Arlene Dickinson and Amber Mac cut ties with Canadian social media startup Gander Social
Alternate link: archive.is/20260131002226/theg…
Some excerpts:
Canadian media personalities Arlene Dickinson and Amber MacArthur were drawn last year to back an Ottawa startup called Gander Social Inc. that had a unique mission: To create a social network by and for Canadians.At a time when social media platforms were being accused of aiding the spread of misinformation and hate, and selling user data without consent, Gander chief executive Ben Waldman promised something different. Built on the same open-source protocol as Bluesky, Gander, which is registered as a public benefit company in British Columbia, would ensure its moderation rules adhered to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, give users control over their experience, and keep their data in Canada.
Last June, Ms. Dickinson, a venture capitalist who stars on Dragons’ Den, told The Globe and Mail she was “both an investor and adviser,” drawn to a “timely, smart opportunity” that “has the value of Canadians.” Ms. MacArthur, host of The AmberMac Show on SiriusXM, wanted to support a company committed to online safety that was “better for Canadians.” She told The Globe she was “in the middle of getting the information and signing the documents” to invest. “Some of the details are still getting figured out.”
They never were. On Thursday, the pair announced on social media they were cutting all ties to Gander. Not only did they never sign advisory agreements, they also never invested, despite what Ms. Dickinson had said. In one post Thursday, Ms. Dickinson said she had been “in late stage discussions about an advisory role and a potential investment, which is why I spoke about it publicly. It became clear that my involvement was being treated as an endorsement more than a substantive advisory role.”
Ms. MacArthur interviewed Mr. Waldman on her show in January, telling listeners she’d been an adviser for months. On Thursday, she posted on Facebook: “We’ve had some disagreements on how things are being managed,” adding in a LinkedIn post: “I am pretty devastated that I’ve been left with no option but to leave” the advisory role. “I won’t back something that isn’t capable of meeting this need with total integrity and excellence.” Both wished Gander well.
Ms. Dickinson, Ms. MacArthur and Mr. Waldman told The Globe that after agreeing to invest in an earlier financing – called a “simple agreement for future equity, or SAFE – and join as advisers, delays ensued in formalizing both arrangements due to back-and-forth changes to the advisory deal’s terms and language. “It was dragging out, Ms. Dickinson said. “It was more busy-ness on both sides. I was late, he was late” but both intended to conclude the deal.
Ms. MacArthur and Ms. Dickinson had another concern. As advisers, they expected to view a prototype of the platform as it was being developed and to be involved in shaping how it would function and what protocols would govern it. “We kept asking for that,” Ms. Dickinson said, but to no avail.
Ms. MacArthur added: “Over the past few weeks it’s been pretty clear I wasn’t necessarily advising on anything because there was no product to look at. From my perspective, they have not been actively in touch with advisers along the way. That begs the question why you need advisers if you’re not getting them to advise.”
Without seeing the product, “it’s really hard to tell people they should continue to support and invest in this,” Ms. MacArthur said.
Arlene Dickinson and Amber Mac cut ties with Canadian social media startup Gander Social
Canadian broadcast stars quit after failing to reach terms on investment or advisory rolesSean Silcoff (The Globe and Mail)
The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K
The TV industry finally concedes that the future may not be in 8K
With virtually no content and limited benefits, 8K TVs were doomed.Scharon Harding (Ars Technica)
we don't live in a world of abundance
literally all studies about this make you wrong
I understand what you're saying about immigration, but that holds less true with respect to war forcing people to move.
So?
I was more pointing towards the suggestion that market forces kept everything in check, which, no, they don't. The market does not magically stay afloat without intervention. Production is not just regulated by market forces.
But most importantly, countries have capacities. America, for example, can hold many more people than it is, comfortably. But if you have a place that's smaller, like Britain or sweden, free border immigration will result in strains in both the cultural and infrastructure situation in the countries at hand as they rapidly grow beyond present capacity, which they will if free immigration is allowed.
Excess workers willing to work for lower pay can also drive wages down, and allow companies to exploit workers more easily(often regardless of the actual law).
I'm generally in favor of reasonably lax immigration policies, but free border immigration is not a good idea. People need time to adjust to the culture of where they're going, and you don't want to overload that
Open borders is more like 'Come to the window, take an application, open to anybody' and not 'Only for people with corporate sponsors (H-1B)' or 'Willing to work in terrible conditions for shit pay and abuse, then go back home (H-2B)' or 'Be Rich (EB-5)'
There is still control over entry, but anybody who can pass screening and meets minimum requirements (has money to support themselves or has a sponsor/job waiting) will be allowed entry and a path to citizenship.
