That’s what I’m saying. Let the Zuck cook.

Well to be fair, and I do not personally believe this is the right thing, no one said democracy needed to be inclusive. In fact for most of history democracy has been the opposite. So it checks out.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yeah because they feared the masses were too stupid to participate in democracy. More than once they describe how a popular mob would end up electing a man exactly like Trump. I would say these elections have vindicated them, although there’s no reason why it wouldn’t have worked with more participation, that’s what the electoral college is for. But the problem is that the electoral college is not working the way it’s supposed to: they are not supposed to vote for whom the people want, they are supposed to deliberate between them and elect the best candidate.

FDR kind of fucked it up, and from then on every subsequent president added to the enshitification of the office by expanding its powers. But yes it is inherently an oligarchy, but I do not think that is inherently a bad thing. The intentions were good.

Presidents are supposed to have full power over the executive branch. The problem is that the executive branch now and when the constitution were written ware very different beasts, as the states had much much more autonomy before FDR.

2025 is right in that it’s existence and the ability of the current president to implement it tell us that we have erred in the amount of power we place in the president(s). Constitutionally he has the full power to do what he is doing, or at least he mostly does, the problem is that the constitution was written centuries before FDR expanded the power of the executive in a major and possibly anti constitutional way (as many of his contemporaries suggested).

The Founding Fathers left us a great system, impervious to tyranny and the sort of populism that Trump represents, and we ruined it.

How is this even a thing? Is a bank run considered collusion? If the platform no longer offers the audience I want to reach then I should be able to stop advertising on it. It just happens that the audience of may companies at once left the company. Who is even entertaining this lawsuit?

I use pages and keynotes actually, I just really really don’t like numbers. I used it for a while and I really couldn’t get used to it.

I did not know this. Will give it a try. Are formulas the same as in Excel? I really can’t be bothered to learn new formulas again and I need it to be 100% compatible with people working with office.

The UI, LibreOffice looks like it’s stuck in 2007, OnlyOffice has basically the same UI as Microsoft Office. I know that’s a negative for a lot of people but it’s what I’m used to already.

I’ve dropped Microsoft Office for OnlyOffice and so far I have no regrets. The one issues it has, on MacOS only, is that it does not support multiple windows. There is a workaround using the command line I believe. Otherwise it is very good and the formulas are basically 1:1 with Excel.

Well when I say you I do not mean you specifically I’m talking about anyone. I’m talking about the indefinite “you” as it were. I can see now how it would be misunderstood, my bad.

But I would argue that in your case that your belief that you are free from false beliefs in all your beliefs because you do not trust your feelings is proof of my assertion. I don’t think it’s possible for any person can make that claim unless they thoroughly dissected every single feeling they feel through the day every day. Sounds exhausting and impossible.

I’m not projecting anything. And I think your analogy is apt and does not really refute what I said. Someone could well believe with all their might that there’s a bridge and fall to their death. But the fact that they believed it so much that they tried to cross it against all reason means that to them the bridge was real. This is why I said “at the individual level”. Your truth is not the Truth, but it is still the truth for you until you somehow discover that your belief was wrong. Some never find out, others find out too late to reverse course and fall to their death.

I think you misread me. I meant that they do that because they are shitty corporations that act only in the interest of their profit and share price, therefore they would not have any qualms about dropping DEI if it was adverse to that goal. The fact that they keep these programs should be evidence enough that they believe it is either an asset or at worst as not having any effect either positive or negative. But given the overt hostility that the new administration is showing towards companies that keep DEI, I interpret the act of keeping the program as validation that they see it as an asset, enough that in their calculus it is worth more than potential threats to their profits like lawsuits or investigations or more openly violent attacks like targeted tariffs.

Well at the individual level, what you feel is your entire reality and none of us are free of that bias. Some politicians or leaders are better than others of taking this feeling and coalescing it into a narrative that drives you to action. The current wave of discontent can be very much be woven into a liberal or left wing (I really don’t like the terms right or left, they are mostly meaningless in current year) narrative that inspires action but instead liberals have become the agents of stagnation in a way and the people saw that, and being low information voters that they are, they chose the only alternative that was at least promising to change things in a big way. They (like always) just didn’t pay enough attention to the fine print to see what the big changes actually entailed.

If I applaud one thing about Trump is that more or less he’s delivering what he promised, albeit with total disregard for public order, safety or legality.

I wish you would better articulate what part of this you would like me to address because I believe the link I shared addressed this. Use words, or highlight the specific statement you’d like me to clarify.