I pass by two schools, right next to each other, during my commute to work. There are School Zone speed limit signs that also you your own speed in warning. I always slow down to at least 30 (zone limit is actually 25).
I usually stick to ~30 because I’m on a motorcycle and I have cars ride my ass, clearly pissed off at my slow speed. To my amazement, they then proceed to angrily pull into the school parking lot and drop off their own kids.
New Jersey, as I said in another reply it’s not a bad area but they have high traffic. I haven’t seen the signs in the upper class neighborhoods grocery stores though.
Admittedly, in the upper class neighborhood grocery stores I don’t see those signs. The areas I see them aren’t shitty though they are fairly high traffic compared to what I assume would be a typical store.
I looked for but couldn’t find a photo of such a sign on DDG. I’ll take a picture of one next time I need to get groceries.
That’s considered a security concern in most grocery stores where I live. There are signs telling you not to place any items in your shopping bags until you’ve paid for them. You must use a cart or waste several minutes hunting around the entrance or registers trying to find where they hid one of their 10 shopping baskets.
Just reiterating what others have said but… if you have an IP you like and want more of it in the future (regardless of medium!) then its success in any other medium will likely impact whether or not you get more.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where:
Money matters more to most IP holders than the IP itself
New IP is seen as risky
Those in charge don’t have to take responsibility for their failures
If there is a commercial failure of an IP, there is a good chance that its failure will be seen as the IP generally failing or falling out of poluarity instead of the failure to best utilize the IP that likely occurred. As a result, priorities will often shift away from the IP to something else in all mediums (ex. ASOIAF/GOT). Unless the IP is absolutely gangbusters in all other mediums, it will suffer. Similarly, success will likely lead to more utilization of the IP in any medium.
It’s unlikely that the IP owner will sell or license the IP in the near future because at one point it was popular and new IP is hard to make. It would be better to hoard IP and maybe try again in a decade when they need a trick up their sleeve. Plus, another failure might damage the IP even more.
Admittedly, I’m not attached to any brands or IP in particular and so I’m not invested really. I just makes me a little sad when some IP I thought well of has this happen… or when the person who benefits from the IP turns out to be a person I’d rather not give money to. Occasionally I’ll ponder what might have been if things had gone differently and feel a little bad.
the same process
It doesn’t necessarily involve the middle man, who is ultimately the bigger fish that enshittifiers are looking to land. I think that’s relevant. Enshittification’s process involves capturing both a “retail” user base and a business user base and then squeezing both.
Edit. Enshittification is layered and more specific to industries and markets that are not inherently profitable. It starts with seed money being burned for that initial user base and fucks over everyone up and down the chain because the business is not really profitable otherwise. Skimp/shrinkflation is more about squeezing more profit than you are already making.
I’ve see it used a lot recently to describe the general degradation of quality in service of increasing profits. I think technically, it is not enshittification. Below is my general definition of the process enshittification describes. Repost from another comment.
A word that includes the word “shit” in it has a very nice ring to it when describing things getting generally shittier in favor of profit. I suppose language can evolve rapidly and things mean what people believe them to mean.
Edit: As per Wikipedia’s Shrinkflation Entry:
Skimpflation involves a reformulation or other reduction in quality.
I see skimpflation as a form of shrinkflation. The idea is still that the price stays the same but to try and hide the cost increase from the customer they give you less. I guess fewer strawberries per “smoothie” is even more subtle than fewer ounces of the original “smoothie” formula per bottle.
To be a pedantic asshole, technically enshittification is meant to refer to online services that follow an inevitable process of…
Admittedly, I see enshittification used colloquially meaning basically “business found a way to fuck over its customers more than usual to increase their profit”. Perhaps that is what you mean by “General enshittification”.
Most big game corps just shutter studios, usually letting them know via the grapevine after a board meeting or twitter post…
Why do ordinary people seem so unprotected against these shady practices
Assuming you are in the USA, it’s fundamentally because our politics is fueled by private money. The “haves” spend lots of money to make rules that protect and enrich themselves at the expense of the “have nots”. The rich get richer, and the rest of us get a larger share of the burden.