We're a country of immigrants, it is hypocritical to attack the very system that is responsible for most of us being here.
iterally all studies about this make you wrong
You misunderstand, we live in a world that's capable of abundance. Go tell people in Nigeria that they have a world of abundance and see how they react; because they do not have an abundance of anything.
Yes, a program like this wouldn't have unlimited funding and could be overloaded so there would have to be practical limits set.
Ideally, in a system with a working government, the usage/funding would be monitored to ensure that immigration is being handled safely and at levels where there are not multi-year wait time or lottery.
In my opinion, the goal is to create a system where we can screen for border security issues while not hampering people who want to come here, work and pay taxes. This same service should also provide immigrant services to help them with their relocation by providing education and information in order to ease the process.
Historically speaking passports and border controls have been the exception, not the rule.
The reason you can't conceive of it possibly working is you've only ever lived in a world where you need a passport to go somewhere.
The scenario of 100 million people suddenly arriving is FUD. Apart from not being likely even on purely logistical grounds, the questions you're asking are ones that are eminently answerable: Where do they live? In houses that they build. Where would their children go to school? At schools that they build and staff. It's from the same fearmongering stable as "theytookerrrjaawwwbs".
That's some weaselly circular argument you're engaging in there.
Your use of the word "just" implies that having people called "citizens" is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called "inhabitants"; which you're then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven't actually made any kind of case for why it's better.
wat.
I'm struggling to fathom the purpose of this non-question.
Too many possibilities, too many directions one could take a response to that [including [perhaps wiser] none].
What safer than ability to remove oneself from danger instantly? Seems self-evident what I "feel" about safe spaces. So, I'm still (and all the more) stumped by the purpose of this line that starts like a question, but then lacks a question mark, hinting some kind of rhetoric implied, yet what it appears digging for is already on the surface... so...
wat.
Where would they live?
In houses.
Where would their children go to school?
In schools.
It's much harder to get citizenship in most EU countries than it is to get citizenship in the USA. Until Trump, it was also easier to get into the US on a visa than to get into Europe on a visa.
I think I've seen border checkpoints while driving between EU countries, but it was hard to tell because they hadn't been in operation for decades. But, there's still a vague sense of a border. It seems like the countries maintain that area enough so that if ever they had to put the border control points back into operation it could be done. So, you can sort of tell that you crossed a border, even if you don't have to slow down at all.
I seem to remember that the USA was part of the model when the EU was being designed. That doing business between EU member states was supposed to be as easy as doing business state-to-state in the USA. It isn't quite there yet. But, the USA has been working at reducing state-to-state friction for nearly 2 centuries, whereas the EU has only had decades.
that would be arguing that i am speaking as if everybody's needs have been met NOW
But that's exactly what a world of abundance means.
Having an over abundance in one part of the world and scarcity in another isn't a world of abundance.
You know border control and passports were never a thing not long ago right and it was never an issue?
What happens when 100 million people try to immigrate in less than ten years? Where would they live? Where would their children go to school?
When large enough number of people immigrate they start building new communities or expand existing ones and with the increase of human resources and demand new houses, infrastructure, and cities get built providing more jobs, money, and services. It's how America was built after all.
If the development rate can't keep up with the immigration rate then there would be less jobs and less services which makes prospect immigrants either find better opportunities at home or look for a different destination.
The only case where this rule wouldn't apply would be with refugees whether it's war or natural disasters. And even then after a few years they seem to mostly integrate well with society and the economy.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It's kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
Having an over abundance in one part pf the world and scarcity in another isn't a world of abundance.
You're so close to realizing wherever humans settled had enough to sustain civilization. It's the plundering, wars, genocides, privatization of national respurces that cause the scarcity.
There are countries with 100 million people. This means the percentage of construction workers, teachers, and real estate agents from 100 million people would be enough to build enough housing for 100 million people.
Also aren't virtually all roads, schools, and houses built by immigrants currently? More coming means we can build more. Hell, imagine we paid them enough to open their own universities and construction companies.
Infrastructure isn't tied directly to labour available.
There needs to be enough time to construct, enough money to invest, enough space to have proper city layouts etc.
You can't just build a water treatment plant anywhere.
