I actually probably provide more support for the things I like because I pirate. Look at it this way - if I had to subscribe to a million services, I just wouldn’t watch a lot of things (because I don’t like spending money month over month for services). Now, I download what I want to watch, and if it’s good I go and tell my friends and family (who aren’t pirates) how good it is and they go and watch it, bringing more eyeballs to their show/movie than they would’ve had otherwise. Pirating isn’t stealing or taking away from creatives imo
Though I agree about 'financial support for content creator' I think our model of copyright doesn't work.
I'd love your opinion
Should a content creator keep making money forever once something is produced ? Would you prefer to buy rather than pirate a movie that was made 100 years ago ? Let's say you never bought any Charlie Chaplin movie, would you buy it if you wanted to watch it ?
The reason I ask is because I'm still unclear myself about what is morally right on this topic. I tend to pirate a lot nowadays because I don't know how to support content creators without filling the pockets of intermediary leeches
My personal rule is that I'll buy it as long as the original creators are profiting from new sales. So I'm happy to buy Switch games, but I'm probably not going to buy N64 games because they're not available from the original devs.
I may buy even if that's not the case if buying is a better experience than getting it some other way.
If DRM-free digital copies existed for movies, I'd buy them. But they don't, so I buy physical media and rip it to my NAS.
Especially with movies, the people who made the thing are already paid by the time it is released. As little as possible. VFX houses are often fucked royally and don't even break even. Even big-name actors are usally screwed over by Hollywood accounting.
By paying you only feed the leeches who then use their resources to fuck over everyone else.
Corps are fucked, I've got no issues pirating content. If I want to support someone I'll pay up but the majority of content is background filler for me.
Why would I want to sub to Amazon just to watch Jeremy Clarkson's new show, where he was paid $200m to support him? It baffles the mind the volume of cash that's thrown around in that world.
I'd much rather spend my money down the pub on a Sunday, which is owned by locals, has local beers on tap with a local solo musician jamming out the front.
For me, there's much more value in an experience with the quirks of it being live, a quick witted bartender, a great cover, an old bloke retelling stories he's told 100 times before, a forgotten lyric or even a snapped string on a guitar.
Will be defining paths in the OCI containers currently it's manually configured for the most part. Mainly to do with folder perms being a bitch like networking (for me).
She later said Telstra had contacted her and offered a free Fetch box, which she acknowledged was a “reasonable resolution”.
And we have learned exactly nothing here. See you in 2 years when Fetch closes down and you are not getting anything back because you actually did not "buy" those movies on Fetch but on the previous platform.
Yeah. They (pretend to) consider the kind of things that children (and many adults) find more hilarious than anything else "pornographic filth" and racial and ethnic slurs protected speech.
These people are literally mentally unwell authoritarian bigots.
Almost the entirety of what my kids find funny is just adding ‘poopy’, ‘pee’, butt’, and ‘fart’ to sentences. If there is a god, I’m pretty sure they could’ve found less funny ways for us to expel gases and bodily waste than the current system (though we’d still joke about it).
Wow, apparently in some places there are consequences for completing tanking your country's economy and global standing. Which that was true everywhere
It's taken a lot of tanking for people to wake up.
Also these are just council seats. I can only hope it translates to the GE. The past few years however has taught me to hold no expectations for how the public will vote.
Someday I hope to build up the courage to visit/participate a nudist beach. It seems far more comfortable and “normal” in Europe than in the States from my travels. Remarkably humanizing.
Went to one while in Spain. The spectrum was roughly the same as you would see at any beach. There were no creepers hanging around or anyone who was judgy.
I experienced the same at “regular” beaches out in Greece. Topless women and Speedos were just as normal as any other beachgoer. It was really rather relaxing thinking back to it now.
It used to be required at a lot of camping pools because the longer shorts would take too much water out of the pool.. nowadays it's not often required anymore in my experience.
