn’t a thing? Street vendors selling print isn’t a thing?

You choose to right click download and then… assume the only use anyone wants is to store their art in ones and zeros?

I think you need to prefix this with “some”. I’m not sure your point even holds for “most”

An economic model that includes capitalism explains a lot of the world including having some close process analogs in nature.

A capitalist sounds like a label you’re trying to apply in an attempt to label someone as being maximally for profits. A lot of companies admittedly work that way and it’s important to include that concept.

By my reading you’re taking the use of the first term and then saying they are using the second term. I think this is called equivocation.

For profit system!?

I’m pretty sure every time I’ve seen humans get together there’s someone trying to get more of something than the other people. Even in communes or communities without money like jails (and in the romanticised tribal past). Some parts of economic theory help predict these outcomes even in places that aim for these ideals.

Where are you seeing evidence of a system that’s close to what you’re describing that’s functional, stable over time, and more than a few isolated individuals?

You have a niece that’s a poor student but talented at art.

You clone her painting, sell for a profit, keep the money.

Same issue different specifics.

You’re still aggressively okay with this and would still use sophisticated language to slander the niece’s actions?

I’d argue memes that duplicate other peoples work are common but questionable on the ethical front.

Kind of like how alcohol consumption is common and got shoehorned in through our long history with it but newer drugs are more likely to have people question their cost to society (and demonise them usually for political gain, still many have some obvious costs).

If you’re a small family store that makes an amazing recipe and people love it, and you keep that recipe a secret. You’re honestly okay with a competitor stealing it? Not a competitor making a bad ripoff, but finding a way to get the recipe and using that to clone the meal for a profit.

Obviously with larger companies it’s easier to say fuck them but investing time in something and then having it taken is a hit even if its “information”, isn’t it?

I’m amazed at how many people found rogan authentic. Is it the same sort of podcasters playing off people’s intuitions, like the fact checker used to?