You also can only build housing and schools and hospitals so fast, an extra 100 million people in America in less than ten years would mean and extra 25% or everything needing to be built in less than ten years.
At the moment government doesn't fund construction of housing, so that's an entire system that needs to put in place before letting everyone in.
Plus a bunch of other issues that I can't even think about I imagine.
When Germany reunified about 2 million people (about 10% of the population) moved west. This is for a situation where they spoke the same language, had mostly the same shared traditions and culture , visiting family was a short car ride away and West Germany offered all the social services and workers rights one expects.
In what world would 100 million people abandon their whole lives to move to the US where they might not speak the language or understand the culture, to get bankrupt by a cold, having your kids killed in schools and working 51 weeks of the year?
Canada had an annual immigration rate of 1.4 million per year and the population is 40 million and that's still with a limited non-open door policy, and it was way too much which Canada realized and started to restrict it, which would be the equivalent of America bringing in 14 million a year.
I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if 100 mil wanted to immigrate to America over ten years if there was an open door policy.
You must be unaware of:
- Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
- The whole fucking EU
wherever humans settled had enough to sustain
You do understand that "had" is past tense, meaning that we do not currently have it, right?
You can't envision it because you live in a country that is currently incapable of maintaining basic infrastructure and providing the most bare minimum housing for its populace, much less expanding it.
That's not true for elsewhere in the world, nor is it true historically.
10 million dedicated laborers (10%) is an insane amount of manpower.
Remittances, a big part of the economy of some countries
Do remittances outweigh the benefit of having your own productive, successful upper class? Do remittances give you doctors to support your population and engineers to build your infrastructure?
The whole fucking EU
Is a union due to the similarity of the members, there is no Nigeria level member country of the EU. The poorest nation in the EU is Hungary/Bulagria that is at 60-70% of the average EU income.
If Nigeria was a member it would be around the 20% level with next to nothing to offer to the agreement. Everyone that coupe afford to, would immediately move our of Nigeria and bring next to nothing to wherever they moved.
The United States and Canada could absolutely have such an agreement with a similar level of benefit. The United States and Argentina could not.
Fearmongerers be like...
Trafficked women and children be like… HELPDrug couriers be like… THANKS
Terrorists be like…EASY
Person A - I don't think cars should have breaks or seat belts.
Person B - I think that's a bad idea for these reasons.
You...
Fearmongerers be like...
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
You guys don’t care
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It's really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
why do you think that is?
That's a deep hole and I don't know if you'll appreciate it's darkness.
Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person. We will only ever attract as many immigrants as there are jobs to support them.
At least up here in northern Europe that is sadly not true. I'm not claiming immigrants come here seeking free welfare (some probably do but there's always people like that everywhere); but there's plenty of people being actively lied to in their own countries, and sold this idea that you can just go up north and get a job and send money to your family etc. get a better life! So they gather all the money they have and give it to these liars, who then traffic them into EU and up here.
There's barely any jobs in my country you can get without speaking the native language (which is difficult to learn and useless outside our 5mil population), and at this moment we even have massive unemployment crisis so there's no jobs even for the natives. Still people are sold lies and come here, then get stuck trying to scrap any money they can, and get taken advantage of and have to live in poverty. Some even have big loans on them, they took to just get here. All in vain
Hmm, maybe you have a point. Oh wait, I know of something that would help reduce those harmful effects!
Open borders
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration, and generally people that support those governments are also called "leftist".
The same goes for many social democrats and socialist reformists. Even unionists often oppose migration because migrants are imported by the capitalist order to use as scabs (see "guest workers" in 1970s West Germany).
All basically want a walled garden in which leftist ways of living can flourish, usually with the idea to export them later.
But especially in activist and discourse spaces, people tend to be in a pretty narrow band from pop liberalism to anarchocommunism. Socialists, socdems, and unionists tend to be busy with their job, because that is what their praxis calls for. And state communists tend to walk away exasperated when people condemn genocide.
But anarchocommunist praxis is for a large part prefigurative sharing of information, ideas, and tentative structures. So we're relatively loud and as unemployed as we can get away with.
Yes, Open borders is the desirable outcome. The fact that people were saying they don't want open borders shows they're a lib and therefore not a real leftist.
It is not immigrants who are the cause of any problems in America, it is the right-fascists and oligarchs who shit this garbage out their mouths.
The counter to right-wing extremism isn't right-wing liberalism, it is real leftism, the thing they are trying to dismiss.
