This is probably not what you wanna hear, but when the battery gets low, the current gets weaker. If the current gets too weak, the scale becomes more and more inaccurate. Like, wildly so. In other words, the alternative is to lie to you. Badly.

I’m still not gonna check a broken clock for the time, so what’s your point?

Yup, the West wanted war so bad they invaded…wait, no, that’s obviously bullshit.

Swapping one states’ propaganda for another isn’t enlightened, its just plain stupid.

I just switch to desktop mode and never had any problem…

And I guess you’re just asking questions??

Not every act is a sign of somebody having an agenda or whatever…

I’ve always figured a company will go public before enshitification truly gets underway. It’s kinda the first step of the process.

I guess my argument is that until that pressure to appease the stockholders exists, there’s not a whole lot of motive to justify enshitification. It’s hard for me to imagine the process happening any other way.

So, I suppose you can count my vote as being that going public will likely come first. Just my two cents, though, and I don’t know anything anyway! :-p

I’m a little bit confused by your post. Publicly-traded companies, by and large, place extraordinary emphasis on short term, quarter by quarter profit. Seems like a very strong contender for the root cause if the issue?

Enshitification is about monetization, getting more money from the same customer base.

Doesn’t this statement support publicly traded status being a riot cause, though?

I must assume I’m misunderstanding your argument…?

Wait what now? Trump knows something about foreign policy? Not a chance, bub. Trump doesn’t know squat. Other than being an effective distraction from his handlers so the ones actually pulling the strings can stay out of the public’s general awareness. But, then again, he’s stupid enough to think he matters, so I doubt he even realizes he has handlers.

Trump doesn’t do strategy. Period. He’s dumber than a stack of bricks, and you know it. So, no, there is absolutely no ulterior motive. There is no plan. He has no ability to think ahead. He has never had to take any actual responsibility, and is therefore utterly incapable of anything other rash impulsive stupidity.

Giving that loser any credit just makes you sound like a complete idiot. Just don’t. Please.

Oh, really. What credibility? Bush Sr and Jr already had demolished most of what remained, and Trump gathered up anything left and set it on fire. There was literally nothing left to destroy.

Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime. Why do you even care that I, a complete stranger, an critical of their actions? If you’re so confident in “your” conclusions, why would you be threatened by somebody whose life as literally no chance of affecting you?

As much as I want to believe words exist to knock some sense into you, I give up. (Anyone else wanna bet how long he sits and fumes about my refusal to abandon my beliefs to replace them with the party line? Probably spent the entire day between my response and his angrily trying to come up with the perfect rebuttal.)

Go ahead buddy, scream into the wind. You ain’t got anything to say worth listening for…

Still ignoring context. But that’s fine, because any article critical is Israel is obviously written in bad faith, huh?

Whatever. If suggest touching grass, but that’d probably be toxic for the grass, and the environment is already messed up enough already…

Wow, your quote is taken entirely out of context. Not even sure what you’re point is supposed to be…

900 vs what is it now, 20,000?

Your math is poor.

If side A uses a human shield, and side B immediately kills that human without hesitation, side B has made a much more evil decision.

Nothing justifies genocide. Period.

Ha. Bibi pays them too instigate conflict, not fight back. Or so I’ve heard (no I don’t have proof, not honestly would not be surprised).

Oh, ooh, wow, that’s such a coherent argument.

Wait, no it’s not. And the point is, you didn’t use any dictionary.

But, if this nonexistent hill is the one you want to die on, don’t let me stop you.

Obviously they wouldn’t bother demanding a permanent ceasefire.

Oh, wait a minute…

Lol, according to dictionary.com you are wrong…

1800s? Rather generous :p

Ok. As far as nuance, I still assert he is a cause, not an effect. His choice to capitalize on rightwing audience doesn’t mean he didn’t already hold those beliefs. I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were asserting that he adopted those beliefs because there’s a market for them; I would argue he adopted that audience because they share beliefs he already had.

This would align him with many others who came from similar privilege. In fact, I’m more skeptical of those born in privilege who publicly denounce right wing ideology (although I absolutely do my best to judge by their actions when possible), given that concerning the status quo is obviously in their self interest.

Our apparent disagreement may be, at least partially, due to semantics. Yet, the words we choose do matter. I appreciate the thoughtful debate in either case!