NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

1,115

Joined

2 yr. ago

Pope Francis has the opportunity to do the funniest thing here

As for your family discussion, generally it's advised to avoid bringing up controversial topics because it almost never ends well.

That being said, I've found that the following statement is pretty universally agreeable:

Thompson led a company that was number one in the industry in denying coverage for routine and life-saving healthcare to people who had paid good money for and were legally entitled to coverage, meaning it's almost certain that multiple people have died as a result of the policies he oversaw the execution of in the name of profit. So while I don't condone murder as a method to solve problems with the healthcare system, it's difficult for me to feel any sympathy for the victim.

It's funny because the actual physics explanation is "they just do".

I think I really agree with you here. Trump may have only had concepts of a plan but the Democrats denied even needing a plan in the first place.

I feel like they would have fared better if they went all in on the "corporations are gouging consumers" line and not try to convince people with GDP figures or the unemployment rate.

This is actually correct, but not for the reason you might think. It has nothing to do with time zones.

In physics, time is quite literally defined as "what a clock would read". As you approach the speed of light, time dilation approaches infinity and therefore your rate of proper time approaches zero.

If you reach the speed of light, your rate of proper time exactly equals zero and thus the clock is correct 100% of the time.

There is one caveat: in order to reach the speed of light, your mass must equal exactly zero. In which case you can only travel at the speed of light since deceleration is not possible.

Bearing that in mind, it would be correct from a physics standpoint to claim that a broken clock accurately measures the proper time of a photon (or other massless particle).

Since when have these people cared about the opinions of women

If that happens I will happily accept a CDU+SDP grand coalition. Just no fucking AfD please for Christ's sake

Far-right German nationalist party slowly rising in vote share while traditional centrist and liberal parties squabble over the best way to keep them out of government while unable to form a stable government themselves

Where have I heard this one before?

"Have you committed war crimes?"

answers yes

"Okay, you're not allowed in"

"wtf, clearly anti-Semitism, these are dark days for Australian democracy"

Calling it a "furry thing" is very likely to be successful if done in sufficient quantity

I heard somewhere that in Italy, this hand gesture has a meaning akin to "What the fuck do you want?".

Maybe someone from Italy can confirm whether this is true

If you really like socialism this is the place to be

Lost, yes. Ready to risk everything trying to overthrow the Government, not so much. There's a reason we remember 6th January 2021 and not 6th January 2017.

I don't know what country you're referring to but you're probably correct.

Sure, it's interesting, but maybe people like to talk about something else? Not every conversation about someone needs to be about the top most notorious thing about them.

That being said...

Well, the first two (replacing first-past-the-post and eliminating the Electoral College) can be done on a state-by-state basis. There were ballot initiatives in a few states on the ballot in 2024 regarding instant-runoff voting. All of them failed, including one in Alaska that would have repealed instant-runoff voting and replaced it with first-past-the-post.

The Electoral College can be defeated using the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Napoleon wasn't "appointed" as dictator by any legitimate government or by the people. He overthrew the Directory and the Constitution of Year III and made himself the dictator.

I don't think so.

For one, the revolutionary sentiment isn't nearly as widespread as it was in 18th century France. Yes, it's true that many people are discontent with the current economic and political situation but the difference is that 250 years ago, the only outlet for discontent available to common people was to revolt, whereas in the United States and other Western democracies, a second option exists: the democratic political institutions. What this really means is that the right of suffrage and of elections has really sucked a lot of the will to revolt from the populace; it's easier to get what you want by participating in the democratic process than by revolting, or at least that's what a lot of people think.

In order for a revolution to start, you need to hit a critical mass of angry people motivated enough to risk everything to overthrow the system. The presence of democratic institutions like elections and referendums changes the maths and it makes it harder to convince people that they need to revolt in order to get what they want. In turn, it tends to mean that well-established democracies really aren't prone to violent revolutions from the bottom of the sort that topple totalitarian governments. Rather, the primary threat to democratic states actually comes from the top—that the people in charge will try to exceed their mandate of power and take over the government.