erin

It isn’t sustainable. My car takes significantly less damage per mile than a gas only car, and the gas is nearly negligible compared to the pay when you get consistent 40+ mpg. Even then, it’s still not sustainable. I wouldn’t recommend the job to anyone, but if someone was desperate or really set on it, then it should really only be a temporary stop-gap to something more sustainable.

I cannot see this as a valid and reasonable response to “we aren’t likely to see an AI powered socialist dystopia in our lifetime, if ever.” AI isn’t even profitable for the capitalists that run it, and needs to constantly feed off real humans to avoid decay. It’s definitely not doomsaying to see AI as a bubble and generally a grift as it’s presented now, when it’s likely to fit in a much more specific niche as a tool in the future. Art will stay uniquely human until AI can create without needing constant human training data.

Yep. For this reason, I left my car running when I’d stop, as idling on the hybrid battery was better than needing to cold start the car 50 times a day.

If you don’t have a fuel efficient car, I wouldn’t even consider it. If you do, you need to devote a lot of time to it before it becomes at all worth it (100 orders in last 30 days, good ratings, and above 70% order acceptance rate). Once you’re there, it’s basically as profitable as any other service job, but with the caveat that it’s entirely on you and your executive function to work enough (very boring) hours to pay the bills.

Edit: also, wear and tear on your car is gonna be worth more than the job in any job where you use your personal car for 100% of the work. I would consider any of these jobs a temporary measure.

I drove down doordash for a while. Trust me, every driver knows how much they’re getting screwed. You’ll never be more class-conscious than having 30+ interactions with people as broke as you every day, and seeing every possible angle of fellow working class jobs. You do it for one of several reasons: you want some tiny modicum of control in your life through your schedule, you desperately need the money and it’s easy as fuck to get a delivery job, or you started it for one of those reasons or something similar, got good enough to be ahead of the curve, and it’s now more appealing than finding something else. The last one was where I was at.

I had done the job enough that I was making $18 an hour, well above the average in my area, and despite needing to pay for gas and taxes on a 1099a, it was still more appealing to keep control and flexibility over my life than to do something else. I could take days off whenever I wanted, see friends during the week, and coordinate my schedule with my fiancee easily. You’re very aware that you’re getting screwed, but you choose the devil you know, as they say.

I did delivery for long term at one point (doordash). Once you reach their highest rating and learn which orders to take/deny, it is actually quite profitable. Still massively exploitative, of course, but at the time I was making $18 an hour (high for my area), and that’s also factoring in breaks and commute. I had a very fuel efficient hybrid which added to the value proposition. I was broke as fuck at the time, but it wasn’t the job’s fault, more the fact that I only worked exactly the amount of hours I needed each month to pay for my basic necessities and rent, and spent the rest with my friends and fiancee.

If Fairphone and Pine both don’t meet your needs, then you can install a new OS on basically any android, though pixels work best. Even just getting root access to the phone opens up a ton of options for customization. There are communities on Lemmy that are all about this exact issue, though I don’t know them off the top of my head.

I don’t know if the format really applies. Complaining about one corporation stealing your data while using another’s product that does the same seems a bit pointless, especially when there are cheaper, better alternatives. The putting a stick through your own bike tire format seems more appropriate.

Andor was awesome. Considering that the fighters in Star Wars do aerodynamic flight and sound is not just added for effect but audible in universe, I’ve always subscribed to the head canon that in the Star Wars universe, space is a gas of some sort. We also see people in space that die of suffocation, not pressure shock. The name S-foils also implies a similar purpose to airfoils, but the canon isn’t even consistent on that. Some TIE models explicitly use their S-foils aerodynamically in atmosphere, but other ships are ambiguous.

How often is gut-feeling actually just bias and/or bigotry under the surface though? I feel like we shouldn’t use those gut feelings to make judgements, ever, without examining exactly why we’re having that response. The suspect might just be socially awkward or neurodivergent and that gut-feeling is actually just unexamined prejudice.

Oh, I wasn’t complaining about any of those things. I think they’re awesome. X-Wings and TIE fighters are definitely not using their S-foils for reentry gliding though. I’m a huge Star Wars fan. I think it requires a level of suspension of belief to engage in the storytelling, because it’s not supposed to be at all realistic. There is also plenty of Star Wars media that is definitely not for kids or fits closer into sci-fi, but even Andor, the most sci-fi of the Star Wars media I’ve watched, was definitely still leaning on its fantasy roots.

I don’t think a defense of the most-hated parts of the prequels is a great argument. This comes across as George Lucas misreading his audience and trying to defend a product that missed the mark for most of his serious fans.

SW is for children is not a great take. It’s just not sci-fi, and shouldn’t be judged as such. It’s a space fantasy, and it leans into the camp and the suspension of disbelief. They use wings and aerodynamics in space. Destroyed ships “sink.” The good guys never get hit and the bad guys die in one shot. Now, the new movies were absolutely disappointing, but Star Wars was never sci-fi, at least not in the ways this discussion is defining the genre.

It was a hypothetical. Pretending those two statements are the same is willful ignorance. You’re continuing to pearl-clutch over a statement that doesn’t mean what you’re claiming it does. You’re putting words and intent I people’s mouths and then making moral judgements based off your misinformation. You’re making ad hominem attacks against a hypothetical. How are you still trying to justify an untenable position?

You continue to change the narrative. The did not say “Death to every [blank].” You said that. They said “death to the IDF.” If I say “death to capitalism,” I’m not saying “kill all capitalists.” They’re calling for the downfall of an evil organization. You are choosing to misunderstand them and put words in their mouth. You keep walking back your initial exaggeration. They clearly do not mean kill all Israeli adults. This is the same willful misinterpretation that the rest of the neoliberal media does.

Missing the point. “Death to [organization]” is not synonymous with “kill all members of [organization].” Even if it did, my other point is that the entire country is not in the IDF. You’ve made claims and extrapolations that have nothing to do with anyone’s actual beliefs. It wouldn’t be genocide regardless.

How does “death to the IDF” mean death to the entire adult population? Regardless of mandatory service in the past, they aren’t in the IDF now, and they aren’t the ones “just following orders.” I also don’t think Bob Vylan is actually suggesting that every person in the IDF be killed, regardless of complicity, but calling for the downfall of the organization perpetuating genocide.

“Death to ICE” doesn’t mean the same thing as “kill all ICE agents.”

Damn, didn’t think I’d see one of these jokes in 2025. Wild.

It’s my wife’s favorite game. If you do play it, after leaving the starting area, enjoy the song. Don’t beeline to the oak tree camp thing, it’ll cut the music off unceremoniously.

People like you came up with the Missouri Compromise.