The rich then spend more of their money convincing everyone else that some minority group of their fellow “have nots” are to blame and let us fight amongst ourselves. They starve us but leave us with just enough left to lose so that the price of doing something about it is too high (quitting, losing health insurance, getting arrested at a protest, etc) for most of us to bear.
how can we change this?
Get money out of politics. Get the public to stop blaming their fellow have nots and demand change from the haves.
How does one person even start to address these issues?
Have empathy for and help your neighbors if you can, especially when they take the risks required to push for actual change. Talk to people. Organize. Support/start unions or a mutual aid organization. Go to local government meetings and make your voice heard. Run for local office.
Its easy for a small group of wealthy organizations to tilt specific elections or politics in their favor. It’s much harder them to do that in 1,000+ small communities across the nation.
Fundraisers and charities, when you have a lot money, are rarely acts of charity. They tend to be PR campaigns and power plays.
Honestly, even when the acts have good intentions, they are often quite damaging. The involvement of the wealthy in charity is very similar to their involvement in politics. Their wealth buys influence and gives them a disproportionate say that allows them to ignore and overrule the will of the people and sometimes even reality.
For example, look into the impact of Bill Gates’s “acts of charity” in the education space. He poured money into charter programs that negatively impacted public education. Later studies showed that his programs were not particularly effective.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a very rich person is convinced by some charlatan that they found the a means to produce free energy. The wealthy person throws tons of money at the idea. How many talented people will be taken from other legit programs because the paycheck at Bullshit Energy Nonprofit is better? These rich people are successful and think they know bestr. Their money ensures they get treated like experts because money makes things happen whether or not those things are helpful.
In the US, conservative lawmakers have been waging a quiet war against our postal system for a while now.
Highlights: They forced it to be self-sustaining (cut federal funding), then when that didn’t kill it they forced it to, in a very short time frame, pre-fund retirement benefits ahead of time for all current and former employees.
The postal system is more or less dependent on the funds it gets from spam mailers.
Edit: To clarify, I’m not insinuating that the bulk/majority of its income is from junk mail, I’m just stating that its not nothing, so they don’t really have an incentive to kill that source if revenue.
Then stop funding them with tax payer money.
The big ISPs? I agree - they can’t be trusted. However, in most cases access wasn’t happening at all without grants. The big guys just came in, strutted around promising the sun and the moon, then took the money and sat on it.
I want to see small towns do community infrastructure as an alternative to the terrible single ISPs that are normally present.
In many communities, it isn’t possible to do that without the help of grants… running cable or fiber isn’t cheap.
…but we can agree on this. I’d love to see municipal broadband break up these ISP monopolies.
Unfortunately, many states and municipalities have stupid laws still on the books that explicitly prohibit municipal broadband or force them to jump through hoops like getting ISPs to bid to provide the services first or some other bullshit. Its irrational fear of government run programs and socialism or whatever. Those laws are starting to get repealed.
Edit: I have mixed feelings about StarLink. I don’t trust that they won’t act just as terribly as the rest if given the chance and they are throwing a lot into the atmosphere without considering or planning for the consequences.
It is crazy to try to force pricing or other free market values.
The US government has, on multiple occasions, spent many many billions of dollars subsidizing the expansion of broadband internet. Often the ISPs would take the funds and under deliver, drastically. Like “Sure, we’ll take $ to provide broadband in these areas” then provide it for like, a neighborhood within that area, mark that area as having access to broadband now, and cash their check.
…Or they’ll lie about covering areas or planning to cover areas to prevent rival/startup ISPs from getting similar funding to expand access to an area without access. Imagine you don’t have broadband and your ISP lied to the FCC so a rival ISP could not get grants/subsidies they’d use to fund their broadband expansion to your area.
They lie and cheat to steal government and customer money and maintain their anticompetitive monopolies. Its not a free market.
Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy. While social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.
I mind if you are simultaneously linking to a Wikipedia article defining it as being completely self regulated, lacking any form of social welfare.
