PaintedSnail @ PaintedSnail @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

60

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes. The hunters would gift their kills to the gatherers, and the gatherers would gift their findings to the hunters. The economic model is known as a "gift economy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

There is no such thing as not having an "economic model." As long as there are people with unmet needs and wants, there will be an economy, and that economy can be modeled and given a label.

I agree. Please read my last sentence.

The statement, however, indicated that they were more annoyed that a politician would change their stance because of poling numbers rather than because it's the right thing to do. My point is that our political system is designed for just that. Politicians have always done what is best for themselves, and expecting different from any politician is naive. Our system is deliberately designed to allow people to put pressure on politicians to (try to) keep them from sacrificing the people they are supposed to govern for their own gain.

I was talking more to the general sentiment of the statement, not to these specific circumstances. Don't blame a politician for bowing to political pressure from the people. That's what they're supposed to do to keep your vote. Allow them to change their policy, even if they don't change their stance. Instead, blame the ones that double-down on harmful decisions because they don't want to appear "weak."

This is all theoretical, of course. Recent elections have shown that too many people are willing to be sacrificed to allow those in charge to appear "strong."

Oh, no. A politician doing what the people want in order to save his job.

That's how it's supposed to work. It's better than the usual m.o. where the politician does whatever they want and screw the people. Yes, it would be nice if they did what you want from the get-go, but I will vote for the one that changes their stance due to popular pressure over one that "sticks to their guns" no matter who it's hurting.

(I'm speaking in generalities here. Obviously Biden hasn't changed his stance yet.)

Also QA, issue tracking, and litigation protection. This includes worker protection.

"Those bolts? We have the record right here from the very wrench that tightened them that shows they were tightened to spec on that plane."

ZZ

Eh, maybe? Personally, I wouldn't consider a love triangle enough to be a harem, and I don't see that any of the remaining girls see themselves as a love interest, just platonic. "Harem" as a genre is rather vaguely defined, though, so I won't blame anyone for seeing it as one.

It might be overplayed, but Re:Zero does fit that bill. There is a romance, but only one, and it doesn't play off the ecchi comedy tropes. It still is based around an oblivious boy, but it's used as one of his major character flaws, and he has actual character growth.

It had a huge following when it was airing (still kinda does) to the point where it got annoying, but don't let that color your perspective of the show.

I believe the issue isn't one of laws, but enforcement. If a person is physically capable of modifying the code their cars runs and then operating it on a public road, then someone will, illegal or not. That is what puts the lives of others at risk. Hell, I can already imagine websites where you can download untested mods to apply to cars that people will apply with no knowledge of how it works.

People put bread just loose in a breadbox? That's disturbing. Keep the bread in the bag, but put it in the box so it doesn't get squished.

Don't dense urban cities require landlords?

That poses an interesting question. If they can change the terms, and say that you agree to the changes by continuing to use their software, and they remove the clause allowing you to use the previous agreement, then can you use the previous agreement? It's a bit of a buried shovel problem. Have you agreed to not use a previous agreement by continuing to use the software, or can you stick to the old agreement that lets you use the old agreement?

"By continuing to use the software, you agree to the new terms..." which is, of course, hogwash, but wouldn't stop them from say "Sorry, the new terms were released and you agreed, so pay up."

Enforcability is one of the major issues, and why companies try so hard to keep issues like this from the courts.

But do the terms you signed say they are allowed to change the terms at any time with notice?

Unless you're someone who tends to B-negative anyway.

I live in a hole on the ground. Almost literally.

Edit: Dammit, deleted the wrong post!

Sure, I have $16,777,216.00 budgeted for tv.

We absolutely can unless he wants go go for an insanity plea, because that's the only way it could be claimed that he is unreasonable enough to not be held accountable. If he can't plead insanity, then he must be a reasonable enough person to be held accountable.