It's still required at pools because the downhill (VTT) bikers will wear board shorts, get covered in mud then try to just walk into swimming pools with them
There's one in my area of Florida. It's the busiest part of the beach lol. Other people get judgy if you tell them you go, but the people there are super normal. It's really more about yourself being free in nature. If you go to ogle at people you'll be disappointed and also unwelcome, naturists don't generally tolerate creeps. They like to keep it chill and everyone interacts like any other beach. Occasionally there's even kids there.
But it's technically illegal in the state... But the cops turn a blind eye and haven't gone after it (it's been this way for decades). The (federally run) park even put up signs to warn that you made encounter "nude sunbathers" at a certain part of the beach.
Playalinda beach on the space coast, near Titusville and next to the launch pads. Last parking lot is clothing optional. Really clean and natural beach. Also great for watching rocket launches, if they keep the beach open for it.
Yes, however the nude section is the furthest parking lot, which is 4 miles north of where this was taken. Still a spectacle and much closer than most people will see a rocket launch, but if you came to see a launch then you probably want to be as close as possible
Before I wasn't going to go because I'm not comfortable with my own body. NOW I'll never go, because I assumed it was 21+. I don't mind catching a glimpse of adult male nudity (I'm a straight male), because at least it's an adult consenting to it. But I DO NOT want to see 8 year olds running around naked. Both from a standpoint of I don't want to see it, AND from the standpoint that I don't want others knowing they can go there to see it.
Think about it. Prior to 2012 or whatever year it was, NOBODY would have thought anything wrong with Jarod from subway going to a nude beach. But would you want your 8 year old at the same nude beach as Jarod??? Nobody knew he was into that, and the only reason you know now is because it made the news. The people in your neighborhood WON'T make the news.
There are various search tools online to see who in your neighborhood has been placed on the sex offender registry. Of the 37 houses on my street, 24 of them have had some form of sexual based arrest since the 1970s.
Can YOU pick out the predators based on visual glimpse? I can't.
What's so different about a kid being naked compared to an adult being naked? Also, if you don't want to see naked kids, just... don't look at them? I don't get what your problem is here.
Well, I know kids today aren't being raised with the same protections I was as a kid. Kids swear more often now, see more violent tv than I did, and see sex more often than I did.
However I still maintain that kids should be treated as if they are as innocent as I was as a kid. I didn't know what sex was until puberty, and thats the way it should be. Let them have a childhood.
You start making it known "hey, this is a place where naked kids are", then you'll inevitably have people going there specifically to see the naked kids. And you'll never know which ones are doing that. Nobody suspects the pedophile until they're caught.......which tells me the uncaught ones are just out there consequence free.
And as far as "just not looking", I covered this with the naked guys. I don't mind seeing the naked guy, even though I don't want to. You're going to see it if you're there. It's just going to at some point be in your visual line of sight. With adults, at least they're consenting adults who understand that any visitor to that beach, at anytime might sexualize them in their own mind. Children can't consent to that, because they don't understand the severity of the situation.
However I still maintain that kids should be treated as if they are as innocent as I was as a kid. I didn't know what sex was until puberty, and thats the way it should be. Let them have a childhood.
This just reads so..... Strange. Nobody is advocating telling young kids about sex.
There is nothing inherently sexual about a naked human body. It's only weird if you're making it weird and, well, you are.
Nobody may be advocating for it, but it happens due to lazy parenting. I heard one 10 year old on the bus a few months ago tell another about his age "Suck my dick!".
When I was his age I'd never heard such phrases. I wouldn't even know TO say that. They hear it from whatever media, whether its tv, or youtube, or movies. Nobody is saying anyone is doing this in person, but lazy parenting leads to it happening.
I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling or not at this point. We're discussing nude beaches here. Lazy parenting and kids using bad language is nothing to do with nude beaches.
Because a nude beach is supposed to be sexual. And a kid is the wrong element for that. They're supposed to not even know about nudity or sex at that age.
EVERYTHING nude is sexual.....but especially beaches. I mean, only two types of people go to beaches. People looking to fuck in the lake while people watch, and the other, seperate part of the beach where families take their kids in the summer to swim.
