I’m still the original owner of one of these 1982 Pac-Man consoles. Actually, I thought it was lost for decades but my aunt discovered it during a basement clean out and gave it back to me. Last I checked, it still worked. But the volume is so dang loud that I remember I always had to play with it outside.

What a world we live in where this is even a thought someone has.

You should know that little media is being made today that will stand the test of time. It used to be, that when someone was angry or proud or excited, when they were full of emotion that had to be expressed, they would write book or a song or paint a work of art. Now, those emotions can be unloaded instantly on TikTok giving the person the satisfaction they needed. And perhaps some people do still do this but you won’t know about it because the corporations that have historically funded such people full of emotions to express are now dumping money into works their board members know to already be popular.

I’ll add something that I’m personally struggling with. There is so much content available today that staves off any opportunity for boredom that I have little time to spend doing the things I know are more fulfilling. Like, when I get done work, I just plop on the couch and watch YT instead of taking a nap or reading a book or drawing. And now my attention span is shit so it’s a struggle to just sit still and do something requiring more than a few minutes of attention. I mean, I literally have a book called Dopamine Nation on my coffee table that I’ve yet to read more than a couple chapters of.

You and I may have two different problems but I think they’re booth seeking the same solution: rediscovering our humanity.

Thank you. I was getting worried that some pedantic twat hadn’t yet cherry picked my careful and specific wording.

The “meaning of life” is dependent on the scale.

On an intergalactic scale, practically nothing, unless you’re someone involved in some way in intergalactic travel (like Musk, potentially). On a planetary scale, your life as a political or corporate leader or humanitarian could impact generations of others. If you’re a doctor or lawyer, your life may impact tens of thousands or even generations of people. These are scales based mostly on space.

You could also look at a scale based on time. If / when the planet explodes, maybe someone like a Musk will be the only one alive today who genuinely has an impact on the human race long into the future. If you want to look at the time span of a country’s existence, someone like a Julius Cesar, a George Washington, or Adolf Hitler will have certain meaning for hundreds of years.

Your life’s meaning may yet to be realized. The point is to live your life day to day in a manner that has a positive impact on the lives that surround you. If you don’t have the impact of someone like political or corporate leader or someone like a Greta Thunberg, maybe the point of your life is to be a supporting player for someone else.

It gets difficult to find meaning if you live an isolated life. Without a family of your own, a fulfilling career, without traveling to engage with others outside your regular week’s schedule, it’s easy to say your life is meaningless. Because you haven’t made an attempt to give it meaning.

Your life doesn’t have to have meaning. But if you’re asking this kind of question and expecting someone to tell you there’s some inherit “meaning” bestowed upon you at birth, you’re not going to get a hopeful answer. That’s not to say you need to go out and look for it. It’s to say that “meaning” comes from the impact have on something, by choice or otherwise.

You’re gonna have to give me a source for that buddy.

Awesome. I appreciate this perspective.

Can you dig a bit deeper into the benefits for normal people that an irreversible transaction offers? To me, this seems like a detriment. Like, if I sell something on eBay and it turns out to be broken or fraudulent, PayPal can reverse the charges for me. Actually, I have a real world example of buying sneakers online that never arrived and had my credit card reverse the charges for me.

Thank you for being one of the few to take me seriously and offer a thoughtful response.

I can understand now the value of a token that represent some amount of effort that is limited in its supply. As “promised”, no other bitcoins will ever be made. So this alone makes it worth something. The fact that it represents some amount of effort achieved does seem to give it some validity. Although, IMO, certainly not $100k worth.

I’ll need to think this over some more and maybe update this post with some more thoughts on the future of the coin.

Thank you for a real answer like I specifically asked for.

The fact that Bitcoin does represent some amount of effort and that there’s a limited supply does seem to give it some value. While there is a theoretical finite resource of gold, it’s still being discovered. Which, theoretically, makes it less valuable than a predetermined finite resource. And, the US dollar continues to decline - almost by design during this administration.

How BTC is used today and in the future can continue to be debated but I’m satisfied in understanding it’s a limited supply of something that represents some amount of effort.

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.)

