Not the previous poster, but it acknowledges one's participation in collective behavior for mutual benefit.

It's commendable when men who have long hair actually practice proper hair care. Long hair on a man is often seen as a sign of neglect (growing it out because they can't be bothered to cut it), but it takes way more effort to maintain long hair than short hair. So nothing but respect when they manage to sell the look.

That's assuming this image was originally made to be shared on Lemmy. But most content in this community almost certainly comes from somewhere else first.

We inherit secondhand social media engagement metrics.

Maybe it's for all the servants prostrating before their pharaoh.

MFs out here singing punitive renditions of the Kier hymn.

But have you ever seen Jesus and God in the same room at the same time?

Checkmate Cathars

Knowing absolutely nothing about him before today, he does sound like a massive dick, all things considered.

Corporate trusts were once a common method of establishing monopolies through stock trades. A handful of publicly traded companies compete in a given market. Key shareholders of the companies realize that they could make a lot more money if the companies cooperated instead of competed. So they place their stock into mutual trusts that consolidate ownership under a single umbrella. The trust gets voting control of the companies, with the shareholders becoming passive beneficiaries.

Standard Oil managed by John D. Rockefeller was one notable example. The idea being that there were a bunch of oil companies that could be forced together by their shareholders under a trust to adopt "standard" practice.

To translate it to this example, imagine if a marger between Paramount and Warner was not on the table at either company, but the majority of their shareholders decided to transfer control of their stock to a trust called "Media Satan". Media Satan gets a controlling influence in the business of both companies, starts aligning their interests to make as much money as possible, and the shareholders who placed their stock in trust get a share of the profit. All while the market is bled for all it's worth.

Antitrust laws generally targeted this practice. Break up a trust, and the companies managed by the trust go back to being independent.

The trust structure is largely no longer a thing, but not due to antitrust laws themselves. More that it's simply easier today to legally create a megacorporation with little oversight or barriers, eliminating the need for those sorts of loopholes. Antitrust laws are (supposedly) still able to be leveraged to break modern day corporations up if they get too big, but not as cut and dry when it's so much easier for a company to merge with or acquire another company outright.

I'd have done the same, to be honest.

That and just the animals they are. Frogs can stick to walls, and goats can climb up incredibly steep inclines. It's not a perfect right angle, so the goat is able to walk on it.

Maybe controversial opinion, but I don't think straight guys (or gals) really belong at gay bars.

There used to be a gay bar in my area. Eventually it was mostly straight women. And then it didn't take long after that before it was mostly straight men. Now there are zero gay bars.

Yeah, this is very "Sure I'm in the firing line, but I negotiated with the executioner to make sure there are enough people in front of me that they run out of bullets before they get to me."

Rather than work with others to resist and overthrow the systems of oppression, they think they'll land on the safe side of the purge quota. But then the fascists come back with another box of ammo.

More showerthoughts material than anything, but I can't see an error with that argument.

I thought this too, but they can't act as spoilers. Democratic Socialists need to beat Centrists in the primaries. Otherwise you throw more elections to the conservatives.

They wanted to push people onto their shitty app. They wanted people to link their bank details directly to pay so they could farm all that juicy consumer data.

Not to mention we shouldn't be valuing property in terms of monetary value, but rather the utility you get for that value.

Property is worth a shit ton right now, and I get that people like counting the high value of their property as an asset. But say you go to sell that property...you still have to live somewhere afterwards. Any new place you'd be buying or renting would be just as overinflated in terms of cost.

If the housing market were to crash again, you can't sell your house for as much, but also you wouldn't need to pay as much to move in somewhere else either. A house losing half its value doesn't delete half the house, it just makes it more accessible to buyers who don't already have a house to sell.

I'm not sure. Was wondering if they were referring to a comment on the article, but the article has no comments, and I don't see a comment like that here on Lemmy.

Just speculation on my part, but it could be a different situation for id just in terms of how the studios were acquired.

Double Fine was a direct sale to Microsoft, while id came in under Zenimax. The acquisition deal with Zenimax is that they were allowed to continue operating semi-autonomously, and maybe they are the ones who opted not to spin off the studio.

F

Boomer voters total maybe 60 million and only 50% of that group voted for Trump.

Not to be too pessimistic, but the ratio isn't that far off for Gen Z and Millennials either. The under-30 age bracket in particular shifted further right in 2024 than in previous elections.