No argument from me on that.

Sure, but what does that have to do with China being or not being socialist? Or are you saying socialism needs to be authoritarian?

Happened with Star Trek. In 2017, Seth McFarlane created The Orville. A Sci-Fi comedy/satire, that many Treckies claimed felt more like Star Trek than Star Trek at the time.

No probably with mac n cheese. Mild problem with processed cheese but if actual cheddar is used, that’s fine.

What I do have a big problem with is kraft mac n cheese mix. Got my hands on an American pack of it and it was disgusting. Tasted like I had just drenched the macaronis in weirdly sticky butter.

What does that have to do with there discussion at hand?

I‘m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying that China shouldn‘t be the system we praise as a good example.

The same way, I’m not defending the PIC or the US‘s incarceration rates. I’m just saying, if you want a positive example for how prisons should be run, don’t look at a state that currently runs concentration camps. Look at countries with actually low incarceration rates like the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands, that place their focus on reintegration not punishment, don’t have political prisoners, treat their inmates like human beings and also generally don’t have privately run prisons that “need” to be profitable.

If the uyghur situation is immaterial then so is incarceration rate in general. Especially since there are a bunch of capitalist countries with a significantly lower incarceration rate than China.

And if they say they’re socialist it must of course be true. Authoritarian regimes have never misrepresented themselves ever. /s

For one, the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case. If you look at Europe, the incarceration rate on average is very comparable and in many Western European countries like Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. it’s closer to half that, sometimes even less than half.

And also, China has a comparatively huge number of political prisoners and some places in China (particularly where a lot of Uyghurs happen to live) have incarceration rates of more than 3700 per 100000.. That’s a lot higher than the US and more than double than even the US‘s incarceration happiest state Louisiana with ~1400/100000.

And even ignoring that, I wouldn’t use China as a great example for a socialist state either, for the reasons that they have a totalitarian government that doesn’t like it very much if you don’t like them and that they very much do take part in capitalism, being the worlds cheap production plant.

That is true for a lot of people but probably not for enough people. I agree, that a platform people believe in is more likely to receive donations but that’s not gonna be enough. Platforms like Nebula and Floatplane only work because there are tons of big YouTubers advertising for the platform on YouTube because they benefit from that. And tons of people primarily subscribe for the extra content provided by the creators they already like, not necessary because they believe in the platform.

The problem is, you would need a lot of users that are willing to pay for the service to be able to pay enough large creators for more users to jump on board. Considering how many people would rather endure YouTube‘s obnoxious ads than paying their subscription, that wouldn’t be viable. You need both a free tier and the possibility to make money off those free accounts. Because if it’s just free with no ads and voluntary donations, why would the average person pay? And if it’s just paid, why would most people come to the platform if they can get the content free somewhere else? As soon as you introduce the need for monetisation, which a YouTube competitor would need, you’re going to struggle. It’s the same reason paid browsers stopped being a thing as soon as a free version existed. It might have been better but it wasn’t free.

And unless you change the system that supports that you’ll be trapped with the same two flavors of madmen. And you obviously cannot change the system in the right direction if you cast your vote to either someone who would love to be dictator or to someone who is too small to even have a voice.

Since the civil war, there hasn’t been one president who wasn’t dem or rep. The only one coming somewhat close was Teddy Roosevelt who, in 1912, split the Republican Party into two, after not being nominated, founded the Progressive Party and subsequently lost the election for himself and the Republican Party. [Results: Woodrow Wilson (dem) 41%, Roosevelt (pro) 27%, William Howard Taft (rep) 23%]. Were the Republican party not split, they might have won. And Roosevelt was an established politician and ex president at the time. Like, you’d need someone like Obama to found a new party, be allowed to run for another term and not only beat the Democrats but also the Republicans in the actual election. That’s just not realistic, even if it were actually possible.

For now.

Realistically, no. Because it’s not a game of chance. Theoretically anyone could. Practically you live in a system where voting for small parties is punished by the lower of two evils losing votes and the greater of two evils not.