Now you're removing the part where you have to sneak around at the beach, and make it nude to start with. How is that NOT sexual? Except .......now theres kids. At the part of the beach where you fuck.
I'm gonna break something to you here that might blow your mind.... Europeans (and the people in the article) do not go to a nude beach to fuck. They're going there to feel more natural in nature.
Naked bodies are not sexual unless you sexualise them, which you are doing. The statue of David is a fine example here.
I honestly have never heard of a sexual nude beach in my life before. Maybe they exist where you live.
Edit:
EVERYTHING nude is sexual
If this is your world view I don't think we'll ever agree. That's kinda messed up IMO.
I'm starting to think that maybe you're trolling again. You see I've spent lots of time in America, very fond of the place, and a lot of it on the beach.
I spent 4 straight months in San Diego and lived near the beach while I was there. I know that the beach is not a place for fucking in secret. Sure maybe it happens as little or as often as it does in the rest of the world but that doesn't make it the default function.
Anyway I'm trying to get back to sleep having woken in the middle of the night so I'm out. o/
I would gently suggest trying not to view naked as being sexual for a bit. It'll probably ease some worry in your mind that you don't need to have.
Nobody is advocating telling young kids about sex.
Even if they were, I don't think I would take issue with it. Sex is a natural part of life and society. I think prudish/taboo attitudes towards sex create more problems than they solve.
Fully agree though as a broad rule but there's an age of innocence that needs respecting IMO. I got told by an older boy I knew when I was just 8 and honestly that was not great. My own barometer is that if you still believe in Santa we'll have the talk later.
Funny story - Our eldest had some broad strokes when we sat him down but thought from the playground stories that you used a condom if you wanted to get pregnant. I was very glad to clear that little misconception up.
got told by an older boy I knew when I was just 8 and honestly that was not great
Yeah, that's probably not the best way to find out.
there’s an age of innocence that needs respecting IMO
I'm not sure I necessarily agree. I had books like Visual Dictionary of the Human Body within reach since I was a toddler, so I don't recall the ideas of "sex" or "where babies come from" ever being a big deal or a shocking revelation.
if you still believe in Santa
Funnily enough, I don't think I ever believed in Santa either, so I guess your barometer checks out :)
They can still be innocent at nude beaches. There aren't any orgies there or whatever you think a nude beach is.
Creeps gonna creep. Only way to avoid them is to not go outside. And honestly who cares? Maybe I'm a bit desensitised, but if someone stares at me at the beach, why should I care? Same goes for the ones staring at children, with the difference that children don't even worry about stuff like that.
I also think you overestimate the amount of people who actually go there to creep. It's not even necessary to go to a nude beach for that, I've seen plenty of naked kids at regular beaches.
"[...] because they don't understand the severity of the situation."
What severity? What's going to happen to the kids? Do you seriously think they worry about being sexualised? When I was a kid, we would run around naked in our backyard, lots of neighbours were able to see us. Did I worry about that in the slightest? Nope.
Well, I know kids today aren’t being raised with the same protections I was as a kid. Kids swear more often now, see more violent tv than I did, and see sex more often than I did.
Unless you're like 80, that's not true at all. Every generation since gen x has gotten more prudish.
Sounds like you just moved away from a hyper conservative area, or your local hyper conservative area caught up to the rest of the world. 40 years ago bankers were doing lines of cocaine off of strippers tits during their lunch break. The 80s were fucking WILD.
However I still maintain that kids should be treated as if they are as innocent as I was as a kid. I didn't know what sex was until puberty, and thats the way it should be. Let them have a childhood.
What a weird take. I knew where babies came from long before I reached puberty, and this knowledge had no negative impact on my childhood whatsoever.
Secondly, I'm not worried about people in this thread sexualizing them. I'm worried about people on the beaches in person sexualizing them for years. Eventually they act on it. Four of my neighbors raped kids before they got arrested. And a guy roughly 15 streets from me kidnapped and raped 3 teenage girls for 15 years, before one eventually broke out of his basement. My sister was raped in the 80s when she was a teen. There are rapists all around.
