This thread is relevant:

slrpnk.net/post/14944065

Political ads are not designed for targetting unpersuadables. Over the very long term propaganda that over and over blames undocumented people for problems starts to take a toll which could pull someone out of the unpersuadable demographic. But to a great extent they influence pursuadable voters in swing regions.

You say you would not switch to voting for Trump, and yet the sole reason Trump took power in 2016 was precisely due to advertising. Read about Cambridge Analytica and Peter Thiel. If Peter Thiel had not introduced Cambridge Analytica to the Trump campaign and bought Facebook data, Trump would not have taken power in 2016. THAT is how important advertising is. C/A master-minded indentifying the most important pursuadables, did a deep analysis of exactly what issues would be of interest to those individuals, and targeted them surreptitiously.

I strongly recommend you watch the PBS series “Hacking your Mind”. This episode in particular:

https://www.pbs.org/video/weapons-of-influence-gpuj68/

Well to be more accurate, boycotting is the practice of fighting harmful use of money by witholding money. Of course that stands to reason. If your money spent in a certain way is doing harm, you can prevent the harm your money does by not putting it on the harmful path.

I’m not sure what specifically you mean by getting people to reason better (whether you are talking about voting w/money or voting on the ballot in that context). Of course ads work. Political campaigns have started leveraging the same manipulation by ads that works to get people to buy goods and services.

What we certainly know does /not/ work is people thinking they are immune to ads. Everyone thinks that, and marketers prove them wrong over and over again. Advertising is specifically designed to exploit vulnerabilities in the human mind. You have no hope of creating an advertizing-immune population. It would be an ocean-boiling type of endeavor.

The most stark demonstration of money buying politicians seems to be with AIPAC. It happens often enough that a US politician who goes against Israel gets ousted that there’s even verb for it: AIPACed. AIPAC blows a fortune on the campaign of whoever runs against anyone who opposes Israel in any way – and they apparently get their way every time.

• https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/aipac-israel-spending-democratic-primaries-00144552
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/wesley-bell-backed-by-aipac-defeats-squad-member-cori-bush-in-st-louis-distrct-primary

Also interesting to note that most American Jews are liberal democrats who oppose AIPAC. But what can you do against a massive war chest like that?

money is only effective as the voters who react to it.

Money is always effective because you always have voters.

It can’t literally make votes it can only advertise.

Of course. The job of the money is not to make votes, but to influence the pool of voters. Advertising works wonders on people. Voters and influence on voters are independent variables, both of which you will always have.

if you don’t vote any other action becomes meaningless in the us.

US elections are a battle of huge war chests. What if Elon Musk and Peter Thiel did not vote? What if they continued to dump fortunes into the republican war chests (along with Russia) among their various other manipulations? Musk and Thiel’s influences does not lose effect if they neglect to cast their own drop-in-the-ocean votes. There is no dependency or association between the war chests and how a particular individual votes.

If that’s still unclear, consider that Musk and Thiel’s influence is not self-influence. It’s influence on other people. It’s important to realize this because all non-enfranchised people have an opportunity to indirectly influence US policy by boycotting republican feeding corps. People in Ukraine can boycott FedEx and UPS on the basis of their ALEC contributions (ALEC funds republicans). You cannot reason that such a boycott is “meaningless” on the basis that Ukrainians do not vote in the US. If that were crippling enough to UPS, UPS would dump their ALEC membership to keep Ukraine business. (FedEx is a bit different… hard-assed; they would likely shrug off the boycott, keep ALEC, and cut their nose off to spite their face).

If you are talking about voting in elections (as opposed to voting with a wallet), I’m eligible to vote in two countries. In one country, I vote every opportunity because it’s a good system with no assault on privacy, no barriers, no exclusivity, no voter intimidation. You need not even be a citizen. In the other country it’s a shitshow in just about every aspect you can consider. It’s a moral duty to vote but the gov takes many steps to hinder you and block you. Luckily influence is not limited to elections. You can vote every day with your wallet.

I don’t simply neglect to vote in the shitshow of a broken election system. I write letters to civil liberties orgs and politicians to say why I am not voting. Because if I were to vote, it would send a misleading signal (that the voting system is working).

When I do vote, I also write letters to those I am voting against to state why they lost my vote.

I think liquids are heavier to transport than solids because solid detergent is more concentrated (no water). Liquid detergent (which comes in all viscocities) still has its place: for people with hard water. But apart from that I think solid detergent is the best for the environment.

There are those solid tablets which are like powder pressed together. Sometimes those are in a plastic wrapper that needs to be removed before use (yikes), and sometimes they are in a disolving gelatin like the liquid pods. But I guess the sacks of powder need not be as thick as the liquid ones.

Some detergents say “septic safe” on the container. My folks bought the cheapest option which did not say one way or another, so I had to call the supplier, who then said it was septic safe. It’s a shame that in the 2020s we still don’t have transparency on what we buy.

I recall someone in #chemistry (on freenode) talking about measuring detergent. He could have been a nutter, but stressed the importance of measuring the right amount, saying get a scale and weigh it according to the manual.

The manual for one of my machines is shit… says look at the program table for detergent amount - then it’s omitted from the table. But what was useful was the manual said what the numbers meant. The lines marked “15” and “25” are for 15cm³ and 25cm³. The brim is 40cm³ and the prewash cup is 5cm³. Those are volumes, not weight. So I calculated the weight I needed at one point and IIRC it turned out that 15g of powder came out to 15cm³ (lucky me!). I don’t recall how I figured out that I needed 15g.

