Daxter101

joined 2 years ago
[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago

100% lol, hadn't thought of it that way

As per usual. If you don't have money to protect yourself, it's because you're lazy and/or stupid, and definitely worth condescending.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, they didn't bother you guys.

The guy was just cold, and the gal had a personal moment. Not their fault, that you two little kids were scared of strangers.

Kidding aside, and assuming what you've written is neither internet-talk nor standard schizophrenia tendencies, it might be carbon monoxide poisoning. It was a phenomenon, with haunted houses very often just having faulty heaters of some kind, causing hallucinations in the right doses.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait has this been a widespread issue? I've only noticed this a couple weeks now, but I thought it was because the cat dropped my deck from the table 😶

What's going on actually?

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very cool and dense video.

So many good ideas, in an incredibly short and efficient format.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

... Yeah it is 🫠🥲

In literal terms it translates to "before-the-road" (pro - drómou)

(this literal translation includes the ambiguity of before- as in 'temporally before', or before- as in 'in front of')

So any way you slice it, it's pretty ironic.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"Prodromou" is a Greek surname, with the rough meaning "the one who walks the road before others".

So him being "a visionary" is fun, lol

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is really interesting, but I got a bit confused by the language.

Can someone explain, what the "common mistake" being done by bad research until now is?

And what is the conclusion relating to alcohol use?

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I see. Well, if I take what you're saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just "a different path for how we reach the same utopia".

And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.

How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.

And well... As an anarchist, deafboy's comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What makes this thing you're describing, not anarchism?

I think you're thinking of anarchocommunism specifically. Which is "not all communism"(tm).

State-based communism is a thing, that many people usually called tankies by others, do believe in.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A "truly small" creator, would get , I dunno, let's say 5% of Disney's marketed sales, after being stolen from, from being known as the guy Disney stole from. Which would be enormously more than if he only had his "truly small" marketing.

A more successful and known creator, who would market himself more broadly on his own, would not be easy to steal from, since it would be quick enough for the stealing to be found out, to dampen Disney sales.

And all this, ignores the paradigm shift in monetisation (Uniquenameosaurus YouTube video), that could enhance this process immensely, and allow artist creativity to flourish even more, without even leaving the diseased economical rules of capitalism.

and irrelevant little asideAlso about this,

As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

Guns give some recourse to poor people, against the rich, because anyone could use a gun.

Guns allow the rich to equip their personal security teams, with guns.

Guns are not helping the poor, and neither does copyright.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.

As... Opposed to now?

If Disney does plagiarize small artists' work, and becomes known for it, they take a reputation hit, and the artist gets an explosion of exposure, as long as it is provable he made the original story. (Disney making million-dollar budget movies of your OC, isn't even that bad for you, to be honest, but let's assume that it doesn't market the fuck out of your small artist story. In real life, stories are not in competition.)

If Disney doesn't, then it's an undeniable positive for worldwide creativity.

The only thing copyright protects, is big companies' exclusive right to public-consciousness characters.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. The current system doesn't protect small writers either. Look at the amount of money plagiarism gets you, with copyright law in effect.

And

  1. at the stage where you're big enough for copyright to effectively protect you, provable publication dates take care of that problem through reputation. If you become known(read: found out) as a plagiarist, you get the boot from the public zeitgeist, never to receive public money again.

Copyright only protects the Mouse's bottom line, and strangleholds creativity.

view more: ‹ prev next ›