mozz

The modern system of Big Food makes it more or less impossible for any other type of farming operation to exist. There are about 2 million farms in the US with an average size around 500 acres. For the most part, they are money-losing enterprises run by suffering families from which one of a tiny handful of food conglomerates is attempting to wring every possible abusive penny, with a good deal of success. John Oliver did a show about it, and Joel Salatin has written quite a few excellent books about the tragicomic experience of trying to run a non-industrialized farming operation in the modern United States and what an inevitably difficult clusterfuck it is on several different levels.

What did you mean, then?

It's two very different things, agribusiness and actual farmers. Agribusiness is the source of a lot of suffering in the world, and no small part of it gets heaped directly on the farmers who actually make the food which they monopolize and sell. I actually think a lot of your comment is extremely accurate when applied to agribusiness.

You didn't say agribusiness, though, you said farmers. And you brought up a comparison of farmers' complaints about failing harvests to agribusiness's complaints about regulation or subsidies. I don't think it's sensible to minimize complaints about failing harvests and I don't think the comparison you made between the two things was reasonable.

Does that seem fair? If I've misunderstood something then you can always clarify, but I reread it and my reaction is exactly the same the second time around. What did you mean; who are some examples of some of these farmers who always complain? When you talk about wanting guaranteed prices, for example, I instantly think of people wanting to be able to paid a sustainable rate for the food they grow, instead of a barely-subsistence rate with the conglomerate that buys their produce keeping 110% of the profit and exposing them to the full brunt of the marketplace risk. Seems pretty reasonable to me. No?

Seinfeld is very exceptional in that it was a show which featured unapologetically bad people, and glorified them, very effectively.

You can be extremely cynical in your scripting while still holding up characters who have some sort of moral center and are trying to do the right thing. Old-season Simpsons did this very well. The characters are not bad. They are not nice and they have genuine failings, and the situations they find themselves in are not sugarcoated. But, it's still a show about trying to maintain your humanity, in a pretty realistic portrayal of the grim reality we all find ourselves in. The original "Arrested Development" is similar although a little more upper-class and light hearted.

Maybe I am a corny motherfucker but I do think that it's important to try to keep your eye on doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing, because it's real shit that every human being runs into and it's definitely not easy. Art does influence the ways people behave and the way they perceive the world. Seinfeld is a show about absolute horrible sociopaths, who ruin relationships and other people's lives over and over again because of their commitment to selfishness, and if you only look superficially, how relatable and fun and entertaining they can be to spend time with, and how easy it is to overlook what abominably bad people they are as long as it all seems fun.

Somewhere there is a video talking about how Jerry Seinfeld is actually one of the darkest comedians working. I don't even know where I could start to find it, but the guy talks about watching a Seinfeld bit about throwing trash in the movie theater before he leaves for someone else to clean up, and how the guy watching got this chilling feeling he never got from much more serious topics: Like it's not an act, he genuinely just feels nothing below surface level, and doesn't give a fuck what happens.

"Blowing the doors off the competition" was right there tho

I like how the diagram contains an illustration of one big flaw in the plan

Those damn entitled farmers; what have they ever done for us

You need to be logged in -- for me it shows all the posts / comments that I've liked. See the fix that the other person posted though; the comment link should be https://lemm.ee/api/v3/comment/list?liked_only=true

That is incredibly charming 😃

Yeah. The ICC and ICJ are very different.

The ICJ is basically just a fact-finding body, to inform actions that nations might want to take with their police or military or just to make things plain with proof in a hard-to-argue-with way. It's a good thing, but because it's mostly toothless on its own, people leave it alone.

The ICC has a lot more bite behind it. An ICC arrest warrant means any signatory country is obligated to take the subject into custody if they set foot in the country. It's well up far enough into the "might makes right" territory of world politics that it's not real clear what would happen if they issued a warrant for Netanyahu, but it's clearly enough of a big deal that people on the pro-war-criminal side are worried about it. And there's precedent; people as big as Henry Kissinger have been grabbed and hauled in front of a judge in the past so it's not like being a US friend is a get out of jail free card.

The US was taking steps towards agreeing to the ICC until Bush 2 got into office and killed the whole thing. If you want a fascinating story about the whole thing, watch "Prosecuting Evil" (mostly about Nuremberg but deals with the ICC at the end). In it, Robert McNamara (!) calls up Ben Ferencz and says he wants to throw his support behind the ICC.

Ferencz sort of gets shocked and says, I don't think that's a good idea for you. If this thing goes through you might be on the short list of people they go after for what you did in Vietnam.

McNamara says yeah. That's why I want to do it. All those things I did, I never would have done if I knew it was illegal. I think we should have laws for these things. So if I can make it happen I want to.

And there's a little bit of silence, and Ferencz says okay then. If you're sure, then I'd be glad of the help.

Oh, true dat - yeah that is much more convenient.

API docs are at https://lemmy.readme.io/reference/get_post-list - I haven't tested this, but to me it looks like you can get raw results for what you've liked by doing this (for $server set to whatever server address):

1. Open web developer tools and go to the "Network" tab
2. Load a page of Lemmy while logged in
3. Right-click on one of the network requests, select Copy Value -> Copy as curl
4. Paste the resulting value to command line in a place that has curl; that'll give you a request that has the right auth tokens and etc
5. Backspace over the actual URL so you can replace it with the API calls you need
6. Use --request GET --url "https://$server/api/v3/post/list?liked_only=true" --header 'accept: application/json' to get liked posts as JSON
7. Use --request GET --url "https://$server/api/v3/comment/list?liked_only=true" --header 'accept: application/json' to get liked comments as JSON

Edit: Fixed comment link

About what aspect? I don't really know him, but I just read some of his stuff and he sounds very accurate to me in general.