NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

1,111

Joined

2 yr. ago

Important distinction: it was cited 29 times [by non-parties to the case who filed amicus briefs carrying no legal weight].

It was not cited 29 times in the actual ruling.

Fantastic, when does she plan to move in?

This meme reminded me to turn on my alarm. I turned it off last Wednesday for Juneteenth and the Monday and Friday alarms are separate (less road congestion, can wake up later). So if not for this, I would have overslept tomorrow morning

Which is easier? Squatting down to count how many caps say "Coca-Cola" or counting the number of bottles with red caps?

There is a real reason that the caps are painted. Glass beverage bottles are usually stored in a crate and grabbed from the top, so the design on the lid is what restaurant or store employees used to distinguish what drink is contained within it. This allows employees to distinguish similar-coloured drinks (e.g. Coca-Cola vs Pepsi or two different brands of beer) just from looking down at the top of the bottle.

But there probably is a way to paint them without using plastics

Parent commneter implies that people who consume soft drinks or alcohol aren't concerned about their health because these beverages are not healthy

Odd. I would have thought that the paint, being on the exterior, wouldn't leak into the beverage contained inside the glass.

But apparently, they found that blowing air over the caps reduced the amount of detected contamination by 60 per cent. So it seems like an easy fix that manufacturers can implement inexpensively (literally just an electric fan)

This is a fantastic idea. The brilliance of the 47th president strikes again. Give them work permits, ensure they are paid a fair wage and the labour standards are adhered to, and it will guarantee that they become hardworking honest taxpayers who contribute to the American economy.

Wait, that is the plan... right?

Right...?

No, I go online and just order another one for same-day pickup from a local electronics retailer. Then I restore my files from my backup.

If this law is enacted, the Supreme Court will say that states can't frustrate the operations of federal agents with these sorts of laws. Chief Justice Roberts will write the opinion and compare it to giving states the power to ban bulletproof vests from being worn by federal law enforcement and call it "a step from anarchy". Clarence Thomas will then write a concurring opinion saying that federal agents acting on orders from the president should actually be immune for any type of civil or criminal liability for any of their actions, lawful or not.

Then, when a Democratic president takes office the court will walk it back and say "well, actually, there's this exception, and this exception, and that exception..."

The party of domestic terrorism strikes again

It would be cringe if you were using a shared server and set this as a default for everyone or if it was interfering with something. But if you're just minding your own business I could not care less what customisations you put on your terminal as long as it isn't using excessive resources

I think one other factor that people have not considered is the monitor. To run all games at 4K maximum settings, yes, this type of PC might be required. But at lower resolutions, such as 1080p or 1440p, this is overkill and one would be able to run any game as maximum settings even with a computer costing a third as much.

And for those who don't: Plato, a Greek philosopher, was putatively asked by a student while teaching at the Academy what the definition of a man (human) was. Plato responded that a man is a "featherless biped".

Diogenes, another Greek philosopher and infamous quick-wit, caught wind of this and thought that was the dumbest thing ever, so he gate-crashed one of Plato's lectures and pulled out a chicken which had all of its feathers plucked out and said "Behold, a man!".

Euclid's first postulate: Give two points, there exists exactly one straight line that includes both of them.

I am not the parent commenter, but the argument for and against wealth taxes is a lot more nuanced than many people would originally think.

For one, a great deal of wealth in this country (the overwhelming majority, actually) is not money but takes the form of illiquid capital goods like real property and shares in companies. There is a real concern that people subject to tax just won't have enough dollars in a bank account to pay for it, and forcing the sale of that many goods could render the markets illiquid as it wipes out the red side of the order book every April.

A potential way around this is if the tax can be paid in kind, similar to how wealth taxes were collected historically, such as in the Roman Empire. This could be stupid easy to administrate—a 1% wealth tax against companies can be enforced by just minting 1% of every registered company's outstanding shares in new stock and then transferring it to the control of the Government. Though the downside is that this sort of tax is very indiscriminate and difficult to target towards certain demographic groups. While shareholders are largely wealthy individuals who would be the target demographic for a wealth tax, they aren't exclusively so. Effectively that becomes a tax on holding shares in companies, which is a good, but not perfect, proxy for wealth. The drawback to collecting shares in kind is that the stuff that is raised is not really "revenue" for the state, in that it is not money that can be spent, and to liquidate it would incur significant loss for the state as well. Which is basically throwing wealth away. This wasn't a problem when "in-kind" meant grain and barley that could be used to feed the army, but soldiers can't survive on a diet of stock certificates.

I am in favour of large-scale wealth redistribution from the billionaire class to the working class, but doing so isn't as easy as saying "You, billionaire, give me 1% of everything you got, cash." I think a policy of combined high income tax, high capital gains tax, and taxing loans for personal expenses secured against shares as income is more likely to be effective.

That was already done weeks ago

Let me put it this way. Lemmy infamously only has four topics that people post about:

1. Politics
2. Linux
3. Star Trek
4. Porn

Any community that isn't about topics 2 to 4 will eventually become one about topic 1.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. I view this post as an example of a very persistent problem with Lemmy as a platform. Namely, that it seems only have four topics that people ever post about:

1. Politics
2. Linux
3. Star Trek
4. Porn

There's nothing inherently wrong with posting about these topics but it really seems like whenever there exists a community isn't about topics 2-4, people will make it about topic 1.

What happened in San Diego and Minneapolis?