BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

Priors confirmed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html?unlockedarticlecode=1.80w.buhC.mZdCxlxO5MI&smid=url-share

Here's the original interview with the New York Times, unless you also would dismiss them as Zionist propaganda, in which case I'm afraid I can't really help you.

It's also a very deliberate strategy to give a little bit of space for people who've identified as Republicans in the past but refuse to follow Trump. He's saying that you don't have to identify as a Democrat, or even necessarily drop the Republican party as a whole, but rather you simply have to recognize the obvious fact that Trump represents a major departure from the Republican party of the past and refuse to go along with it.

Of course, the part that isn't being said is that the old Republican party is well and truly dead and buried, but speaking diplomatically like that is very good politics and can help him net some more moderate votes in tighter margin states.

They don't directly sell data, nor does Google. They analyze and use that data to sell targeted ad space.

There are data brokers that gather a ton of data and openly sell it, but Facebook isn't one of them. Their customer data and the resulting ability to sell extremely specific ad space is probably their single most valuable; why would the sell it itself when they can sell the access it grants instead?

The fact that the next generation also largely does not bother actually express that will at the ballot box is probably a relevant factor too.

I'd also add that he's directed the department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of potentially removing marijuana from Schedule 1. That's a bureaucratic nightmare that will take entirely too much time, but Biden has been taking real steps, even if it's not as fast as it should be.

Voting hard just enshrined abortion rights into the constitution of Ohio, which will save quite a lot of women's lives.

Dunno if you care about that, but hey, I bet the women who would otherwise be destitute mothers or dead are happy with it.

He issued a general pardon in October for all federal possession crimes.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession

You can even apply for a pardon online.

nobody seems willing to step up to the plate regardless of party.

I mean, this is the exact thing I'm talking about. Things are actually happening, but it's the federal government and glaciers are speedy in comparison. The Department of Health and Human Services is, right now, doing work to fully explore rescheduling marijuana. A bill was passed recently that makes it substantially easier for researchers to study marijuana for medical purposes by reducing legal barriers.

Progress is slow, and I completely understand and agree that it's frustrating, but that doesn't mean that nothing is happening.

They're certainly not bulletproof. It's obviously been a hot sec at this point, but Proposition 8 in California of all places codified marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman when it was legalized by the California Supreme Court.

Continuing in California, Proposition 13, which froze property taxes so long as ownership is maintained but allows that frozen rate to be transferred to family, has essentially created a situation where the state is subsidizing homeowners that are already substantially wealthier than the average person while also legally enshrining a class of people who pay much less tax by virtue of inheritable status. The perverse economic effects are rather obvious.

Referendums can be great, but voters are also generally going to be inherently selfish. Local control of zoning and housing policy, just to shit on California one more time, has resulted in a massive housing crisis. There are situations where it's really important for lawmakers to choose the path that inconveniences everyone a little bit but solves a problem over the path where no individual is directly inconvenienced while the root problem only gets much worse. In Game Theory terms, referendums are very bad at handling prisoner's dilemma style situations, since voters will generally pursue their own immediate interests.

It's more complicated than that. Gerrymandering doesn't affect state-level votes like governor or president.

I think what this reveals more is that there are a non-trivial amount of voters who generally support Republicans but who will support abortion rights when asked specifically about them, even if they wouldn't otherwise vote for a Democrat.

I'm sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!

Right?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1529/decriminalize-marijuana/

Federal pardons have been issued for possession crimes, and removing it from being Schedule 1 is currently underway. It's the federal government, so nothing is fast and everything takes forever, but I don't think it's really accurate to say that he's done nothing.

Especially given that essentially zero people are now prosecuted federally for weed possession now, a bit of a wait for the bureaucratic gears to turn feels fine enough for me.

I think weed is an issue where Biden's personal life experience and age show more than just about anywhere else. He's an old devout Catholic boomer that doesn't even drink and has a son that's had a very public struggle with drug addiction. I don't think he's ever going to exactly be a champion of legalization.

It's definitely something that can be criticized, but in the grand scheme of things, given that federal prosecution of marijuana "crimes" are basically non-existent nowadays anyway, it's a pretty small matter for me. You are right though that he has taken a step towards potentially rescheduling it, which is definitely a step in the right direction.

but just because you happen to be in the position of dictator doesn't mean can't work towards not being one.

I'm pretty sure he's been doing everything he possibly can do to get out of this state of martial law, so I suppose that'll be satisfying for you?

Eh, I don't think this really tracks all that well. While it may vary by location, there are countless independent and small cafés in pretty much every city I've ever lived in. They generally have focus on having actually good coffee over the Starbucks style of ash water with syrup, but those are pretty distinct markets anyway.

Sure, I'll admit that's bad wording on my part. I don't think it really changes my point though. If anything, since a lot of the things Target sells aren't strictly necessities like groceries, you'd expect a greater decline in those kinds of non-essential purchases when consumers are in tighter financial environment.

Okay, but we're talking about lower consumer spending, not fruit rotting on shelves.

And again, his pay has actually decreased in recent years, even more so when you account for inflation, so you might even say that he's suffering some consequences. I'm not saying that Target is perfect or anything, but sometimes the business environment simply changes despite what leadership does. No amount of good management would have made it be a good time to be a candlemaker or horse carriage operator in the 1930s. Consumer disposable income obviously isn't exactly the same thing as technological obsolescence, but regardless, Target isn't Walmart and isn't trying to be Walmart, nor is it capable of being a better cheap grocer than Walmart is. They're fundamentally aiming at a slightly different target market, and sometimes the economic wind simply isn't blowing your way.

Executive salaries are a pretty small portion of business expenses. As per Target's 2022 data, their selling, general, and admin expenses were about 19.76 billion dollars. Of that, the CEO's pay was $17.7 million, or 0.09%, and actually decreased from the year before. Sure, it's a lot of money, but it's pretty average for Fortune 500 CEOs, and nullifying his pay would make essentially no difference. If you were to slash his pay to 0, you could give everyone else an annual raise of $40, representing an hourly raise of about two cents.

I mean, do you think there are obvious actions that management has done that have caused it? Target's margins are about 3%, so they're not exactly extorting consumers for their own profit. It's a grocery store. It's not a particularly complicated business. Consumer grocery spending probably is more related to the general consumer economic environment than anything that Target does or doesn't do.