Capitalism’s problem is that, ultimately, it’s “compete” or die because you need to work to afford to live. I’m not necessarily advocating for the nationalization of all industries or a command economy. There can be competition, but the playing field needs to be leveled first. Workers owning the enterprise as a collective is a step in the right direction but that still leaves the door open for “B2B” exploitation when an enterprise’s failure can mean its workers now cannot afford to live.
A theory to use as a standard for regulation assuming you are restrained to a capitalist system, maybe.
But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.
The nature of Capitalism requires that some have while others have not. Many of those among the capitalist class will use the full force of their power to obstruct and corrupt regulation, find loopholes, and obtain more power. Regulatory capture, pivoting to the bleeding edge of industry where nobody knows how to regulate yet (financial derivatives, crypto, AI), or just leading a coup - they’ll find a way.
The only way is something that resembles socialism, but you can call it “appropriate regulation” if it makes you feel better. Sure, competition has its place… but it doesn’t belong anywhere near basic human needs.
I think perfect competition is impossible. The incentive is not to compete fairly, it’s to maximize profits and the most effective ways to maximize profits are anticompetitive, exploitative, or both. Anyone arguing for a society built around such a system is either naive or trying to buy more time with false hopes.
Virtually every condition in the ideal scenario is a barrier for profit, and I don’t think any civilization has managed even a single one of those conditions. There will always be actors looking to take advantage of any loopholes or create unregulated markets.
It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.
Demonstrating the inherent contradiction of capitalism in practice.
Capitalism is allegedly the only fair way to price things, via the “Price Mechanism”. However, capitalists have simultaneously been creaming their pants at the idea of charging specific people or people in specific situations more, because they can get more profit, in service of Profit Maximization.
I’m sure I’ll get a lecture on how they are not at all mutually exclusive but I don’t care, honestly. It’s either going to price gouge when the customer is perceived to be in more need (low battery pricing for taxi apps) or have a price based on the customer’s ability to pay… at which point why not socialism?
Essentially, the capitalist will support what is best for themselves and make up reasons why it theoretically might benefit consumers (but not really).
nowhere am I finding any indication that anyone is earnestly making the argument that Israel has the right to rape prisoners.
It literally happened a little over a week ago.
Paragraphs 5-7. I recall there being a video of the moment but I don’t know if it is included in the linked article.
A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to “terrorists” in custody.
Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate, “to insert a stick into a person’s rectum?”
“Yes!” he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. “If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!”
…
nowhere am I finding any indication that anyone is earnestly making the argument that Israel has the right to rape prisoners.
An Israeli lawmaker was asked if anal rape with a stick was legitimate and the Israeli lawmaker replied “Yes” and clarified that “Everything is legitimate to do” so long as the recipient is Hamas. Is he in the majority? No, but someone is earnestly making the argument.
Here’s the thing. The fact that I’m making the effort to demonstrate this utterly fucked up reality is, I guarantee, going to convince someone here that I’m antisemitic. I don’t think it will matter to them that I have family that is Jewish or that I’m 50% Ashkenazi by blood.
The fact that this is happening, and that any Israeli lawmaker would defend it, literally makes Jews worldwide less safe. It gives real, actual antisemitism more perceived legitimacy.
Edit: Video Link. Couldn’t find anything outside twitter/insta/tiktok, none of which I ever visit directly. Kind if telling that American news outlets don’t have it posted anywhere I could easily find but whatever. While I’ve had folks attest to the accuracy of the translation, I don’t speak Hebrew so feel free to continue to pretend it isn’t happening.
The policies are extremely popular and universal. Doesn’t really matter in a politicalcampaign if you struggle to achieve those ends. Trying is important and failing gives you ammunition against those who oppose extremely popular policies for next campaign.
The bottom line is that the average person isn’t listening for anything besides “how is the candidate going to help me because I feel like I’m drowning”. The right scapegoats something and promises to fix your problems by hurting the scapegoat (immigrants, minorities, socialists, whatever). This is a lie, but it’s just as, if not more, direct of a solution so some voters will support them.
Harris had attention when she said things like stopping price gouging and providing in-home elder care. Those were extremely popular ideas that she didn’t focus on. Instead, she pivoted right.