There’s a distance at which they stop being “less-lethal”. At 10 meters/30 feet they’re considered extremely dangerous. The “effective range” at which they’re generally considered less likely to penetrate is 20 to 30 meters (65 to 100 feet).

Lenses make estimating distance tricky, but based on the lines in the road, I don’t think she’s 20 meters away from that cop.

These journalists need body armor and helmets if they’re going to be that close to American Police. Back in 2011 an Iraq War vet named Scott Olsen was head shot at a distance of a few feet fracturing his skull and when some protestors tried to rescue him they flashbanged the rescue effort. It’s extremely unsafe to be that close to these guys.

No, I expect him to gaslight naive consumers. Which is what he did. I just don’t get why others are defending it.

In this case, at 1080p it’s barely more performance for a lot more money. And if we’re falling back on “good enough for most people” then an RX 5700 or 6600 is also “good enough for most people”.

It’s a free market, he can sell a low value product to suckers. That’s his right. You’re free to defend him and think it’s not scummy. But it’s scummy, and hopefully most people who know better are going to call it out.

There’s no NEED to move on from 1080p, but there are a lot of reasons.

I wouldn’t even object to his position on 1080p if he said “the RX 5700 is fine for most users, don’t waste your money and reduce e-waste”.

He’s telling consumers that they should expect to pay a premium price to be playing a slightly better than 2019 experience until 2028 or 2030. There are gullible people who won’t understand that he’s selling snake oil.

1. Why would they be buying a new card to play how they’re already playing?
2. What does the long term trend line look like?

You can confidently say that this is fine for most consumers today. There really isn’t a great argument that this will serve most consumers well for the next 3 to 5 years.

It’s ok if well informed consumers are fine with a compromise for their use case.

Misrepresenting the product category, and misleading less informed consumers to believe that it’s not a second rate product in the current generation is deeply anti-consumer.

I don’t know of a specific theme in the neubrutalism/neobrutalism style (names that are generally used to describe this style or aesthetic), but it shouldn’t be too hard to make.

For anyone unfamiliar it’s generally defined by flat, blocky layouts, with thick borders, single color drop shadows and a few bold high contrast colors (think CGA and EGA monitors if you’re that old). It often features “unpolished” elements like flat simple shapes. Bold fonts and monospace fonts are pretty common.

There are a few resources out there if anyone wants to play around with this style.

https://github.com/ComradeAERGO/Awesome-Neobrutalism https://dribbble.com/shots/20764973-Neobrutalism-UI-How-to https://www.nngroup.com/articles/neobrutalism/

In the US there are organizations that focus on and advocate for employee ownership. National Center for Employee Ownership, The ESOP Association, The Employee Ownership Foundation, and Employee-owned S Corporations of America.

I think the public should absolutely be more educated in ESOPs because it’s an absolute win/win (IMO). It is not the communist concept of workers seizing the means of production (i.e. taking the capital away at a loss to ownership), so that may be why you don’t hear communists advocating for it. In most cases, a business owner who wants to protect what they’ve worked on for X amount of time “sells” the company to itself and the company gives ownership stake to the employees by some predetermined formula.

So Bob spent 30 years as owner of a widget company. It’s been in the family since his grandpa started it. He’ll be retiring in the next few years and his family doesn’t want to take over. He also doesn’t want to sell to his competitors or some conglomerate that will close the factory, fire everyone, keep the name and the customer list and sell cheap imported knock offs. So the company takes out a loan and buys itself from him. Every employee gets shares and as they pay down the debt over the next 5 to 10 years the value of the shares go up dramatically. Bob gets all the benefits of capitalism. The workers get the means of production. ESOPs get some tax advantages.

ESOPs also tend to outperform their market. Turns out employees perform better when they can personally benefit in a direct way from the outcome of their labor.

With all that stated it isn’t what a communist would want. It still has to exist and operate under the rules of the US market. If an ESOP needs to hire a manager or director they’re going to need a competitive compensation package. And you’ll still end up with managers makeing 2 or 3 times what their workers do and depending how the stock rules are set up they may get more stock.

TLDR: What you’re asking about exists. I think it works great. I wouldn’t consider it something that would appeal to a communist as a social goal.