“You worked for it. You should keep it. Let’s get this bill passed!” Greene said.
No. You did not work for it. That’s the point of capital gains tax.
Additionally, you can already exclude 250k single / 500k married. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p523
I mean, he doesn’t flip-flop hardly ever or change policies in decades.
Jones said this without any sense of irony.
I presume this position will be headed by Grok.
This guy on YT recorded the entire process of signing up for the mobile service. It was interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUtSo7dASg0
Big Tech doesn’t run social media. It runs algorithmic advertising platforms.
The majority of people using algorithmic advertising platforms are not content creators, they’re consumers (if you’re reading this, you’re probably not in the majority). They have no interest is active participation in “social media”. They’re in it for the entertainment, the distraction, the memes, the algorithm telling them what they should care about. You can’t remove this feature and expect these users to find content for themselves.
You can argue the pros and cons all you want, your reasoning may be factual and altruistic, but you will not get a substantial portion of content consumers to migrate to platforms that require more effort. They know what they’re signing up for. They have no interest in “reclaiming social media”.
Bluesky and Mastodon are fantastic platforms that, in my opinion, revive some of the core tenants of social microblogging. But this is like comparing a bulletin board system (BBS) to the Yahoo! homepage. Some people want to be involved, some people want to be told.
One of these platforms offers a greater profit making opportunity than the other. If one allows people to make money and another does not, what’s the motivation for the most influential of creators to embrace the latter? And then what’s the motivation of the consumers to embrace a platform that lacks the most influential creators? (Again, if you’re reading this, you likely aren’t a member of the majority.)
This is not Microsoft. I haven’t updated my plex software in over six months and it runs fine. Still, yes, I would expect updates to any software I purchase as new patches are needed for OS updates, etc. That shouldn’t be more than two updates a year for a given OS - if at all.
Selling a product, generating revenue, using revenue to improve products or create new products is how we used to run businesses.
If they’re unable to maintain software updates with the revenue they get, then they should discontinue support of less popular products.
As I’ve stated on the plex forum, plex is no longer a media management and consumption platform. It’s a video on demand service. That’s their prerogative and that’s fine. The issue is that they’re discontinuing a product that people have purchased and use on a regular basis. I paid money for a product and that product can no longer be used if I change the device I use that product on. They should have left the existing product alone and released something wholly new.
I bought a media management and consumption platform running on my own server using my own clients. For what reason do I need a relay service to watch content in my house on my server?
So what is the move for them?
Plex has a two-pronged VOD service. They have ad-supported “live television” and they have content to rent.
I don’t know if that’s enough to sustain them but I don’t really care. I’ve been a PlexPass owner for over ten years. I have only asked that they resolve bugs and made requests for things like proper organization of classical music (which they’ve explicitly stated they will not consider).
You do bring to light something I hadn’t considered; that they see Plex as a business model. From my perspective, I want to buy a fully developed product with the expectation of bug fixes and security patches etc over time. I genuinely can not think of a single thing the developers have added to the service that I’ve used in the past ten years.
So, what kind of business model charges money to do things that don’t have an apparent impact on the user experience?
Plex has been one of my most used applications in the past decade. However, it has its limitations and they are actively imposing more limitations on the experience in favor of “a sustainable business model”.
The issue is that their sustainable business model is interrupting the users’ sustained use of a platform they’ve already paid for. I’ve had to go through all of my devices and disable all auto-updates to ensure I do not get the “New Plex Experience”.
What we should be asking is why “selling a product” is no longer a business model.
Owning more wealth than the majority of the country while keeping employees on food stamps is fine. Come after the king, you’re cancelled.
I don’t see a way out of this idiocracy.
I dunno man. The new Sprout’s on Del Ave is having their grand opening this weekend.
I dunno. That last bit seems a bit much. I don’t see these cowards pulling a Tiananmen Sq.
However, speaking of militias, or rather speaking to militias - THIS is the intent of a Well Regulated Militia - to fight authoritarianism. Had you taken an oath, as a member of a Well Regulated Militia, Trumpism would be your target.
Unregulated militias, militias not authorized by the state, are not constitutionally protected and are outlawed in all fifty states. States should have been pressing charges against the Proud Boys, et al. Now they’ve been empowered and here we are. The groups pseudo-defined by their obligation to personal liberty are the fascists.
But the rest of this, yeah. That’s what we’ve been expecting since November. Shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. What we really should be concerned with is how people keep getting dumber and accepting the lies told by this administration and the propaganda outfits. Even the liberal news is guilty of distorting the truth.
Are you going to be surprised if an actual civil war happens? You’ve gotta be half expecting it, right?
No matter what kind of business you run, if you haven’t already raised your prices, you’re taking a huge risk.
