• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • If I recall correctly, they were forced. There’s an obesity pandemic going on in children, mostly driven by excessive use of sugars and overconsumption of fast food and sodas. So, there were certain regulations limiting how directed at children the marketing could be. They can still charge exorbitant prices to children, their parents are the ones paying anyways.



  • When manufactures started making black Friday specific items. They are cheaper and worse quality than average, designed to look like but offer lower tiers of high demand products. TVs are a great example, they make versions of regular TVs that are worse quality but look like the year round product. Made to be sold during sales. But of course that creates a floating stock of stuff that will never sell for the price of the regular product, and also have to be made and ship a bit before the actual sale dates, extending the sale over time.



  • That’s because it’s stupidly downgraded and aimed at people upgrading from the 11. It’s a no-one phone, there just to make people think, “well, the 15 is just $100 more, let’s buy that instead”. It would be a remarkable phone, if it were $200 cheaper. But Apple just can’t let an opportunity to scalp consumers go. Only Apple charges so much for a 60 Hz screen.


  • dustyData@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldDress Code
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Here’s the funny thing. The three piece suit was adopted by the politicians as an emulation of the dress code of “the common man”. Since most men wore plain suits and plain shirts for everyday dress, in contrast with aristocracy which dressed in fancier, more elaborate ways.

    It’s ironic that it became the new dress code for the oligarchs and powerful oppressors. And now the common people dress even plainer and simpler. They’re fighting over dressing in a symbol of modern political and financial oppression.



  • dustyData@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.world"Politics"
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The term paradox was used because it comes from the “so much for the tolerant X” instances during mid XXth century. It’s the incorrect assumption that tolerance is somehow a foundational principle of some ideology, mainly left, socialist and communist ideology; just because they were protesting intolerant policy and stances from the right. The right stupidly believes that this means that the left advocates for unlimited tolerance of everything as an extension of fundamental freedoms, like free speech and free thought.

    This was at a time when the debate on the lawful limits of freedom in democracies was raging. In comes Karl Popper and produces the formal philosophical formulation of the paradox. He starts at freedom and demonstrates that in order for a free open and peaceful society to exist, then they must be tolerant, but, they must not held tolerance as a tenet, instead being intolerant of any intolerance. It is important as the first philosophical formulation of liberal democratic thinking. It actually distances itself from communism because, according to Popper, communism and even socialism will always end up in bloodshed, violence, and suffering.

    The concept of social contract was not unknown to Popper, but it was not necessary for his argument to make sense. For, since Weber, it’s understood as a given that wherever humans happen to live in community, some form of social contract will exist. Popper is not concerned with the existence of the contract, but to argue about its content.