omarfw

joined 3 weeks ago
[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 27 points 19 hours ago

Because those shareholders (billionaires) and corporations drained the consumers of all of their money and now they're the most profitable demographic to market to.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

ok. have a good day.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I was in highschool when that video went viral. Everyone knew the name Chris cocker.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

This isn't a solution because if everyone did this then those trades would be oversaturated and not worth as much anymore. We need institutional solutions that benefit everyone like making school cheaper.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Competitive games always attract the most toxic people. I stick with co-op games for that reason.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 53 points 2 weeks ago

You can see every moment a senior dev went to management and asked for time or money to develop a certain type of interaction and were told no every single time.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Mega corporations are a problem we need to solve as a society.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I stopped at "normies". Lose the ego and grow up if you want people to listen to your opinions.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

So you think it's an inevitability? Given enough time we will develop one?

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I pray for the downfall of Amazon.

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

What's the evidence?

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If anyone in the future ends up going to prison or losing custody of their children because they bought them a cellphone or let them use social media, we will have officially failed as a society. That is dystopian as all hell.

It is not the government's place to parent people's children for them, much less the dysfunctional government we have.

view more: next ›