Watch this video. Market inefficiency will have people freezing to death in the streets, unable to afford travelling to a place with work, unable even to afford accurate information on where to find work. Many turned to crime to survive.
In Tudor England's case, they "solved" this by kidnapping people ICE-style and deporting them to the colonies as indentured servants or putting them in for-profit prisons.
Open borders are good, but you need to be anarchocommunist about it. People need to base their migration patterns on accurate information, which means information given as mutual aid rather than for profit or for manipulation (e.g. if people constantly say "we have no space" when they have space, people learn that "we have no space" means "we probably have space", so if there is no space you get disaster).
It also needs to be mutual aid when people are there. Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to slot into the economy of a foreign culture is "leaving money on the table". It's much more economically productive to get people everything they need to be comfortable so they can instead spend their labor on efficient tasks they are specialized in (which then help other get what they need faster in the positive sum game we call society).
My guy. Open borders go one way, from the poor countries into the rich countries. The poor country opening it's border does nothing.
Next to no one is fleeing to Mexico for economic opportunity.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else's goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the "It's natural" appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it's inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I've offered.
"Micro border"... likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
* Like psychological boundaries of principle where one intently shall not bring themselves to cross regardless of provocation?
* And shared among like-minded with similar experiences?
* That kind of safe space?
* Is that for which you've coined the term "micro border"?
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It's kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama^1^, perhaps starting with some "aloof" mixed in with the (at least) "poor-me", perhaps even escalating through "interrogator" to "intimidator", to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
... I forget who that's attributed to ~ "separation is the path to destruction"... Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"^2^.
Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
First, tackling:
Should they be allowed to do so
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that's a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it's the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I think it does.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
It’s natural and inherent to humans.
Yes... which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
- Inherent, from Latin inhaerere[/Inherens] ("to stick in"), e.g. like something imbued within from something prior.
- Intrinsic, from Latin intrinsecus ("on the inside"), emphasizing internal essence. Does not imply receipt. At least not intrinsically. ;)
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there... I don't know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what's cooking us? n_n What's trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it's not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who's causing such? Who benefits?
^1^ ^2^ Heh, that's two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.
Having a sub class of folks who are not citizens is definitely a problem. We need immigration reform. Having illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less than minimum wage is definitely a problem.
Even Bernie has said as much.
With immigration reform we can set the path for these folks to get citizenship which will raise wages for everyone.
I have zero faith in congress’ ability to do this though.
ICE definitely needs to be abolished. Open borders is probably a bad starting point though… but I like that idea more than having ICE.
I mean yes, but they were systemicatically murdered in a genocide, and forcibly removed from their land.
Anybody who survived that period was forced to integrate with American society or face systemic persecution and often death.
Hell, we went to war with a number of tribes bcz we wanted their land and resources. The point isn't that Native Americans don't exist today.
Its that their culture was systematically destroyed and their homelands burned to the ground or taken over.
I understand and agree with your sentiment, but supermajorities of voters in dem repub and independent parties want criminal immigrants deported. That’s why so many independents went with Trump this go round. They don’t like just rounding up everyone for the purpose of achieving some record of deportations just for shits and giggles though.
Establishment dems were downplaying crime and immigration issues while establishment repubs and Trump were exaggerating them. Immigrant criminals and gangs and cartels are a real problem and people on the streets see it, especially immigrants in those same communities.
With immigration reform and doing things like giving daca and similar immigrants who have been here since they were babies a path to citizenship makes sense. And so does having refugee and asylum options, especially in places where US foreign policy has directly caused the hardships that have and are causing folks to flee their own country. That’s basically all of central and Latin American and the carribean and also countries in South America, Palestine, Ukraine. US foreign policy is beyond fucked up.
Our monkey brains are still fixed on tribalism and racism which makes us infight though, allowing the establishment politicians to pit us against each other while the uniparty continues to serve the corporate and donor class… and Israel.
Please point me to all of these supposed immigrant gangs. I'd love to read about it. All of the research data that I've seen points to immigrants committing violent crimes at a far lower rate than actual citizens of the U.S.
If you don't have actual data to back up your claims, you're just spouting misinformation at best, or intentional disinformation at worst.
Cartels are a different problem entirely. Those are drug gangs from other countries. So, in don't even know why you're bringing that up in the context of immigration.
Absolutely, immigrants in general do commit far less crime than citizens based on what I’ve read and seen.
Republicans would have us believe gangs are in control of the cities and all kinds of craziness… this is not what I’m suggesting.
