[–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

My lay-person perspective is Jobs pioneered enshittification. The iPod was not an mp3 player, you had to use proprietary format music, which needed to be loaded with iTunes, a piece of proprietary software that acted almost like a virus once installed on your machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 62 points 2 months ago (22 children)

    Superman comes from a position of absurd privilege wherein he can do whatever he wants without risk to himself, and can put on a pair of glasses to become anonymous afterwards.

    Everyone else has occasionally consider a compromise between what they think is right and what is pragmatic or necessary.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them

    Hey now, to be fair, it says a husband can only strike their wife if they first tried the punishment of withholding their holy peen. All the disobedient wives are clearly crumbling at that point, so what's the problem? /s

  • source
  •  

    Movies have huge credit rolls that tell you everyone involved from the director down to the person who made the cups of tea. But why? I can understand why actors, who need exposure to maintain a career, would want this. But is it important for the person who drove the truck full of props around to be credited for their future prospects?

    You don't see a plaque when you walk into a building listing everyone who laid a brick as part of the construction. I assume there's a historical reason why the entertainment industry, and only the entertainment industry does this.

    Edit: To all those that took my geniune question about what historically lead to this, and turned it into accusations of me being some sort of thoughtless "asshole", what is even the point of someone trying to contribute to these online communities if you are just going to be made to feel horrible?

     

    The High Court has backed a decision by the government to refuse a temporary visa to American commentator Candace Owens Farmer, who had planned a speaking tour to Australia in 2024.

    Owens's lawyers argued the decision placed an "impermissible burden" on the implied right to freedom of political communication, and Immigration Minister Tony Burke had incorrectly interpreted the law.

    The High Court found the law was valid and applied in circumstances where the person in question would encourage dissension or strife, risking harm to the Australian community.

     

    Can anyone clarify what this community is for? The only post here suggests it's to replace the auslaw subreddit, which is mostly lawyers shit-talking about the legal profession and a lot of fun. However it's got the same name as the auslegal subreddit, which is a train wreck of non-lawyers asking other non-lawyers legal questions and getting terrible hot takes and badly Googled answers in reply.

    view more: next ›