CurlyWurlies4All @ CurlyWurlies4All @slrpnk.net

If I can't share a Curly Wurly then it's not a revolution.

---

Read more

Posts

40

Comments

410

Joined

2 yr. ago

Shawn Fain is such a charismatic speaker, the contrast between Trump and Fain is night and day.

I know it's celebrity news, so might not be true but the story of his special contract clause has been around for a while now.

"During our filming, JM closed the Kang deal. I remember asking said friend about it, and they shared some details. X number of movies, X number of dollars, and more interestingly, due to the nature of the character and potential multiple versions, JM had a contract clause stating that only he could play any and all versions of Kang.”

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/marvel-forced-keep-jonathan-majors-kang-the-conqueror-leaked-contract-shows

His contract said he was the only person who could play Kang in any multiverse.

Goddam this one was heartbreaking

Turns out of you do this with a basic block of cheddar and cheap shaved ham, everyone still thinks you're being fancy and compliments you on the cheese choice.

There was a Duck tales movie? I had no idea.

Thank god for the Furries.

Well it's not really an either/or situation. The current Labor government's plan is a combination of majority renewables with gas and hydrogen. They are also running coal at the moment but have no plans to renew those plants during the transition. They've signed on to emissions reductions of 75% by 2035.

So you've got one plan which has some reduction targets (probably not steep enough) planned transition, costed and budgeted that doesn't require more coal, and one plan which will pull funding from renewables, and requires more coal until some time as which they can get nuclear approved, built and commercialised.

You know it didn't use to be this way? There was a time when you could be 'A GE man'. You could work at a company for your whole life. You would not get laid off and rehired whenever it was convenient for the company, rather they'd show you some loyalty and you'd show them the same, this would be backed by employee profit sharing schemes, incentivising higher performance.

The heart of this deal between workers and management was ripped out when management chased higher share valuations, with stock bonuses for themselves instead of workers. It became cheaper to fire 1/80th of the workforce because you could break up unions that way, management could write off all those salaries to bump up the quarterly earnings, increasing the stock price and earning themselves bonuses at the expense of workers who as you said, just learn to get by.

Context is important here. The conversation here was about Australia's nuclear capacity. A country where nuclear power is banned at both state and federal levels. Where the plan for it's use is currently uncosted, the planned sites have been selected without environmental protection studies and several of which are supposed to be SMRs.

Would you build a bleeding edge nuclear reactor without a legal framework to govern its construction or operation? Without a workforce trained in its functions? Without considering the environmental factors of its geography? Without considering the cost?

Probably not. But that's the current plan put forward by the reactionary right in Australia and this from a party who doesn't believe in climate change, have no emissions targets, and whose whole plan is to continue to run and build coal power until whatever time they work out the details on nuclear.

Yeah sometimes things just have a natural shelf life.

Watched a lot of Binging With Babish and just got tired of his schtick I think. Same with the How To Drink guy.

Matthew 17:20, NIV He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

I was raised Evangelical and yeah, my parents took that literally.

For sure.

I remember a little while back reading something about how Financial Literacy was introduced as a way for the banks to avoid regulation, pushing the responsibility to individuals rather than face government pressure to change.

I'll have to look for the article...

EDIT: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1198&context=faculty_scholarship

I don't see them as any different to cigarettes personally. Just one more way for giant corporations to get people hooked on addictive shit with no upside. Fuck Jool. Fuck Philip Morris.

These companies spend millions knowingly breaking the law over and over and then get to keep operating regardless? Their executives should be in prison.

Yep and in order for these companies to grow they must continue to increase the volume of ads being shown, which only makes them less effective, which they try and counter by making them ever more invasive.