Most people's response to a naked child on a beach is indifference. I know this because young kids play naked on nearly every European beach, nude or not. And no-one cares.
Your reaction is not indifference, so it stands out.
Because you turned a completely innocuous discussion about nude beaches into an unhinged rant about sexualizing children. Nudity does not inherently mean sexual.
A short comment like “yeah I don’t know how I’d feel about children at a nude beach” would have been fine, but the extent to which you’re talking about it comes off as creepy and projecting.
Ew. I'm fairly certain if I'd have done that, my dad would have beaten me with a tire iron, and then my mom would have beaten me with a belt in case my dad missed any spots.
Honestly , you are projecting sexuality where there really is none. I have been growing up (except for the teen years, where everything is embarrassing) going to our 'naturalist' (FKK) lakes and beaches every summer, and there newer were such problems.
If this is your mindset, then you probably don't belong at a nudist area. Nudists are expressly non-sexual. They do not get along well with swingers, who are more explicitly sexual. Swingers invading nudist areas tend to get nudist areas shut down.
Im sorry that you are this fucked up in your head. It’s just bodies, nothing sexual, if god wanted us to be embarrassed then why did we turn out this way.
........well, I'm an athiest. So, our bodies are all we have, and when we die, they get set on fire, or decompose in a box. Everything BEFORE that matters though.
Beaches are tougher but I believe there's a nudist resort in every state in the US. You can visit the AANR website and find the closest one. If it's a "family resort" that means it's probably very welcoming, if a little boring depending on location.
They are really good. And tbh, they feel pretty normal once you get used to it, usually takes about 15 min. I prefer them now, since you dry off a lot quicker and don't have to deal with a wet bathing suit. The US has some good ones, as does Canada.
And it was a west-leaning country in a region full of oil and big trade routes.
Other way around - their loyalties weren't firmly lodged with either of the superpowers, so the US in the 70s and 80s put a lot of time and effort into wooing them.
Their loyalties still aren't lodged with anyone, but we keep sucking them off anyway.
Contrary to the delusions of realpolitik types, international relations are a matter of relations, not purely moment-to-moment vulture capitalist behavior. Israel is coasting on internal factors within the US government at present - the lack of actual mutual loyalty means that, should those internal factors (Israeli dark money and the political influence of evangelical millenarians) ever weaken, the institutions of the US will see little reason not to throw Israel to the wolves.
… is something important enough to kill a 100 JFKs for.
To the Israelis, maybe. To Americans, Israeli money has become a polarizing issue over the past decade.
It’s a state sporting F35s and such.
Man, plenty of US allies are involved in the F-35 program and the US doesn't bend over backwards for them. It's really not that important in the grand scheme of US-Israeli relations.
It's rather weird that a Christian cult would spend so much on people who are, according to that cult, pariahs.
I don't think support of Israel is that much connected to Christianity. It's rather that when you have Israel, supporting it is a huge reputational counterweight to any fascist action you take.
Pariahs who need to have their own state for armageddon to happen. Remember that these are the same mental giants who invented the prosperity gospel. Not a cult so much as the entirety of southern baptism.
I did read it a lot, it's just that Christianity over the pond is weird. Weirder than in China and Japan, I can understand where their traits of it come from, but in USA it's something hard for me to emotionally grasp.
The USA's relationship to Christianity is unique in that the first fuckers to come colonize the place were too strict even for Christianity in 17th century Europe. The Puritans were a blight upon this world and the ramifications are still sending aftershocks to the present day.
I should have added that practical Catholicism in South America doesn't seem to have this kind of weirdness, so indeed it's Puritans or even more generally, the spirit of a closed small sect, where the religion itself is not as important as the sect loyalty and uncritical following. Only it's neither closed nor small.
Yep, starting with the first paragraph. The author might have skipped his Sunday school or something. In Christianity it's considered that "God's chosen people" has been extended to the whole humanity.
"I don’t think these people even know what that truly means" - maybe most of them don't, but they are using the designation correctly.
"Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens" - well, the statement is kinda true ; technically false due to Israeli laws being a patchwork of weird shit with some inheritance from the Ottoman millets system, which is the same as apartheid give or take, but that's not why the author is wrong. It's just that most of Arabs living under Israeli military control are not citizens of Israel.
Why am I even commenting that, there are sometimes outrageous texts with which it's a dubious, but still pleasure to argue with. This one is just some jellybrain's product.
OK, it's totally false now, but before that bill it was technically false, but practically usually true. I don't live in Israel and kinda forgot that whole thing due to being more interested in it in the context of Israel arming Azerbaijan.
Israel has a huge intelliegence network that the US help them build by giving them billions of dollars.
The US relations with that area is already really poor. Pulling support of Israel will bring the US back decades of relationship building, billions of dollars invested, and losing the location. The location is important because Israel is in the center, near water, and isn't an island.
Morally, being allies with Israel is not good, logically it makes sense.
It being that important, surely somebody in the US government and intelligence have thought that they might not be abusing only that importance for funds, but the ties themselves for influence. In the sense of spying at the US, corruption and such.
Over an active genocide? I would immediately end a friendship with a country and as many times as it takes to not be responsible for enabling a genocide. Allies don’t let allies commit genocide, everyone knows that. Besides it takes more than a president to do a genocide.
I knew this would come up, which is why i specified this. Might as well as cut the head off the “every country has committed genocide at some point” argument. Not every country is actively committing genocide, Israel is. America is their chef supplier of power. America is actively Shielding them from the consequences of committing genocide.
So we should stop backing a country that is actively committing genocide full stop. No money, no weapons, no blocking sanctions, no threatening countries and organizations trying to help the victims. This is the literal bare minimum, as we should be sanctioning them, we should be guaranteeing humanitarian aid to Palestinians.
When is it not an active genocide? When the genocide stops.
Possibly, at that point it would be based on trust that the administration would not continue genocide actions. If Israel changed the ruling party and immediately stopped their genocide then that would be the fastest means to return. I have issues with the land grab into Palestine for the same reason i side with Ukraine. But genocide gives me more than just issues.
Okay you have an issue with the land grab so you stop being allies with Israel. They won't stop the genocide. Israel will continue with the weapons they already have. Now they think they absolutely need to take over Palestine because they can't have neighbors that are controlled by Hamas.
Was that the right choice? Should the US stop the genocide by sending troops and money to government of Palestine? Maybe the money that was intended for Israel?
That sounds like an abusive relationship to me, regarding Israel. But if we could not stop Israel from committing genocide no matter what, then i would have us not enable it. If they have the resources available to commit genocide without our help, then they don’t need our help covering their defense, economy, nor political sway either.
Would actively sending our money and troops to Palestine to attack Israel be the correct play? It’s not so cut and dry as the Ukraine/ Russia war. But that money could go tword humanitarian efforts in Palestine, i am not so much concerned about the Palestinian government as i am the Palestinian people.
I did not know it was so many, but i know they were specifically targeted.
I guess i should answer your real question, what would it take before the US should go to war with Israel? I am hesitant, they are possibly a nuclear armed power, and a war would cost even more innocent lives. But if i had to choose i would have already effectively done so.
This article is from 7 months ago so it is more. Some people just want to feed children and their trucks are being blown up. It is fucking horrible.
I ask you these questions because these are the questions I have asked myself and I always end with the same conclusion. Israel is an information super power. The US needs Israel more than vice versa. The infromation provided by Israel has helped keep the US and other allies safe.
The question I get asked is "if that information is so valuable, then why didn't they keep themselves safe?" They did know about the attacks. Israel allowed the attack to happen thinking it would allow them in the eyes of the public to take Palestine.
Wikipedia link - look at the "Events leading to the attack" and the "Israeli intelligence failure" sections.
I agree that Isreal getting attacked was needed to begin the land grab and to maintain power of the political party, and to attempt to justify murder. I also agree that one reason the US is allied to Isreal its for a for hold in the region for us to project power. But that is about it. I don’t hold that America needs this partnership, to such a degree to overlook genocide.
