Ah, the real reason that East Asia is the tech hub of the world!1
While I doubt the concept is unique, the script is: a keyboard shortcut will check the clipboard for a YouTube link and then show launcher options for mpv or yt-dlp, including launch arguments for lower quality format and audio only. It launches that in a terminal for easier handling when yt-dlp doesn't work properly (much more common if using proxies, but also if a video is age-restricted or deleted).
So when I see a yt link here, I can just copy it, keyboard shortcut and then it's playing in my local video player.
edit: here's the script. It assumes xsel (clipboard access), rofi (menu creator), gnome-terminal (terminal) and notify-send (system notification on failure) are installed and working, you'll need to replace any which don't match your system. My DE just runs it in bash when the shortcut is entered.
Code (click to expand)
#!/bin/bash
ARR=()
ARR+=("mpv full")
ARR+=("mpv medium")
ARR+=("yt-dlp")
NORMAL_URL=`xsel -ob | sed -r "s/.*(v=|\/)([a-zA-Z0-9_-]{11}).*/https:\/\/youtube.com\/watch?v=\2/"`
CHOICE=$(printf '%s\n' "${ARR[@]}" | rofi -dmenu -p "mpv + yt-dlp from clipboard")
DOWNLOAD="false"
MPV="false"
OPTIONS=""
if [ "$CHOICE" = "mpv full" ]; then
MPV="true"
fi
if [ "$CHOICE" = "mpv medium" ]; then
MPV="true"
OPTIONS+="'--ytdl-format=bv*[height<721]+ba' "
fi
if [ "$CHOICE" = "yt-dlp" ]; then
DOWNLOAD="true"
fi
if [ $MPV == "true" ]; then
COMMAND="mpv $OPTIONS $NORMAL_URL"
gnome-terminal --title "$NORMAL_URL" -- bash -c "echo $COMMAND;$COMMAND;if [ \$? -ne 0 ]; then notify-send 'yt-dlp failed' $NORMAL_URL; bash; fi;"
elif [ $DOWNLOAD == "true" ]; then
COMMAND="yt-dlp $OPTIONS $NORMAL_URL"
gnome-terminal --title "$NORMAL_URL" -- bash -c "echo $COMMAND;$COMMAND;if [ \$? -ne 0 ]; then notify-send 'yt-dlp failed' $NORMAL_URL; bash; fi;"
fi
Spice/spiced could work. But it's still an allusion, not sure if that defeats the point.
For example, 4chan forcibly invented the use of the ok hand for “white power”, as a collective prank
Which, outside of specific contexts where you're already confident someone is a WN, was quickly forgotten and never really took off. It's not a great example of a social shift.
Well, switching from Proton was more painful for me, at least on a free account, as it won't gel with a desktop client like Thunderbird or Outlook, and last I checked, didn't allow email forwarding.
Maybe Waluigi will make a prominent appearance at the inauguration too.
I still use Invidious and Piped for searches and looking at comments, but they are currently broken (as far as I've seen).
(Conditionally) journals, studies and some books. And, for that matter, most television, film and music.
Particularly when paying is not supporting the creator, only the publisher.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Strictly speaking, states cannot be friends; only people. Therefore, the comments by @[email protected] and @[email protected] must be understood figuratively.
Of course, which I would interpret as, say, allies, or perhaps ideological siblings. The two states were clearly neither. They were enemies on both counts, even well before the war, despite any trade or pacts. I'd say they were no more friendly than the US and the PRC.
You're right that the treaty was not merely non-aggression and had major implications with spheres of influence in the space between the two powers, it was only non-aggression between the signing states (the two being called 'friends' in this context). I don't really know if there was any good ending possible for the countries between the two, because I believe war there was inevitable given the Nazi regime's ideology, expansionist policy and military strength. Those countries, unfortunately, were either going to be occupied by the Nazis or the USSR in the inevitable war, so the USSR made a choice in its self-preservation interest to gain power. Given that the alternative was further expansion of the Nazi regime, it's hard for me to realistically criticize it, despite the horrible implications for the occupied territories.
First, it is not and was not at the time clear that the entire West wanted the Soviet Union and the Third Reich to wear each other out; instead, it was a Soviet belief [...] That belief was questionable. The fact is that the West allied with the Soviet Union and supported it, through Lend-Lease and other means, after it was betrayed by the Third Reich. Of course, hindsight is hindsight, and Soviet leadership did have reasons to believe the West wanted them to fight against the Third Reich, but their assessment was fatally flawed and led to much suffering, not least amongst their own citizenry.
