Instead of a static number, you just make it a multiple of the minimum wage. Say, the upper limit is 500 x Minimum Wage x Full Time working hours, or right now about $15.6 million. If you have enough for a person to live 5 lifetimes, then you have enough for you and your family. If you feel that’s not enough, maybe the minimum wage needs improving.

Know your enemy. I feel like your chances of helping deprogram someone are higher if you know what bullshit they’re being fed. Then again I’m batting zero so who knows

PFP idea: a smashed server and a dude ripping it apart. I call it GOAITSE

TBH we need to bring back fireside chats. A more direct communication from President to people. Imagine if that was just the expectation

For my part, if I were President, I would explain what I am working on and who is in my way. Just every week. “This week, my main goal is still universal healthcare. I want everyone to be able to get the medical care they need. Here is a list of the senators currently opposing, and the state they represent…”

I don’t even think capitalism requires infinite growth. It’s just how we built it. Not even since the beginning. That is, you could buy stock in a company to help them grow. Then they make a profit, and give you a share of that profit. Everyone is happy. You could sell that to someone else, and maybe they pay more than you’d get in a year, but they’ll make more in a long run as long as the company stays alive and can keep distributing profits. Everyone is happy.

It’s this idea that the money you make from investment should grow exponentially. This demand from professional stock traders that they be able to sell for obscene profits. The company must grow, and those profits must grow, or the shareholders will all sell in a panic and abandon them, and even a profitable company may go under.

Like why can’t the company just make some profit and distribute that profit among shareholders and employees and everyone be happy? It doesn’t HAVE to be more profit next year than last year, we just made it that way over time.

Was thinking my response would have to be something like “hold up while I Google something real quick.” I know Ariel is supposed to be 16 but that’s the only one I know.

I interpreted it as general disgust that this is the only thing that seems to have put a real dent in his support from the Republican base. Maybe I’m projecting. Don’t get me wrong, I get why people are upset about it, but it just strikes me as crazy that “oh no, the man who’s a petty tyrant and obviously a rapist and probable pedophile won’t release the files about the pedophile human trafficker” is the straw that broke the camel’s back for so many.

I’d want to know what they count as bullying. The days of movie stereotype bullying like shoving kids in lockers or whatever are gone. Modern bullying is either excluding, underhanded comments, or social media harassment.

Schools haven’t kept up, either. Suppose kid A goes on a targeted harassment campaign online against kid B. B gets mad about it and confronts A at school, maybe even gets in a fight. B will be labeled the bully and aggressor.

Source: Have kids and live with a middle school teacher and attend social gatherings of middle school and high school teachers.

I’m exactly the same. I get that it’s not for everyone. I understand that, and respect it. But I hate people framing this as you having a trust issue.

It’s the opposite of a trust issue. I trust my wife to be responsible with my bank accounts. I trust my wife to see my location because I also trust my wife to only bother checking if she has a reasonable reason to do so, and to not be a weird paranoid freak if I’m somewhere she doesn’t expect. I trust my wife with the password to all my online accounts because it’s easier to just share a Bitwarden than it is to segregate everything, and I completely trust her to not invade my privacy.

The thing is, our lives are online. If I get hit by a bus or something, I don’t want her to have to deal with my death while ALSO figuring out how to convince banks and insurance companies and whatnot to let her in. Much easier to just share my Bitwarden with her.

I’m not in some panopticon, worrying “Oh no, what will my wife think about me being within 500 yards of an ex’s house” or whatever because I totally trust her to trust me. It’s just not an issue.

I mean, just because he already did it doesn’t mean it’s too late to stop. I’d argue that stopping immediately is still a good thing.

Sadly this is rapidly becoming untrue. There are at least two small mom and pop restaurants near me that have gotten rid of their delivery driver and just deliver via one of the app services.

I’m so used to him being wrong about everything he says that it feels weird when he’s right.

Reliable public transportation that doesn’t cause or get stuck in traffic jams, also.

It seems to me that they can be stretched just shy of infinitely, because sources aren’t reliable and people aren’t paying attention. That is, when a source reports on what’s happening with as little bias and editorializing as humanly possible, it is labeled as “left bias” while the conservative news sources don’t bother talking about the problems with ICE at all. As long as that’s the case, they can basically get away with anything because their human rights abuses won’t get enough coverage or will be dismissed by enough of the population that it won’t actually have an impact.

Okay but hear me out: We replace the entire executive branch of the US government with AI. It’ll be roughly as prone to making shit up as the people in charge already are, but since it’s trained on data sets made by people it’ll probably act more in line with what people actually want.

I don’t recall any rights about not having my memory wiped. Wait a sec…

I think I misunderstood what you were originally saying and we’re more or less on the same side. My point was that it’s not about saying “okay we’ll stop caring about this” but about saying “this isn’t the thing we need to be focusing attention on right now.” I worded it very poorly.

I get what you’re saying, but every rights movement has worked the opposite way. It’s not about giving up ground, it’s about picking one battle at a time. Gay people fought to be not killed, then fought to be accepted, then fought to be able to marry. It wasn’t a single “equality” battle, it was a series of battles in a longer war. They didn’t slide back immediately when they couldn’t get married, they fought the next fight.

Some people really suck, but for a lot I think it’s more misunderstanding or reluctance to let things change. There’s many reasons. Labeling everyone who doesn’t get on board with every facet of what you want means you’re reducing your allies. And those people who are comfortable with one thing but uncomfortable with another may become more comfortable when they see that the first thing doesn’t lead to the collapse of society.

It’s not a real rule. More like a running joke, because she’s had problems getting chicken dishes right more than anything else. It probably does not come across on a random comment on the Internet, but I do think it would be kinda crazy to actually have rules like that in a real relationship.

You read a lot of stuff I didn’t write.