But there are examples of gangs and criminals doing things in relatively recent news cycles…
I was saying Dems tend to look the other way, Repubs exaggerate the problem… we all know we need immigration reform, and Trump was speaking to the issue when he campaigned. Dems downplayed it or suggested it didn’t exist at all.
I work every day with immigrants. I’m conversationally fluent in Spanish because of it. I support immigration and reasonable paths to citizenship. But under our current system we have an underclass of people being exploited by the owner class. That’s not acceptable to me.
I have zero faith in congress’ ability to do this though.
This is the crux of the problem. Nobody has faith in Congress' ability to do anything.
the root of these issues is not drugs and terrorists flowing into this country.
The root of my issue with it, is, and criminals, and net tax recipients. Youre going to put words into my mouth that it's because, as wpb said, the race of the people? Get out of here, you're the bad actor.
The US immigration "policy" is just as stupid as it is inhumane. At this point it's easier to imagine it being orchestrated by rivals that think long term, rather than being just from the ever-present conservative hate and ignorance.
Our economy is built with an infinite growth mindset, moreso than most. ALL developed nations are seeing population growth slow down and even reverse -- that's just what happens when populations get educated and wealthy.
So what are we doing? Violently kicking out tons of lower paid workers while also scaring away some of the most highly educated and specialized Ph.Ds.
But hey, at least we're consistent and also make conditions horrible for natural born citizens to raise USian children!
Because we're never going to have worldwide open borders. Humanity is going to off itself before then.
ALSO BECAUSE we're specifically talking about abolishing ice here, so... seems like a united states centered conversation. I'd put money on the united states having open borders before either china or the eu.
That's just like, openly, demonstrably false. Poor countries greatly benefit from having open borders to wealthier nations, as it removes barriers to bringing that wealth back into those poor countries. Closed borders only serve to keep rich countries rich, and poor countries poor.
Next to no one is fleeing to Mexico for economic opportunity.
You framing it as "fleeing"really drives home your biases. If there were an open border between the US and Mexico, we'd see two-way movement way more often, as it'd be way easier for Mexicans to come to the US seeking economic opportunity, build some wealth, then take that back across the open border to Mexico to their family/dependents/community. We see that pretty much everywhere there's an open border or some sort of economic cooperation zone.
You"re missing half the picture here. Zeros are such because legality is delirium. It's all about money and Earthbound showed it clearly it when you get done with Moonside.
Shit if you make to the explination of your dreams right before you bot out to beat your neighbor Pokey & G...
I think you all read poorly. And that I write too cryptic of logic.
Zeros are illegal...
...Because legalism brainwork vampire and copypasta spam.
Do pee ball hence in antigravity?
If someone else told you what to think and you didn't check the cards, what the fuck do you think you're shuffling and what does it really say?
Have you ever crossed the Swiss border? That was an interesting one. Switzerland isn't in the EU but they're in a lot of bilateral agreements which means they mostly have an open border. But, that agreement is a lot less solid than the rest of the EU agreements.
It seems like the France / Belgium border could be turned back into a proper border control post within a few months. But, the Swiss / France border seems like it could be back in full force within a few days. Currently you can drive past it at nearly full highway speeds, but all the border control buildings are there, and the roads leading up to them are just ready for them to start diverting traffic again. I also seem to remember that it offered a last second chance to turn around and not cross the border, something you didn't get at say France / Germany. Probably because there actually is a meaningful difference in laws between the two sides, so there's a chance someone might decide not to do it.
Basically no one believes in open borders, only some weird fringe anarchists who posts memes like the one above that are largely irrelevant in the real world. It's always just been a straw man from the right or just weird online fringe anarchists who hold the position.
The reason communists are critical of the US/European hostility towards immigrants is not because we want open borders but because western countries bomb, sanction, coup these countries and cause a refugee crisis then turn around and cry about those immigrants coming to their country.
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.youtube.com
There's paperwork to do regardless of country of origin I believe, since you generally need to de-register it and get the temporary plates. This seems to incur some minor fees of usually double digits euros in pretty much every country, as some clerk has to fill out a few forms and whatever. And on the Estonian side I'll have to show it to some officials who will verify that it exists, is a car, has the correct VIN, the doors open, and that it has seatbelts. More or less. It's not a proper TÜV, as the TÜV from country of origin still applies. Also we now have a registration fee so that's nice. Since already registered cars also incur the fee (one time retroactive reg fee for the first change of ownership after the law came into effect a year ago), it doesn't really make imports any less competitive yet.