While I say this naively, Western support of the USSR doesn't contradict the theory that the Western powers wanted the two to wear each other out. Supporting the weaker side wears out the stronger side more, this is an established tactic in proxy warfare.
Second, you ignore Soviet agency and deflect Soviet responsibility to the West when you describe the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as “realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other”.
That wasn't the point of the line, I was emphasizing that the Soviet's first choice was to ally with the West. It's misleading for the poster to consider the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as a signal of the USSR's alignment without acknowledging that they first tried to create pacts with the Western powers against the Nazi regime. They were rejected, and the USSR compromised and created a neutrality pact with the Nazis because the alternative was to be invaded first. At that point, what agency remained? To me, it seems like the options were 'form a neutrality pact and gain an opportunity to build your defenses' or 'get invaded first and probably die'. The first option was horrible too, but I don't know of a better choice they could have reasonably taken after being rejected by their first choice of allies.
These points both make sense given ideal conditions. People and businesses should have liberty over themselves, with the government serving as a neutral foundation representing the interest of voters.
Unfortunately, these ideal conditions don't exist. The government isn't neutral, but that's not because of themselves or a democratic decision, but because businesses have more power to influence politics than you and me. Look at the major shareholders of mass media and social media, look at fundraisers for political parties, look at the laws made to bias the system. The government is evidently not a neutral foundation or a representative of the common people, but a dictatorship of the owning class (I'm using the term dictatorship not to imply one person ruling, but rather, that business owners as a class dictate the actions of politicians and therefore the government). And while it's easy to consider this a crony capitalism or corporatocracy, it's ultimately just capitalism itself taking its logical course, as business owners generally have a common class interest and the government cannot work without the complicity of business owners. We see this consistently in capitalist states, all the way back to the first ones. It's not a fluke, it's the power of capital.
We also see the trend of monopolization emerge - more money makes more money, more resources makes more resources, so small businesses are generally muscled out or incorporated into larger companies unless the government can force them to stop. So while you technically don't have to interact with a specific business at all, there are many industries where you are effectively forced to interact with a small collection of the most powerful businesses or even a duopoly, even more so if you don't have enough money to be picky.
So, while I agree, the government is supposed to be representing voters' best interests, and business should not have power comparable to governance, they don't represent us and businesses do govern, and history shows this won't be changed through the electoral system they control. It has only changed when the worker class, as opposed to the businesses, has become the class directing the government.
But that's just it - it's not a useful heuristic, it's a delusional framework, even more than the geocentric model was. We were mapping the planets onto that, but that didn't make it useful.
- There appears to be a lack of “centrist”, non-political, or right-wing voices (and I don’t mean extreme MAGA-type views, but rather more moderate conservative positions).
I see plenty of them. They're just mostly on other instances to me (like your home instance).
Furthermore, while it's tempting to see the so-called 'left' and 'right' as equivalent mirrors needing to be balanced for diversity, the reality is far from it. After seeing Wolfballs in action (that instance died before the reddit API fiasco), I can tell you we don't need to be balanced out by 'white genocide' discussions and more open anti-semitism. I know that's not what you proposed, but it's to illustrate that sometimes there isn't value in arbitrary balancing the 'left' and 'right' on these websites.
is it a natural result of Lemmy’s community-driven nature?
It's also a result of Lemmy's history and appeal. When reddit went on sprees of deleting subreddits, the right-wing hate groups made their own reddit clones, anarchists typically went to Raddle, and when GenZedong and ChapoTrapHouse went down, they went to Lemmygrad.ml (as a result, it became the largest instance) and created Hexbear respectively. So there is a long history of larger communist communities from day one which was the status quo until the reddit API fiasco.
The Fediverse also tends to attract anarchists and other socialists by the appeal of its decentralized nature, along with a few right-libertarians who see it as an anti-censorship tool. So one could say there's a bias there.
How might we encourage more diverse political perspectives while still maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment?
That's tough, because you inherently limit which political perspectives you can encourage.
And also the representation of that culture. An ignorant attempt at mocking a culture can be offensive even if the intent is purely comic or positive.