I hope they keep Alex Jones's communism financing operation going.
I'm not sure why subs would be so weird and verbose. Maybe the translator is afraid the implication (rather than literal meaning) will be lost somehow, but really, 'ja' isn't some loaded enigma.
On a side note, fan works (anything from subs to software to upscales and remasters) tend to be better, done out of passion rather than just an industrial chore.
I don't disagree that reading and writing are the basis of scholarship (as we know it), but I reject any suggestion that comprehending critical Marxist concepts should require a scholarly barrier of entry. If someone wants to become a theoretician then sure, it makes sense to analyse Marxist theory from primary sources with all its historical overhead, but if our goal is to promote efficient learning, then we shouldn't be recommending archaic texts written for a whole different target audience. People don't really need to learn French or German words to understand what the worker class and owner class are and their resulting material interests, or what alienation is. How many people need to know who exactly Kautsky was anymore? Can't commodity fetishism be defined in simple terms? Archaic works absolutely still have value and relevance, but the Marxist ideas relevant to most workers can absolutely be made more accessible to your local audience while retaining its analytical value.
I believe sometimes it's done because there's a lot to read and it might be (considered) too hard to read in real time. Which I understand, but it also annoys me too. It's not what they said, and sometimes the way someone phrases something is important even if they don't cut out important information, it can hint at their character or their emotion.
An interesting example I saw was in Archer. During an agitated rant, Archer finally interjects demanding someone answer the phone. The next shot is a plain still shot of the telephone, which the captions helpfully emphasise [PHONE NOT RINGING]; a recurring joke is Archer's constant ear-ringing due to careless gun use.
Having seen other, more careless translations, I can easily see jokes (or in other contexts, important clues) like this being missed and it made me think about how film techniques can imply audio silently. If there's a plain shot of a phone, a hearing impaired person might reasonably assume it's a visual implication that the phone is ringing.
One trend which annoys me is having meaningful non-English simply listed as '[speaking language]'
Even worse is when, despite being another language, a common word (whether homophonic or loan words) would by understood regardless, just isn't present in the captions.
Do you think things will get better?
Yes.
A lot of the problems we face are systematic, to do with how our society is organised rather than any human limit. They are solvable problems, and many have already been solved already in some countries. The reason they're aren't solved isn't because we can't, but because the few most powerful people are powerful because of this rigged system, and have a self-interest in keeping it that way by any means necessary.
History has shown us clearly that even kings, dictators and other broken systems can be overthrown AND stopped from coming back, provided the people doing it are politically educated and organized. That's the key. If we just get angry without a plan, we will end up like the pitiful Jan 6 riot. But if we educate ourselves with lessons from history and work to create a mass movement, we can finally move forward beyond this frightening present situation.
Privacy-focused isn't a term I'd choose, but it certainly allows privacy-concerned people to use it, and like you said, avoiding the capitalist surveillance crap that for-profit companies are pulling.
Ones like Lemmy fit in fine to my threat model. They enable me to use privacy tools up-to-and-including Tor routing, without a phone number or other personally identifying info (you can't do those with many other social media platforms). I can use the Fediverse pseudonymously, and if I ever want to, anonymously.
I'm not hiding this conversation from you, but I am hiding my identity from companies.
Great work they're doing, although I gotta say this looks like a prime spot for a bollard (even a guerilla one if the government isn't helping) or even just some paint. I think someone could sincerely confuse that for a road.
That's a great point. While not the same, I think this relates to the bullshit assymetry principle (aka. Brandolini's law), where as a result of the time it takes to respond to basic repetitive questions, especially those which are pretty easy to search around for existing answers, then entire communities can get tired of tolerating them. In some cases people just become rude and dismissive and in other cases staff actually just ban the person asking the question, which is already the case in some Lemmy instances.
One potential way around it I've seen is having a decent FAQ available and well-known within the community, so one literally just reply with little more than a link to a page with the answer already written. In fact, one site used to (not anymore) have a culture where people would just attach a whole book as a PDF and simply reply 'read this', maybe listing a chapter if you're lucky, which isn't very tactful but it's pretty funny and still provides a low-effort, high-detail answer (albeit maybe too high-detail for the kind of person who asks such a common question to reddit instead of trying to find the answer themselves).
If we consider that phenomenon you described to be a problem, the solution is being able to make it extremely quick and easy to give a canned response and politely tell them to RTFM.
Don't be a condescending prick, comrade.
They're definitely misrepresenting the situation, like @ComradeSharkfucker explained, and I think it would be great if someone could make/share a FAQ so we wouldn't have to keep typing this by hand. But telling people to read a book some time is the arrogant crap that alienates us from the people we need on our side. More people are reading this than the person you replied to.