Yeah try searching for “star trek socialism” on YT or wherever, you’d be surprised.

But apart from the series specifically there is at least some theorizing that space exploration is only possible after capitalism has been abolished since the energy and cooperation alone required to make it work on a meaningful scale is not possible under capitalism. We need the unleashing of productive forces that only communism can provide.

Aaaaaaand of course there are the Posadists. Google them for a good chuckle!

Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions!

It’s not like I’m a scholar on the subject or anything, but to my mind the key thing you said is “changing the system”. That’s the prerequisite for achieving a more just society. You can hate on the owner class all you want, simply getting rid of them will not necessarily overthrow societal power relations. New billionaires will rise, capitalism will not die along with the last rich white dude.

I would even go so far as to say that hating on the owning class kind of deflects from analyzing the contradictions and ideologies produced by capitalist societies themselves. This especially shows in certain sorts of reactionary political movements, who have no problem with capitalism as long as it feeds their nationalist ambitions instead of some globalist billionaire jet-set often described as Jewish.

My comment wasn’t really aimed at humanizing him, I only wanted to poke fun at him although I can see where you’re coming from.

I’m more on the side of Marx’s character mask argument on people like Bill. That’s why I can make shitpost comments like mine even without liking him all too much.

I love that this headline let’s ole Bill sound like a zoned out stoner college freshman.

OMG I guess my age is getting to me LOL. Then add SNL to my list as well!

In Living Color. Man, the talent on that show was unbelievable: Almost the complete family Wayans, Jamie Foxx, Jim Carrey … they all started with that show. And Jennifer Lopez was on the dance crew! Look up the skits on Youtube or Piped. The comedy I saw on that show was transformative. It’s 30 years later and I’m still quoting Hans & Franz, Men on film, or Calhoun Tubbs regularly.

Gird your loins, people running Friendica instances!

Have you taken a look at your instance’s FAQ here? Other than that, there are numerous guides to getting set up with Lemmy and how to subscribe to communities on other instances. It’s slightly different than Reddit, but apart from some technical details, everything works like Reddit once you’re set up.

Because of the decentralized structure, there can be communities on the same topic on different instances (with different subscribers, moderation guidelines, etc.). Use the search to find communities you’re interested in and post questions e.g. on the FAQ thread of your instance. Or right here of course.

Wow I gotta stop hanging out exclusively in Rust communities. When I read the headline I was expecting much more drama.

Riding on the sidewalk endangers pedestrians (especially children and people with disabilities). Crossing an intersection that has cars coming from the right is also unsafer because you enter drivers’ the field of view much later (than if you’re on the street) and at a higher velocity (than a pedestrian). If you are riding a car please accept that in the most places in the industrialized part of the world, bicyclists have exactly the same right to use the street (according to local regulations of course).

This is the correct answer.

We bought a couple of plants that have a smell that allegedly repels cats and other animals and had good results planting them around our patches. But we also left the dog in the garden more often which might have helped even more. The plants are called plectranthus ornatus … but there are others which might also work: https://horticulture.co.uk/cat-deterrent-plants/

Klick on those links with caution, especially the collection is most definitely NSFL.

This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under “Strengths and Limitations”:

A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.

The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.

Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn’t happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.

I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here … you can’t just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, … all this shit is not new to researchers.

Don’t get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn’t lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don’t agree with the findings of a study doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.

What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.

This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?

Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?

There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.