Anyway, these are the variables that influence the amount of detergent to use:

• load size (some manuals make that a factor, but it’s unclear why because it’s always the same amount of water in the tub. The guy in #chemistry seemed to think it was important)
• water hardness
• program selected (I have ~6 or so programs plus a ½-load button, so effectively 12; some have a prewash cycle, some not)
• type of detergent

Some of the short programs imply that slow solving detergents (tablets) should be avoided.

I still have not figured out what the ½-load button really does. Manual just says press it if you have less than half a load to save on water and power. That’s it. WTF? So I asked the manufacturer and they repeated the same useless answer, but said fill only 1 rack. WTF… which rack? I wanted to know what the ½-load button actually changed the program so I could use it wisely. How does the machine know which rack I chose? I think the “load only one rack” answer from the manufacturer is bullshit. I’ll probably sprawl out my partial loads. The manual should be telling people how much water is used with this setting. I have no idea how it saves on energy since the program choice dictates a fixed water temp. Maybe it just comes down to the fact that it has less water to heat. In any case, I should probably use less detergent on partial loads but the manual doesn’t give the calculation or even enough info to be able to calculate it.

Too much detergent → etching (and waste of detergent)
Too little detergent → repetition needed, which wastes water, energy, and detergent

If you don’t care about etching, then using too much is probably not a big deal.

In the past couple months Google has become quite hostile toward front-ends that previously made it possible for Tor users to reach their content. And I don’t have a good connection so I can’t do videos anyway.

But indeed, it’s hard to find proper detergent. I have to go to a big store of a big grocery chain to get it. But it’s worth it on the basis of price alone. Buying a couple kilos of powder gives the most loads for the money. IIRC the pods were twice the cost of powder when comparing a promotional sales price on pods.

(edit) Oh, but speaking of youtube, video rBO8neWw04 (which I have a saved a copy of) goes into pods. The guy makes an interesting point: pods discourage the use of detergent in the prewash. Though I think he over stresses that.

The nationwide fuckup in the US is zoning rules that block commercial venues from residential regions, which means people cannot step outside their front door and get groceries in a 1 block walk. People are forced to travel unwalkable distances to reach anything, like food and employment. Which puts everyone in a car. Which means huge amounts of space is needed for wide roads and extensive car parking, generally big asphalt lots, which exacerbates the problem because even more space is wasted which requires everything to be spread out even more, putting resources out of the reach of cyclists. Making the city mostly concrete and asphalt also means water draining problems where less of it makes it into the soil and groundwater, and it means the city temp is higher because of less evaporative cooling from the land mass (Arizona in particular).

This foolishness is all done for pleasant window views, so everyone can have a view of neighbors gardens instead of a shop front.

Europe demonstrates smarter zoning, where you often have a shop on the ground level and housing above it. You don’t need a car because everything is in walking or cycling distance. But you more likely have an unpleasant view.

By size, you are referring more specifically to area. Area while neglecting population is inversely proportional to population density¹. But even apart from that – how does that support the claim that it’s sensible to disregard cities and just look per capita nationwide? NYC should be compared as a single whole city against other cities of comparable population density. Area does not matter as an independent variable on its own. What would the point be to blur NYC into a nationwide track per capita?

BTW, NYC has a subway system. I’ve used it a few times and it was not even close to being overcrowded but maybe I had lucky timing. Are you saying more track is needed there?

¹ population density: heads per m²

Subways are pretty much exclusively built in the cities

Not just any city. Dense cities. Cities that are so densely populated that it would be /impossible/ for every person to move around in a car. Countless US cities are not even close to crossing that threshold. It just makes no sense to look at nationwide per capita on this. Only a city by city comparison of like with like population density is sensible.

(edit)
There is a baby elephant in the room that needs mention: US cities are designed with shitty zoning plans. They are designed so that each person on avg needs to travel more distance per commute to accomplish the same tasks (work and groceries). This heightens the congestion per capita. So ideally we would calculate daily net commute distance needed per capita plotted against subway track per capita for cities of comparable people per m². Which would embarrass US city mayors even more.

From the article:

See the U.S. flatlining in transit miles per capita

A devil’s advocate would rightfully argue that that’s expected given the much lower average population density of the US – the same factor that made it a struggle to get broadband Internet to everyone in the US. Bizarre to use a nationwide per capita as a basis for mass transit comparisons. It should be a city-by-city comparison that groups cities by comparable population density. US cities would likely still come out behind and embarrassed, but more accurately so.

Consider the marketing angle – instead of saying “the US is losing” (which diffuses responsibility and makes plenty of room for finger-pointing), instead say “@[email protected]’s city lost its ass in the bi-annual city infra competency competition”. Then that mayor has some direct embarrassment to pressure action.

Enshitification warning: #Arstechnica manages to push bandwidth-wasting autoplay video in a way that bypasses Firefox’s setting to disable autoplay.

I recently read a complaint about the opposite. Someone deleted their Proton account and their handle was made available 1 year later. They were rightfully angry because the next user would potentially start receiving mail from things like the original user’s bank. The new user could perform password resets on accounts where the original user had not yet changed the email address on file.

I cannot create a new post. Sorry to crash in on this thread. If this comment posts, it means I can write comments but not create new posts. When I try to create a new post, I fill out the title field, hit tab, and the title clears as soon as I leave the field. So the create post form has become unfillable.

I’ve wanted to play with packet radio for a while now. It’s a shame the article pimps a Cloudflare site (winlink). It’s fitting in a sense though because there is a ban on using encryption over the ham radio bands. So the emails over packet radio must inherently be exposed to the world anyway.

50cc scooters are the worst, actually. Nothing like hearing the high-pitch squealing sound comparable to a leaf blower in your ear at 3am. I’d gladly see them banned from the city.