Mostly I'm still leaning towards Germany, as I could just fly into Stuttgart or Frankfurt and have several examples in my price range to check out as long as I'm willing to bus/train around or hail whatever the German equivalent of Bolt is (because fuck Uber). Average of 100k extra kilometers on the clock compared to the Swiss examples isn't a big deal on an OM642 anyway if it's been maintained and having more choices is better, because I don't want to go fly out to see one particular car, discover it has a glaring flaw not described by the seller, and have no other options nearby lol
Open borders are a great idea if you want to average out the standard of living across the world.
Personally, as an American, I don't want that to be a fast process. I am interested in helping the rest of the world to raise their standard of living, especially in the long term. That's in everyone's interest.
I'm not interested in making huge sacrifices in the American standard of living in order to accomplish that.
Many state communists oppose open borders. The USSR, China, and Cuba all had/have citizenship privileges and controlled migration,
Fair enough, the USSR restricted movement within their territory more than many other countries restricted their borders.
“Services”
Haha! (In the bully laugh from Bart Simpson’s bully’s laugh.)
if you use this often, you can add a keyword search (firefox-based browsers) or a custom site search (chromium-based) with this URL
https://icon-sets.iconify.design/?query=%25s(use %s after equals; some lemmy front-ends seem to be rendering it wrong)
and a shortcut e.g. icon
so everytime you enter e.g. icon person in a new tab, it'll run the search for you
Idealism
[yellow, shrugging]\
Anticapitalists are silly idealists\
\
[yellow, crossing their arms]\
Communism can't work in real life\
\
[yellow, pointing smugly at us]\
The theory behind socialism is broken\
\
[yellow, looking wavy]\
Anarchism makes no sense at all\
\
[yellow, smiling annoyingly in front of a huge wall of text]\
As opposed to my support for capitalism, which works because the market is free and open and has no state intervention, there are no monopolies or oligarchies, everyone has a perfect understanding of the things they consume, there are no patents and other government sanctioned ways to slow down competition, megacorps absolutely love supporting the free market, and billionaires get no say in political decisions. Prices also magically reflect real social costs, because pollution, burnout, and infrastructure decay are all naturally priced in. Labor markets are frictionless, so people can instantly quit abusive jobs and seamlessly transition into better ones without rent, visas, health insurance, or time being a factor. Infor mation asymmetry does not exist, advertising is purely informative and never manipulative, and planned obsolescence would be irrational because firms are driven by a deep moral commitment to long-term consumer welfare. Crises never happen, but when they do they are excellent learning opportunities that only affect those who made bad personal choices. Banks fail responsibly. Housing markets collapse politely. Of course, capital never concentrates, because returns definitely do not compound, network effects are a myth, and first-mover advantage is just something lazy people complain about. If someone becomes obscenely rich, it is merely a coincidence that they can now afford better lawyers, better lobbying, better media access, and better laws. This has no feedback effect whatsoever. Democracy also remains pristine, since money is famously speechless and campaign finance has no measurable impact on policy outcomes. Regulators are fearless, revolving doors are sealed shut, and every captured agency is just doing a long, ironic performance art piece. When the state intervenes, it is always against capitalism, never on its behalf, and certainly never to socialize losses after privatizing gains. And if any of this sounds unrealistic, that is only because capitalism has never really been tried properly, unlike all those other systems, which failed specifically because humans were involved. But why does this paragraph end with a mention of thebad.website ?
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and SolacefromSilence like this.
That's adorable, don't worry about it though, these days if you do some art you have to learn to record the entire process of producing some of your pieces otherwise someone will always eventually think your work is AI generated… it's just part of life now, you sadly get used to it. AIvestigators need to take a moment to wonder "but from who did the AIs learn to draw?".
For me it's a smaller issue since a lot of my pieces are just silly stickmen, the only time it got really frustrating was when I had to prove to several board game editors I didn't use an AI to generate the art on a card game I illustrated in a very personal style…
Have a beautiful weekend!
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
FOSDEM 2026 - µSolarVerter - Open Solar Power for All
ARDE Shuts Down PL-15 Myths; Confirms Astra's 160-240 km Reach Through Indigenous Innovation
During the Operation Sindoor of Indian Military on Pakistan, a chinese PL-15 missile was reported to been shot by Pakistani Fighter Jet but did neither did it hit its target nor did it blast on impact, hence it was confiscated by India as it fell in Indian territory.