A lot of Jewish groups have protested Israel and their Jewishness has been ignored and them been called antisemites or they’ve been called self hating Jews.
If you perfectly obey israel and wag your tail for them you are allowed to exist.
The second anyone pushes back in the slightest against their Nazi regime trying to execute a Holocaust they are instantly slandered as Hamas.
Israel has no qualms throwing loyal dogs that have been supporting them for their entire lives, just look at Genocide Joe getting labeled as Hamas the second he draws any lines.
These are not people that can be negotiated with. The are extremist maniacs.
As for whether he forgives Morrissey, Carroll said: “I guess I would have to say yes in the spirit of forgiveness, reluctantly. But if I had to be a smartass, I’d say her apology holds about as much water as my canvas bag.”
Coming just after Project Farm's video about most of the power tool batteries sold on Amazon Ebay being hard-to-detect counterfeits, missing their safety features, and containing unlabelled cells which are also missing their safety features.
Fucking yikes. Those looked like eBay pages, was there a separate video on Amazon? I know Amazon is shady but hopefully not as shady as those eBay fraudsters.
The packaging looked so similar it'd be nice to know how to determine it is real or not. I guess open the case and check the batteries.
Amazon ist just as shady. The additional issue with them is that they pool inventory from their own and from marketplace sellers that they do logistics for. Let's say they source genuine batteries from the OE manufacturer and some marketplace dude will have his stock at the Amazon warehouse, which is counterfeit goods.
Chances are then that when you order from Amazon themselves, they pick one of the counterfeit units from the marketplace seller because they're stored in the same shelf and Amazon does the shipping.
I cannot give you good advice on where to purchase original batteries for a good price online, but I know that Amazon should not be your first choice.
that'll be my lesson about posting videos from memory! updated. The youtube comments did mention Amazon and other shops too.
Yeah, the takeaway did seem to be, at the very least, to check whether the cells inside are branded - although in many cases they were packed in a way that you can't tell without destroying the internal plastic structure.
obviously wouldn't have helped the poor cyclist, who could only afford the non-genuine batteries.
Ah, gotcha. I don't quite trust Amazon to do a great job, either. I just know they are official distributors for some of these brands so I wonder if my mistrust is unfounded.
Safest thing to do is buy from the manufacturer approved resellers, that can even be on eBay as they often have a presence there as well as their own site.
Comparing it to Chirac's situation is downplaying how crazy te move is right now.
Can you imagine how fucked up this is? Like "oh, the far right has more than twice as many votes as we got, it must be some sort of big misclick situation, lets check it out !"
I think it's more that the situation is only going to get worse the longer we wait so he's pulling the trigger now for the best conditions he's ever going to get. Not great
We all know how the far right has a hard time letting go of it's grip on power, that's for sure. But this ils no 'gamble', like he'd be cornered to do this, he led us here. He is deliberately playing with the french like they're just paws in his self-centered game.
My only worry with this is that we start hunting them to eradicate or at least contain a threat, like we do to most wild animals who could potentially, perhaps, maybe, harm a human intruding on their habitat and territory. Like wolves in europe, we carefully reintroduce them after almost eradicating them entirely, they do what wolves do and prey on some livestock here and there, and people immediately ask for them to be culled.
Gd, when even fucking Erdogan thinks you're going too far. I know they're a usually antagonistic force to the West, but they are a real player in the region, so this is still good pressure on Israel. Even if it happens to be opportunistic.
Turkey/Erdogan aligns with the West most of the time. He's antagonistic sometimes, and that's what makes headlines so is the image most people have developed of him. He's been staunchly pro-Palestine since he took office in 2003, and has had pretty poor relations with Israel for almost the entire last 20 years, so this is not surprising
Oh. In this case I’m guessing the dogs would be euthanized anyway, and probably even justified in being shot. This isn’t the SWAT teams weekly accidental break in to the wrong house.
theguardian.com
Top