mozz

joined 2 years ago
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They scared

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 11 months ago

Cash deposited at ATMs: No charge.

I do see the 0.25% fee for teller cash deposits but (a) that’s nowhere near as high as CC fee and basically not worth worrying about (b) generally speaking I don’t do that unless I had some massive wad of cash, the ATM is far more convenient unless you have a big pile all at once

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 80 points 11 months ago

How will launching mirrors of the size of your entire farm (if not hundreds times larger) for extra 30 min of sunset ever be more cost-effective than simply adding a small percentage of extra PV panels

This is this year’s single biggest understatement

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 23 points 11 months ago (8 children)

There are different types of bad movies. There are those that find an unintended audience after the fact, reframing them as sources of amusement to be ridiculed, those that are simply too dull to be thought of ever again and then there are those that are made with such staggering incompetence that they barely even exist. The latter category is the one that I find hardest to endure, films such as The Snowman (a head-scratchingly awful thriller that was technically unfinished yet still released) veering from bad to refund-level unwatchable.

It was no real surprise that a tortured update of 1994’s cursed goth revenge thriller The Crow would be a misfire – it’s been in development since 2008 with multiple directors and actors attached ever since – but it’s genuinely startling just how utterly wretched the finished product is and how unfit it is for a wide release. Filmed two years ago and dumped on a low-expectation late summer weekend, The Crow 2.0 is a total, head-in-hands disaster, incoherently plotted and sloppily made, destined to join the annals of the very worst and most pointless remakes ever made.

-The Guardian

I have no idea; I haven't seen it. But the initial reports aren't great.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 35 points 11 months ago (10 children)
  1. It was very bad
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 11 months ago

I try to not to prejudge. But the fact that I asked, hey what things, after they told me they love the things that he says, and they didn’t answer, kind of implies one specific answer to the question.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Dude I love posting about stuff that's not accusations of propaganda bullshit. Check the profile. I like comparing the US army to the Nazis and talking about video games and the inequities in the global health system and how Boeing sucks. It's very weird that the last few years have made me into this supporter of the Democrats, because for about the first decade of my political life I wanted absolutely nothing to do with them.

My perfect world would be all the Lemmy people getting together like the sandersforpresident days, like hey the Democrats are kinda shitty how can we get them to take X Y and Z seriously or maybe replace them with someone better. It is not at all by my decision that a lot of suspiciously polished and consistent arguments keep popping up out of the woodwork and into the discourse for why "don't support the Democrats in November" is a good strategy for getting that done (IT IS NOT), and why it doesn't seem to go any further than that, into something that would produce positive action, but just "let Trump win because I feel betrayed on Gaza" or w/e.

But yes if I see something that looks like bullshit I tend to try to call it out. Maybe I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion. But it's definitely not for no reason.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I wish you wouldn't try to derail the conversation.

Examining the source of the claim is not derailing. If it's a climate news agency that's saying hey we need this or this from the Democrats because it's a fuckin emergency, then fair play.

If however it's a "news" agency that is saying, the Democrats are bad on the climate and Gaza and I can't vote for them in good conscience and they're bad on immigration (seen through a very particular lens, where the issue is, is it okay that we're spending money on "migrants" instead of helping our own people) and bad on crime (seen through a very particular lens of hey I don't feel safe in my community and I feel like the Democrats aren't doing enough and don't care about that issue), and also Maduro won the election and "they" are trying to steal it from him... that is relevant. That is not derailing. That is relevant to how seriously I want to take this claim that therealnews.com is super concerned about the climate and that is the source of this proposed strategy on how we make the climate better.

Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change.

100% agreed

This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.

Fuckin what? What needs to happen is government action on climate. If that involves putting pressure on the Democrats then let's rock and roll with that; it sounds great. I realize what I'm putting up sounds somewhat defensive of them, but that is only because this past time around they took the issue almost 10 times more seriously than any other US administration in history and took hugely significant action on it, and that's relevant to this conversation.

If it was "that's not nearly enough, they need to do X Y and Z now and here's how to pressure them to do it" then, like I said, fuckin great. I actually agree with a decent amount of the substantive points in this article. Since the overall thesis is "Kamala Harris is bad on climate change," however, and since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

4 years 🧐

You are 100% correct; I just checked the platform via archive.org and it seems like it's exactly the same climate platform as last election's. I mean they did great stuff (relatively speaking for Washington 😢) the last time around but maybe the criticism that she hasn't laid out a specific plan is fair.

However

Why is this "therealnews.com" linking to someone who has a whole show about how Maduro won the election?

Why does this story include this stuff:

I was a former Democrat voter. That’s not the case for this election. I’m going to be voting for Gaza this election. And I was really disappointed by the Biden administration’s stance towards Gaza, and that’s going to reflect in my vote this time.

I feel like a big issue is definitely the southern border. A lot of people don’t care enough about it or don’t talk about it enough, but I grew up in Chicago, and every day, it’s definitely different seeing all the migrants being here. And I think it’s great, that we need to help people and all that, but we’re not even helping our own people that have been here their entire lives and born and raised here. So, I think the immigration issue is probably the biggest issue that I would have with it, and I would hope other people care to think about it as well.

Emphasis on "Democrat voter" is mine.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are posting propaganda bullshit

 

Good thing they were on point about not being willing to host it as long as he showed the guy's face -- everyone knows that videos that show a person's face are strictly forbidden on every social media platform.

 

"Different Globus units needed to be built for different orbits. Moreover, this design only handles circular orbits, making it useless during orbit changes such as rendezvous and docking. These were such significant limitations that some cosmonauts wanted the Globus removed from the control panel, but it remained until it was replaced by a computer display in Soyuz-TMA (2002)."

view more: ‹ prev next ›