Following scenario: let’s imagine the Mildly Evil™ Party and the Very Evil™ Party had a votes split of 55:45. Mildly Evil™ would win. Now we introduce party C, that is neither. The party can either appeal primarily to Mildly Evil™ voters or Very Evil™ voters. Very Evil™ voters are currently, overall, not unhappy with their party/candidate, since they like how evil their party is, while Mildly Evil™ voters don’t like that their party is as evil as it currently is, so it’s safe to assume, it’s gonna be the Not Evil™ Party. Now, Very Evil™ voters are not significantly going to vote for the Not Evil™ Party. Maybe a little less than a tenth of them will. And maybe a little less than half of Mildly Evil™ voters might vote something else, thus the Not Evil™ Party. The result would be Not Evil™ with 30%, Mildly Evil™ with 30% and Very Evil™ with 40%. Very Evil™ wins, the rest lose. Only the one with the most votes can have power. Your votes for Not Evil™ made Very Evil™ gain that power. And that’s including the unrealistic notion, that you could get half of all Mildly Evil™ voters to vote for a new and unproven party at all.

Now, let’s take a better scenario based on different set of rules (aka the rules most other democratic countries live by, where parties need an absolute majority to govern): let’s take those three parties again and the same results, Not Evil™ with 30%, Mildly Evil™ with 30% and Very Evil™ with 40%. Now, Very Evil™ have the most votes but they don’t have the absolute majority, so they cannot rule alone. They’d have to find a partner. However both Mildly Evil™ and Not Evil™ would never work with them, because they are too evil for either. However, Mildly Evil™ is just about not evil enough, that Not Evil™ would consider working with them. Together they have 60% of votes and thus the absolute majority, forming the Almost Not Evil™ coalition for that term, building a foundation for Not Evil™ to grow until the next election.

This is the only way how voting for a small party can realistically work. Of course, usually there are more than three parties. Here in Germany, for example, there are more than a dozen, most of them too small to matter, thus there being a 5% hurdle for small parties, so the government is not so split it couldn’t function (that’s part of what killed the Weimar Republic and helped the Nazi Party to gain power in the 1930s). There are usually between 5-7 parties large enough enter the government and there are usually two to three parties in a governing coalition. It’s not a perfect solution but it gives smaller parties a fighting chance. In a system like the US, where a party just about needs to have a simple majority to win, not an absolute majority, smaller, independent parties almost never even have a chance.

They can definitely inject the ad into the video stream on the server side and still correctly classify it as ad. Some other platforms already do that. From my own experience, many podcasts monetize like that. The ads get injected by their distributors. Leads to German ads before English speaking podcasts, if you stream them from Germany. However, their ads are skippable. Wouldn’t be surprised if YouTube somehow made that impossible, too.

In a system, where there is only one winner, everyone else are losers. Systems like that always tend to strongly favor a two party system like the us has and unless you can realistically bet on being able to mobilise more than half of the voters, your best bet will always be voting for one of the established parties, if you want your vote to count towards anything. For smaller party votes to count you need a system more akin to those of many European countries, where the government is split proportionally by the amount of votes per party. Then voting for smaller parties can actually have a significant impact.

And no motion blur because the image is not persistent. LCDs have to change their current image to the new one. The old image stays until it’s replaced. CRTs draw their image line by line and only the the last few lines are actually on screen at any time. It just happens so fast, that, to the human eye, the image looks complete. Although CRTs usually do have noticeable flicker, while LCDs usually do not.

Even more respect. Maybe they’re here on Lemmy somewhere

And soon probably everywhere unless you pay, because YouTube is testing server side ad injection, so they’d be part of the main video stream.

Sadly only anecdotal aka my dad’s collegue, who works for the Bavarian state office for IT security and previously, like my dad, worked in the automotive industry.

Edit: typo

That’s neat. I can remember maybe one or two instances in my life, where that could have been useful. The rest of the time, I much prefer smaller plugs that I can plug in upside down and a home electrical network with good wiring.