I understand you might believe you’re simply explaining why, but based on specifically the sentence I quoted in my last comment it reads like you are explicitly justifying their actions. Again, your intent my have been completely different and I believe you when you say it was. But I would expect people to react to your writing as it was written, not as it was intended.

I’m sorry you’re getting as much flak as you are. Definitely not warranted based on the top comment alone, but I was only responding to a different commenter to explain my perspective as to why it was happening.

Again, with evil on the rise having opinions and stances are important. You didn’t intend to relay either of those things, but I at least think you did (and I would water most of your downvoters did too). We’re all learning how to communicate effectively online. Sorry this spiraled out of control. Idk what /u/iii is on about, but I’m at least trying to contribute to the meta conversation about communicating on Lemmy better (not that anyone has to, this is supposed to be a hobby or fun or what have you, no one has to get better at communicating online).

“The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.”

This is the original commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws. This is not factual, this is not an objective truth, this is one person’s perspective about why the EU is doing what they’re doing and in a way that defends their position.

If they had said, “Maybe the EU felt the need to… In fear of this entire sector…” That would have revealed that statement to be a less objective, more theoretical opinion - which is what it is. But they didn’t. They wrote it as a fact, defending their decision as if A) that was true B) that was the reason instead of a handful of reasons C) it was the only path forward.

I think if you’re reading that statement by the original commenter in any other way, we’re at least misaligned on what they’re saying. I would argue that statement plainly reads as defending their actions by guessing (even if reasonable or intelligently) as to their motives.

I think you’re throwing around tribal like a buzzword you recently became aware of. I like people having opinions on random comment based forums online. I don’t like when people don’t add to the conversation and yet comment anyway, allowing for wasteful conversations like this to take place. The original commenter explained a thing no one asked to be explained at best and defended a perspective that I think is objectively short sighted at worst. I have no problem with the first and I don’t like the second but also am happy to talk to people who hold those opinions if they’re looking for a safe place to discuss and debate them.

Now that’s a couple ways of interpretting what the original commenter said, both of which I think are justifiable although I lean obviously to one way. Does that read like I’m simplifying the problem reductively? Does that read like I’m asking people to throw stones at the commenter? Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

I would say no, obviously not. You seem frustrated at online discourse, or maybe you’re just pro-these-actions and can’t separate them from this conversation. You wanna talk about the actions of the EU, that’s cool. You wanna talk about one random person’s perspective as to why the original commenter got downvotes, that’s cool. You want to acuse me of being simple, when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote (both the first commenter and the person I responded to), that seems like a waste of time. It’s surely not adding anything to the conversation for me at least.

But here we are.

I mean, I like when I ask someone to explain a problem and then do. I don’t personally like it when someone explains a problem that’s pretty obvious.

My point is the original commenter, by explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation. Actually, on second read it’s far more explicit - they’re defending why the change was made, not just explaining what happened. The downvotes were warranted (if you use downvotes as “this is a bad opinion, perspective, or contribution” which is debatably not their purpose).

But the reality is even in describing a problem you’re coloring reality with your perspective. There are facts, things everyone can agree on, but in describing those things you color them. It doesn’t have to be tribal to push back on someone coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval. On a subject such as this - "reduce your privacy for the benefit of AI companies that are some number of:

• monopolies that should have been busted many times over
• run by evil, greedy people who do not consider safety for the entire world when developing these things (reference Musk saying there’s a chance these destroy the world but that he’d rather be alive to see it happen than not contribute to the destruction)
• companies aiming not to better the world in anyway but explicitly pursue money at any real cost to the human lives they’re actively stealing from or attempting to invalidate." - it’s no surprise the comment is unpopular and gets downvoted.

If I stopped my comment there I’d get voted on based on my explanation of what just happened assuming I was pro-this process because that’s human nature (or maybe it’s a byproduct of modern media discourse where they ask questions but don’t answer them and expect you to fill in the blanks (look at most of conservative media when it’s dog whistling or talking about data around crime or what have you)).

I don’t think someone should be voted into the ground for explaining something, but I also think every online comment should do it’s best to make a stand on the core subject they’re discussing. We are in dire times and being a bystander let’s evil people win.

So practicing what I’m preaching: Privacy laws should absolutely not be reduced for the benefit of AI companies. We should create regulations and safety rails around AI companies so they practice ethically and safely, which won’t happen in the US.

I’ve been using Kagi for more than 2 years and I’m very happy with it. It gets me great results quickly and zero ads. Sometimes I use their AI to grab a bunch of data I’d have to collect myself.

My main complaint is grabbing images with them for specific resolutions they just give up or add AI slop at the end. To be very clear, it’s amazing at finding 4k images 3840x2160. But if I flip that aspect ratio it starts to suck. That’s like… Hella niche but still important to mention.

It’s the best alternative I’ve found to the majority of options, besides self-hosting and I’m not doing that yet so I can’t comment on if it’s worth it or not.

Honestly not missing much lol. There’s like 1000 hours of good TV content in total out there IMHO.

I was going off of protondb. I can’t vouch for each game on the list’s exact state on any given day, only that according to everyone who ranks on the website it’s native or gold.

Apex Legends worked on Linux every year except this one. League I’m told dropped support only recently (in the last couple of years). Like, idk man, there’s ups and downs to this data, but the point is not all competitive multiplayer games don’t work on Linux and seemingly the majority do based on steam and protondb data.

This keeps getting repeated as a blanket statement and it irks me a bit. More than half of the top ten most played games on steam on any given day work. There’s a small handful of games that don’t work that fit into the competitive multiplayer genre and an even smaller handful that are actually popular.

To be clear, I’m not irk’ed with you, just that this myth that gets passed around a lot hasn’t caught up to reality.

Top games by player count by daily players (numbers are peak in 24 hrs)(skipping anything that doesn’t qualify as competitive multiplayer):

1. CS 2 - ✅ - 1.4 mil
2. BF 6 - ❌ - 413k
3. Dota 2 - ✅ - 761k
4. Pubg - ❌ - 620k
5. Arc Raiders - ✅ - 322k
6. Apex Legends - ❌ - 155k
7. War Thunder - ✅ - 78k
8. Delta force - ❌ ✅ (work around exists) - 182k
9. Marvel rivals - ✅ - 83k
10. Dead by Daylight - ✅ - 66k
11. Naraka: Bladepoint - ✅ - 120k
12. Rust - ❌ (some servers do work though) - 130k

✅ Top 20 total - 2.83 mil ❌ Top 20 total - 1.5 mil (including Delta force)

Idk. Having just crunched the numbers I guess it’s fair to warn people about some borked Anti-Cheat games but I wish people would caveat by saying the majority of games people play even in the competitive multiplayer scene work. And it’s only going to get better i’d argue, although games like bf6 being a recent launch that didn’t work is a bummer. As the percentage of Linux users climb they’ll be increasingly incentivized to find a solution.

League isn’t on here, that would skew the numbers pro-windows.

Dota 2 took 2k+ hours from my life. Loved every minute lol. Welcome aboard, it’s not healthier but I’d argue it’s better :D

I’m familiar with estates. I’d love to see or read any data you have on “a chosen heir or select few at most” being the only possible (or even overwhelming majority) outcome. That doesn’t make any logical sense and isn’t how it’s historically worked in the past from my knowledge.

I have no doubt the majority of cases show wealth being paid out to more than one heir on average and that the dilution, although obviously not enough to combat wealth inequality, is still some amount of dilution.

They have to have more than one heir at any time though right? So like that can’t be true unless they own enough wealth that even when split and taxed their primary heir’s still have too much.

In that case I agree, rinse and repeat. No one should own more than something like 20 million in wealth.

I think a lot of Western media is owned by the ultra wealthy or are incompetent. The CDU is clearly, for my sake, analogous to Republicans in the US pre-trump. They serve corporate masters, their policies are not based in scientific knowledge aimed at improving the lives of their constituents, and they will continue to make most everything they touch worse slowly. The CDU will slowly lead the country into needing either a non-corporate serving left response or the far right who will offer false but powerful narratives about how their corporate serving conservative based policies will be totally different than the CDU’s.

It’s just… It’s predictable and sad. We need to strengthen our education systems, our media systems, and create better systems for getting local people involved in local issuesbl and making a difference because I think that’s a good booster against bullshit politicians.

Oh god, I just moved here please no. Lol. No AfD, ideally no CDU either. I just want to live in a country doing well and moving in a progressive direction where everything is getting better. Bitte.

Okay, cool, that’s not the question. Are you for taxing the ultra wealthy based on their wealth or against? Are you saying you’re against this specific form of wealth tax and because you believe that’s the only form of wealth tax you’re against the whole concept? What’s your fundamental position and point, because I’m not proposing a bill here, I’m taking to strangers on the Internet.

I mean I completely agree, but this is Lemmy not a bill proposal. I’m picking a number everyone should be able to agree with because that limits the number of dumb comments I get.

If I was writing a bill I’d probably hard limit it to 20 million with it being soft limited starting at 6 million.

I’m literally agreeing with that statement. The ultra wealthy make all their money from their wealthy. Yes. Can we all agree that that’s what’s happening? Yes? Good.

Now ALSO can we agree it’s sane for someone to suggest taxing ultra high income earners? Like in 2012, just reading off the wiki here, the median cash compensation for a US CEO was 5.3 million. That’s cash. That’s about as much money as I want the limit to be on anyone in the world in terms of wealth and these fuckers are getting paid that a year. Can we agree we should tax cash incomes over oh idk 1 million dollars at something like 90%?

Like guys come on, this isn’t hard. Don’t just knee jerk react to the topic, read what is being written. Yes, tax wealth. That’s the most important thing every government can do. Yes, I’m saying that because I know wealth begets wealth and it cascades, the wealthy are wealthy because of their wealth (no shit). ALSO, yes we should tax ultra-high income earners. If you get paid enough money to retire in two years of normal full time work you should be taxed accordingly (with something like Germany’s tax law that let’s you spread it out over X years so if it was a one time thing you get taxed normally but if it’s an every year salary it gets taxed correctly).

Idk if you know this but governments are composed of a lot of people. We can fix multiple issues with multiple solutions. Right now the top 0.01% have absolutely too much money. The top 0.1% also don’t get taxed enough. The top 1% also don’t get taxed enough. The top 10% likely could handle more taxing as well depending on what country we’re talking about.

The reality is there are hundreds of problems modern governments need to solve, most of which require revenue, so getting more revenue from the people who own a ton and people who make a ton is good.

I don’t understand why we have to pick one solution when we definitely can handle talking about (especially casually on the Internet) multiple solutions, those solutions are good, and we agree on the ranking of importance (wealth tax first, anything that goes after the top 1%, and then income taxes, anything that goes after the top 10%). Like, I don’t think it’s that hard.

You absolutely can tax assets. Idk what your point is here, are you anti-taxing the rich? Or are you hyper fixating on the fact that I’m also pro-taxing ultra high income earners more? I don’t get your comment.

I don’t think you’re helping the cause. A perfect solution is not the goal, and a good idea that fails to address the targeted problem is still a good idea.

You can at the same time think:

• people shouldn’t be allowed to have a salary of 1 million
• that the ultra rich aren’t ultra rich because of their salary
• believe that we should tax ultra-high income individuals highly
• believe that we should tax ultra-wealthy individuals highly

Don’t be a bad progressive by discouraging progress. “Tax wealth not work” is a great slogan to unify the working class. We should also probably tax ultra-high income individuals as well.

I completely agree with the concept of taxing income above a certain limit entirely. I think that only solves a portion of the problem, with the majority of the problem being solved by well implemented wealth taxes. Every dollar of wealth over something like 50 million USD should be taxed at 100%. No one should ever become a hundred millionaire again, let alone a billionaire.