I’m not very musically inclined, so I have no idea if this is B-flat minor or not, but what you described kind of sounds like “Jazz in Paris”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLJMTRvyj8

It’s one of the songs that you can select from Google Photos when making a highlight video.

Se calhar, seja melhor a postar isso na comunidade de [email protected]

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

And replace it with what?

If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.

When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.

Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.

Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

It really bothers me when journalists don’t list out which laws specifically were passed/signed.

Even better if they could link to the bill text itself, yet instead they just link to a similar article on their own site.

Nah, Cygnus beat you by about 14 min.

(On a serious note, had you already heard about someone else being convicted under the new security law? It also sounds like they’re talking about how the sentence was increased from 2 years to 7-10 years.)

Same as it ever was.

I doubt this was the case during (and for at least a time after) WWII. But maybe a history buff can correct me. I haven’t looked too deeply into how the justice system handled Nazis that far back.

When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

Then if they go this route, they better make sure that they clearly define what they mean by a “Recommendation Algorithm” or an “interests-based algorithm” because the opinions of individuals won’t hold up in court.

If it’s not defined an attorney could easily argue that Lemmy’s “Scaled” algorithm is a “recommendation algorithm” and you would hope that the judge understood enough about programming to know where to draw the line.

Spiritual.
Hero who appears in you to clear your view when you’re too crazy.

Add fuses to that list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B90_SNNbcoU

Better than using a bunch of dynamite on a whale carcass… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34

What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?

At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.

Here’s a good documentary on what’s going on:

Behind Asia’s cyber slavery | DW Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti7YDegRMYE

From the looks of it, the best chance you have to escape is before they get you to the river. So if you ever find yourself in a situation where you’re travelling for a job in one of these countries, be aware of the signs, and escape before it’s too late.

So, if you get picked up from the airport and you’re supposed to go to a hotel only 10 min away, but that turns into a drive for a few hours, do whatever you can to get out. Anywhere is better than the destination at the end of that drive.

[Meyer] also expressed frustration that Cody is the only official expected to face criminal prosecution.

“What I feel is going on here is that he’s been set up as the fall guy,” Meyer said.

From NPR news: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/g-s1-15539/kansas-police-chief-newspaper-raid

More details from the Institute for Justice which picked up this case, free of charge:

https://ij.org/press-release/victory-nazareth-repeals-ban-on-for-sale-signs-on-cars-legally-parked-on-street-following-lawsuit/

Found the whole thing that includes when they are walking out on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgod-nqFEEc

Edit: There was a bit of hot mic somewhere nearby so you could hear a little bit before he sat down:

RS: “Hi Mister Trump, just take a seat over there, thank you.”
DT: “Uh, how are you? How are you?”
RS: “Good”

Music dies and mic turns on:

RS: “Mr President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think that it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying…”

I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.

Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?

I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.