Since then, there have been claims that India has reverse engineered it to upgrade its existing Astra air-to-air missile system.
The claims have been shut down by Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), a key pillar of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), claiming that this is completely the result of Indigenous advancements and not some stolen tech. He emphasized that the work on extending range of Astra Mk-1 from 110Km to 160Km and Astra Mk-2 from 160Km to 240Km was on priority from the very start and denied any such claims of reverse engineering.
What do you think?
Join our community "BharatDefense" to support us. A humble request to all Indians and people who enjoy our content.
Jai Hind
ARDE Shuts Down PL-15 Myths; Confirms Astra's 160-240 km Reach Through Indigenous Innovation
The Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), a key pillar of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), has ...www.indiandefensenews.in
ARDE Shuts Down PL-15 Myths; Confirms Astra's 160-240 km Reach Through Indigenous Innovation
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/42482294
During the Operation Sindoor of Indian Military on Pakistan, a chinese PL-15 missile was reported to been shot by Pakistani Fighter Jet but did neither did it hit its target nor did it blast on impact, hence it was confiscated by India as it fell in Indian territory.Since then, there have been claims that India has reverse engineered it to upgrade its existing Astra air-to-air missile system.
The claims have been shut down by Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), a key pillar of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), claiming that this is completely the result of Indigenous advancements and not some stolen tech. He emphasized that the work on extending range of Astra Mk-1 from 110Km to 160Km and Astra Mk-2 from 160Km to 240Km was on priority from the very start and denied any such claims of reverse engineering.
What do you think?
Join our community "BharatDefense" to support us. A humble request to all Indians and people who enjoy our content.Jai Hind
ARDE Shuts Down PL-15 Myths; Confirms Astra's 160-240 km Reach Through Indigenous Innovation
During the Operation Sindoor of Indian Military on Pakistan, a chinese PL-15 missile was reported to been shot by Pakistani Fighter Jet but did neither did it hit its target nor did it blast on impact, hence it was confiscated by India as it fell in Indian territory.Since then, there have been claims that India has reverse engineered it to upgrade its existing Astra air-to-air missile system.
The claims have been shut down by Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), a key pillar of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), claiming that this is completely the result of Indigenous advancements and not some stolen tech. He emphasized that the work on extending range of Astra Mk-1 from 110Km to 160Km and Astra Mk-2 from 160Km to 240Km was on priority from the very start and denied any such claims of reverse engineering.
What do you think?
Join our community "BharatDefense" to support us. A humble request to all Indians and people who enjoy our content.Jai Hind
ARDE Shuts Down PL-15 Myths; Confirms Astra's 160-240 km Reach Through Indigenous Innovation
The Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE), a key pillar of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), has ...www.indiandefensenews.in
I don't get it.
Why are people who use email or something unable to operate a chatbot?
The meme is "giving a chatbot to an email user is like giving pedals to a paraplegic"
Why are email users comparable to paraplegics. What are they unable to do that everyone else can?
In a pedal wheelchair? Come on
This feels like clarifying with mud.
That's getting a bit too vague for me.
How is giving people a chatbot like giving paraplegics pedals? Nobody has explained it yet.
To quote a well known microblog meme:
No b*tch. Dats a whole new sentence. Wtf is you talkin about.
Not all wheelchairs need pedals, like not all apps need AI.
Hey look naked ableism
You have some options. Be a mature adult, apologize, recognize that stuff like this is real mobility assistive and rehab tech, or go the lemmy mod and admin route, double down and throw a hissy fit. Up to you.
AI agents now have their own Reddit-style social network, and it's getting weird fast
Moltbook lets 32,000 AI bots trade jokes, tips, and complaints about humans.
'Reverse Solar Panel' Generates Electricity at Night
It produces only a little power, but its innovative approach could support hardware that operates during lengthy periods of total darkness, such as deep-space satellites.
https://www.extremetech.com/science/reverse-solar-panel-generates-electricity-at-night
YouTube seems to be blocking background video playback on Samsung Internet, Brave, and other browsers
Reports claim YouTube no longer plays in the background on Samsung Internet and Brave, breaking a popular screen-off audio workaround.
https://piunikaweb.com/2026/01/28/youtube-background-play-samsung-internet-brave/
What do you expect? Video hosting at scale is expensive and most instances aren't setup or financially equipped to handle videos larger than clips of a few seconds in length (if even that).