We have no idea what’s going to happen with the tariffs, what products will eventually increase 10 to 100+%, how the loss of the migrant workforce will impact food costs, how the ongoing war in Ukraine will impact fuel and crop costs, or how any of the other idiotic decisions this administration is making will impact every corner of every industry.
I mean, I’ve personally been stocking up on supplies since November 2024. The only thing we know for sure is that this guy is currently running the country exactly how people in the 20th century feared “a woman” would run the country - emotionally and erratically with zero assurances.
I would be terrified if I were a business owner.
Another longtime user here. If you haven’t already, you might want to disable autoupdates on all your devices. The “new experience” is not without its controversies.
…the company had crafted a pitch deck for advertisers bragging that it could exploit “moments of psychological vulnerability” in its users by targeting terms like “worthless,” “insecure,” “stressed,” “defeated,” “anxious,” “stupid,” “useless,” and “like a failure.”
As much as there’s an opportunity for selling a product, there’s an opportunity for extending support. Maybe there’s a sliver of a silver lining in that this surveillance could be used for good. It’s disheartening though that of course this will never happen.
I mean, if you wanted to be the good guy, you’d develop AI chat bots that could reach out to people seemingly in distress.
I got you https://share.inquirer.com/o92LoO
Doesn’t matter if anything is legal or not (see: deporting aliens). This administration is doing whatever it wants to stop what it doesn’t like then allowing it to play out in court. Like a super villain, this is Trump’s “super power”.
I think that’s up for debate. There are people who don’t want government involved in their daily lives. These - livable wage and such - are nice things to have but aren’t the core responsibility of any and all governments. I don’t think “manages society” is the right phrasing either. And FWIW, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not in the US constitution so there is no legal requirement for the US government to provide this. The DoI also said all men are created equal then they went on to say black men are worth less than white men.
I think a responsible representative government would weigh the realities of contemporary society and make adjustments to adjust for injustices and inequalities. They may also take larger things into consideration such as why a business determines to operate in one country or another and offer subsidies that promote job creation (rather than inflationary tariffs). I mean, there’s a lot and I don’t want to get into everything here.
My point is, what’s the role of not just the US government, not just a federal or national government, but any and all government - other than “to govern”? I would argue it’s preventative harm reduction.
When the first version of government was created, was it to make the daily lives of people better or was it to provide protection for those who couldn’t protect themselves? Not rhetorical. We all need to agree that point 1 is XYZ. Then we can get one with discussing things like livable wage, social security, health care, education, etc. Actually, on paper, I think the concept of the US is fantastic. A core government that covers broad universal functions while each regional division can focus on its own. The issue from here is that state boundaries are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant today.
My other point, to bring it back to this story, is the the role of government should not be to pretend groups of people do not exist, hide them in the shadows, and ignore the atrocities others are inflicting upon them - our be the one committing those atrocities. So, if we start there with a solid idealogical foundation, we can more easily observe said atrocities and hold elected officials accountable. Universally, outside of party affiliation.
Then, once a foundation is agreed upon without any argument, we can move on to things that have nuance and are worthy of debating details and directions.
I just don’t think we’ve reached step one yet. Perhaps because a lot of people are very, and rightfully, concerned about steps two through a million.
I think we’ve lost sight of what the role of government is or should be. Though, to be fair, I’m not sure it’s been agreed upon.
Isn’t the role of government to provide protection / prevent harm? To create a space for fair opportunity and to level the playing field and adjust for injustices?
I mean, just because you don’t like someone or something or something makes you uncomfortable or doesn’t align with your beliefs doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist nor should the government be in charge of abolishing it. In fact, if you have such strong opinions about something, it’s very likely that this is something the government should be protecting from you.
I just don’t think this is a liberal or conservative claim. It should be a universal fact that’s applied to all. And, I think, any government or politician who fails to protect a single person should be removed from the job they’ve shown they’re not capable of performing.
I guess we’ve given up on holding our politicians accountable and transferred any power we had to the oligarchs and corporations.
Based. On. Television.
Hate to agree with this ****, but this is exactly correct. This is the issue with politics becoming so polarized. People are choosing their team over reality. Republicans (mostly) are choosing party and power over morality.
I’m not holding my breath. He does not give a shit about starving children. Someone made a deal with Trump - feed the kids and we’ll buy more from the US - or something.
This guy is dead set on turning Gaza into a golf resort. https://time.com/7212848/trump-gaza-own/
That’s the con - defund and delegitimize until all that’s left is rubble. Then you buy what’s left at a fractions of a penny on the dollar.
However, if this action increases his popularity and gets his followers to push him towards doing more for humanitarian aid, that’s a huge step in the right direction. Maybe we could get more funds for FEMA and NOAA.