Sounds so wholesome :)
Allero
joined 11 months ago
Seriously though.
Bought an old second-hand Brother printer a while ago and couldn't be happier.
Model is like 10 years old, yet all spare parts and cartridges as well as just toner are readily available and the printer is perfectly fine (damn how precise laser printers are!).
They just make it happen.
Which is actually said in the original article
Thanks!
Decided not to stir it, probably
UN is often about grand messages and general directions. It's not always about forcing direct action - which might be a shame, but UN ain't almighty.
He does directly state the latter.
Here's an archived version of the article, courtesy to TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world:
On duty
This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.
The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.
But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.
Nebula is cool and all, but at the end of the day, it's still a commercial platform, and those do tend to enshittify and depend a lot on externalities.
As creators grow more dependent on Nebula, Sam and the team of original Nebula creators can wield more power and change the rules.
They already dictate the kind of content that is allowed - for example, Second Thought, one of the original creators behind Nebula, was asked to leave as he doesn't agree to change public stance on Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he is pro-Palestine). This has suddenly left him without a source of revenue necessary for the production to expand, and has put him into debt.
Solution? Probably independent sponsorships that would go both on YouTube and PeerTube videos. Or a creator reward system like in Lbry/Odysee. Something that would allow to reward creators without going full commercial.
So, what's the middle ground in your opinion?
As the economy grows and progress creates exponentially more wealth, it's only natural that people demand ever higher standards of living. This is good, this is how it should be.
At the same time, generational theory is bullshit. People in each age bracket are very different, and in each of them you can find what you would call more sensitive or more tough people. And it is good, too! Some people are better at promoting change, some people are better at withstanding the status quo. Both are necessary if we want to have constant growth on a strong foundation. Oh, and every generation has stupid freaks. A lot of them, in fact.
LGBTQ+ youth defending Palestine is not about promoting LGBTQ+ rights. It's about fighting for a more fundamental right - right for people to live. No one in their sane mind expects Palestinian Arabs to go under rainbow flags, but it doesn't matter for as long as life for everyone in the region is endangered. The people you call "weak" are protesting in defence of basic human rights - something "strong" people fought hard for - that are undermined in the world of today. They'd rather see a region that is unfriendly to LGBTQ+ than one that is mass grave.
And you're right - famous people shouldn't be our role models! They just often happen to be so as they are in the spotlight. But we should promote other voices - scientists, engineers, economists, we should promote meaningful art, etc. etc. Parents are not always a perfect role model, as they bring with them a load of stereotypes, cognitive distortions, and are commonly conservative in the wide sense of the word, which hinders the development of new ways of thinking. But they too are undoubtedly important.