You occasionally see direct MP4 links there to catbox or imgur, but those don't always work universally or are slow or hugged to death. Recently I've noticed that a few users here utilize their own homelabs to host larger media uploads, and I like the thought of that. Those seem to just be private "repos" for them, though. I would NOT want to run something like catbox, open to everyone, on my own infrastructure. The thought of what I'd end up with gives me the heebie-jeebies. I don't know how catbox deals with problematic uploads, but that's far beyond my comfort zone.
Ok, so what about Invidious? Invidious links are just shittier and slower Youtube links because they're just proxying, so that's not really a solution. And I'd rather see a YT link posted than an Invidious link since my Lemmy client and/or browser plugin can rewrite YT links to my preferred Invidious server but can't do that for the infinite number of random Inv links in the wild. That then forces me to manually massage the URL to go to my preferred server or click through to the slow, overloaded server on the other side of the world with the original link. Yuck to both.
Wait, what was I talking about? lol
Oh, yeah. There's also the expectation that videos linked here should be universally accessible, so linking to a Netflix documentary or something on Paramount+ isn't really going to go over well.
There's just not that many open video platforms. Odysee is one (and I have support for it in Tesseract UI), but it's kind of sketchy. Vimeo isn't really an open/general purpose video platform but does have quality content if you can find it (Tess also supports embeds to there). However, Vimeo was recently acquired by a private equity firm and isn't doing great.
What's left?
Well, we have Loops. That's kind of niche in that it's for short-form videos but it has potential if that's your thing.
Peertube is also pretty great, but we're back to the "video hosting at scale is expensive" problem. I recently setup Peertube for my instance and have been trying to share links to that instead of to elsewhere, so I'm at least trying to address what the meme is saying. Lemmy.WTF also has a Peertube, I believe.
Did I miss anything?
Vimeo Lays Off 'Most' of Its Staff, Allegedly Includes 'the Entire Video Team'
Employees reported major job cuts this week, just months after the video hosting site was bought by Bending Spoons.Bruce Gil (Gizmodo)
Thanks for your write-up. But it's just a meme ;) I know there are a lot of troubles connected to video hosting. I find YouTube links annoying and almost never click them, but I know that's preference.
I use NewPipe btw
Heh, perhaps I did overthink it a bit lol.
I've just found that there are generally kernels of truth to most of what gets meme'd here, so I tend to subconsciously zero in on that.
I got tired of YouTube videos on Lemmy. It's always just copy pasted title of video and link to YouTube. I hated it
On Voyager app I added a blacklist on anything with YouTube in it and it cleared that problem up a lot. No countless YouTube ads from accounts that just post there YouTube videos for more views
Be the change you want to see!
Upload to peertube and link. And/or to fedi like lemmy/piefed directly.
like this
TVA likes this.
On Chomsky
Far too much has already been said and written about Noam Chomsky, and some of it has the counter-productive effect of further enhancing his myth.redsails.org
like this
TVA likes this.
Epstein has always had close ties to MIT and there was a big scandal about them accepting donations.
It's also been own for several years that Chomsky stayed at Epstein's Paris home at least once, and publicly apologized for his association with Epstein iirc.
like this
TVA likes this.
Israel kills 29, including children, in new Gaza ceasefire violation
At least 29 Palestinians, including at least six children, have been killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza City and Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip since dawn, according to medical sources speaking to Al Jazeera.
The violence comes a day before Israel is due to reopen the Rafah crossing, which links Gaza with Egypt, on Sunday for the first time since May 2024.
Mahmoud Basal, the spokesman of the Palestinian Civil Defence in Gaza, has told Al Jazeera that most of those killed in Israeli attacks today are children.
https://apnews.com/article/mideast-wars-gaza-israel-strikes-88fcbfdbe8ea6265fa3765b7a407a5a7
HellsBelle
in reply to Otter Raft • • •Why in the hell would you think you had a right to see anything when you had failed to provide even 1 cent of funding????
Jfc. Rich people truly believe they should get everything for nothing.
Em Adespoton
in reply to HellsBelle • • •I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t provide funding without seeing a business plan and a prototype.
In this case though, Fedican already provides a Canadian alternative, and all the structure is volunteered.
veee
in reply to Otter Raft • • •Aha, so that’s who was being referenced in their last email. For those interested that aren’t part of the newsletter group:
... show moreAha, so that’s who was being referenced in their last email. For those interested that aren’t part of the newsletter group: