Damn dude, that was such a spot-on summary I feel like I don’t need to log in to lemmy for a month lol

You’ve been downvoted by leftists for bashing socialism, and by liberals for implying that China is actually socialist. A beautiful thing to witness

The fact is that technology advances and makes other technology obsolete,

Yeah, it happens on both sides, it’s an arms race. It will swing the other way eventually - it always has and always will

The second thing you’re not addressing is how long the “ebb and flow” takes anyway

That was intentional. There’s no estimating a timeline, but with the development of technology it’s not unreasonable to expect a reversal even in a decade. Anyway, if you’re trying to ward off doomerism you’re not going to do it by only looking at what you stand to gain

Looking at the world rn, I dont think things have a tendency to get better on their own

This is called a recency bias (I think lol) - you’re looking at the world rn and assuming its trends must continue. When you look at history you see that there are ebbs and flows, and that stasis is rare. If you focus on certain things, you may certainly decide we’re in a downtrend. There will always be an uptrend afterward. And vice versa

Yeah I’m not subscribing to a whole service just so I can watch 3/4 of my team’s games and no others. I want a service I can subscribe to and see all my team’s games, and preferably all the games in one league. If it was multi-league that would be great, but I’d rather subscribe to one league at a time than subscribe to all leagues with randomly blacked out games.

Until then - and I know it’s unlikely to ever happen - I won’t be spending money on watching sports on tv

I always call it Magic Math. There’s so much of it when you start learning about investing/trading. “Buying calls has infinite potential for gains. Selling calls has infinite potential for losses.” Like, yeah, that’s mathematically true. But at the end of the day it’s not practically true, you’re just putting a lot of weight on what you could be getting instead of what you are getting.

Oh the definition is fine, I just mean that it seems illogical to adhere to it dogmatically.

Like, ok I’ll try to come up with the best summation but bear with me lol. Basically, let’s say you’re with your current partner. You’ve been into other people in the past. So, logically, you’ll probably be into other people - at some level - in the future, right? That seems like a natural development to me.

So if it’s natural, why should we have the little fine print on all of our relationships that reads “If you’re into other people this contract is null and void?”

Am I making sense? Lol. Like I just mean that it’s natural to be attracted, in some way, to more than one person so why do we default to holding ourselves and our partners to the unnatural? In that way, I’m monogamous with one person at a time seems logically inconsistent to me. It accepts the existence of plurality of attraction, yet denies its engagement

Even then it seems illogical to me tbh (internally inconsistent?), but at least it’s less rigid

They did surgery on a grape

I’d recommend deciding what you’re looking for in a VPN, then using r/VPN’s comparison guide to find which one suits your wants.

Is this the best method? Idk, but it’s what I did and I’m pretty satisfied. I decided that the most important factors to me were port-forwarding, price, speed, leak protection, and encryption - basically in that order. Using that criteria I settled on AirVPN, and I have no complaints so far (one month in).

Some people care more about ethics, or ownership, or what have you. So what you think is the best VPN will depend on your needs. There’s no perfect VPN anymore, imo

Edit: As others have pointed out, some VPNs also come in optional packages. Ones such as Proton. That’s something else to consider if you’re in the market for stuff like antivirus or secure email

I’d rather vote for Trump to accelerate the decline of the world so the revolution is easier / faster

It always astounds me that people who have enough intelligence to read so much doctrine (some of which does have value) give in to such ends-means justification. The “revolution” is not inevitable, nor is its victory, nor is its success in making life that much better. Sacrificing others’ lives and well-being in the here and now has zero justification because there’s no guarantee that it will make any situation any better. They’re just zealots

I’d be curious to see which would be more practical: a decentralized version of Lyft/Uber powered by blockchain, or an employee-owned version of Lyft/Uber where workers keep all their earnings and pay a small portion for administrative fees to keep the app running.

Admittedly I’m always skeptical of blockchain’s ability to actually solve problems. But maybe it would have fewer infrastructural costs? Who knows