Violence is stupid. In some situations, it’s just an output for one’s rage. In other situations, it’s a battle of who is best equipped (hardware + intelligence). Neither of these address the core of the disagreement. Violence only beats the loser into submission. It does not change their stance on the matter.

Negotiation, on the other hand, ideally, at least gives all parties some gains and losses. It may not be the end of the matter but it’s generally a positive step and should promote some degree of respect.

Maybe we never had it, but I think we’ve largely lost the ability to be respectful and empathetic to others. Even though we find to be of the greatest evil, I think, should be given some initial respect to try to understand the emotional reality of their intent.

I won’t write it out, but imagine the worse crime an adult male could do to someone. Something so revolting that the only “logical” recourse is violence. This is an emotional response that does not address the problems that brought this person to such an evil act. By ignoring the problem and beating the person down, we are not able to understand how they got to this place or how we can recognize this path in others. This is a brief example for the sake of time. If you look at something like genocide, I think the process does scale up but too complex to write out for now.

I condone empathy for all because we all as a species benefit from it.

Edit: on second thought - violence used to preserve life may generally be acceptable.

For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?

It seems like you’re lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn’t seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.

You, “the internet”, are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.

There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. “The Democrats”, I presume we’re addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.

The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.

Gotcha. So you either you don’t know or you do know this is not true.

Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney’s office put them in jail. That’s not happening with Trump. That’s not happening with anyone in Trump’s administration.

They can… sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump’s border wall funding)

Yes. That’s exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.

There’s a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn’t necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we’re still waiting to see if there’s any repercussions to that.

Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.

Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.

Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt

How does that work?

Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.

Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.

This bill is about denouncing the antisemitic attack in Boulder with a single line at the literal bottom reading,

expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland.

I won’t stop you from holding politicians accountable for every line of every bill they vote for but you’re distorting reality to fit your narrative. There is nothing wrong with supporting this bill and I question why anyone would reject it.

Are you lost?

It’s not the responsibility of a political party to police the actions of an administration. If someone does something you believe to be illegal, you sue them. According to a LLM search, the administration has over 250 cases against them right now. The courts are the ones responsible for judging the actions of the administration and holding it accountable.

Trump was elected to do the things he’s doing. There’s no surprises here. Congress is stacked against the Democrats. There really isn’t anything they can legally do until they regain either the Senate or the House.

The concern should be the legal actions he’s taking; the ones the supreme court ultimately determine are fine. The few that pass that bar are going to be major hurdles to restoring normalcy.

What the Democrats should be doing is forming a unified party that listens to the concerns of the people and finding someone to voice this movement.

It really comes down to the people. We always have the choice of who to elect. We seem to be voting for people who are against our own personal interests because our electoral system is a farce. Politicians are lying so often and so blatantly now that, regardless of your affiliation, the truth is often clouded by bias and emotion, if not intentionally buried. About half of Americans now believe our elections are rigged even though the evidence indicates they’re highly secure.

I mean, if you’re here asking what can be done to fix this shit we’re in right now, the answer is to reform our elections, make them tax payer funded, embrace STAR or Ranked Choice Voting, and pass the bill that prevents elected leaders from holding stocks. Or, I don’t know how you do this but getting people to know the difference between factual unbiased news and fake news and preventing biased opinions from distorting their realities.

When it’s trash day on my block (city life) and the collectors leave a trash can in an open parking spot and I move that can to the sidewalk, you’re claiming that I’m doing this because it makes me feel good to be helpful to someone I’ll never encounter, and that this isn’t “true altruism”.

So, should we be discussing why we don’t do things that make us feel bad? “True altruism” can’t exist because we don’t go around helping people commit murders or because we’re not voting for a politician we dislike? I don’t think that’s the intent of the word.

I mean, there’s ‘doing things because they make you “feel good”’ and there’s altruism. These are not the same nor are they mutually exclusive.

I think perhaps the word you’re trying to shoehorn into altruism is heroism - when you do something for the benefit of others knowing it’s detrimental to yourself. Or, if you really want to dig into doing things that make you feel bad, I’m not really sure what word that would be. Idiocracy?