assassin_aragorn @ assassin_aragorn @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

3,043

Joined

2 yr. ago

For one, I think this was already required. I remember having to enroll in selective service.

For two though, whoever calls another draft is dead in the water. It's commonly accepted that starting an actual draft is political suicide.

That said, it would be nice if we could codify that and ban the draft.

It isn't worth the effort to punish in most cases

Simple example -- lets say you'd lose 2% of your inventory per year to theft if you did nothing. Your gross income would go down by 2%, so you compensate by raising your prices by 2%.

Now let's say instead you want to lose ~0% to theft. You'll have to hire guards, or more likely, contract out to a security company. That's now going to add to your annual expenditures, let's say 5%. If you want to compensate for that, you'd need to raise your prices by 5%.

So, here's the question -- what's actually the better option for the company? It's hard to say without real life numbers and estimates. But basically, it wouldn't be worth beefing up security if you'd pay more for that versus what you'd lose to theft.

And that's only the monetary side of things. Having very public incidents if the thief doesnt cooperate would be bad for business. Worst case scenario, the thief fights back and has a weapon. You're going to lose waaaaay more in sales than you would've if you just let them keep the contraband.

This is why a lot of companies are more lax on shoplifting these days. It just really isn't worth it. Plus, a serial shoplifter is going to show their face again anyway, and you can quietly accost them preemptively.

This is common strategy to the right -- they try to convince everyone that there's violent criminals everywhere that no one's taking care of.

I thought this guy was a high schooler at most, but a 20 year old college student?

Fuck that. Actions have consequences. He's more than old enough to make his own choices and be held accountable to them.

On the upside at least I guess, now whenever someone googles this guy, this story will come up. So long as HR departments do this, he's fucked.

Oh lovely. Now when they ram a bunch of fishermen from the Philippines in international waters, they'll also kidnap them.

And part of Lemmy will continue to say "there's basically no difference between the two parties!"

It's almost like it's noteworthy that the US is not unique in this shittiness, and it's fucking awful of all the countries who did this.

The information about Russia did not come solely from the State Department: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/us/politics/covid-vaccines-russian-disinformation.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

And frankly, with the disinformation campaigns we definitively know Russia is doing, Volodya Ilich, it's not farfetched to think Russia would do this. Especially considering how brutally Covid hit Russia and the vaccine skepticism they had domestically.

The article says Biden shut it down in Spring 2021. Turns out your comment is completely wrong -- Biden shut down the program faster than it implemented insulin price caps.

This is why the person replying to you mocked .ml. You can't even read the damn article.

Technically, accounts were still in place afterwards and they didn't properly clean up the disrespectful mess of a program, but that isn't what you said. You said shut down the program, which demonstrably happened quickly.

It's fucked up when we do it, it's fucked up when Russia does it, it's fucked up when China does it. This is terrible.

We'll need it anyway to produce existing chemical materials sustainably. It may not be the best energy carrier nor most efficient, but it shines in specific applications. Vehicles are a promising example.

There's companies working on it! We're just broke

And yes, this is definitely the dirty kind. It may still be an improvement on using natural gas directly, but there would need to be a fairly comprehensive analysis to tell for sure. One possible advantage though is we could start building up a hydrogen infrastructure that we can then feed green hydrogen into and completely replace the dirty hydrogen.

Anyway though, you're right to be skeptical. It's important though to look into the details to determine if it's legitimately green energy or if it's just oil companies greenwashing. We need to shun the latter while we promote the former.

(There is a grey area, and it's the same as electric cars -- if we're using electricity from the grid to power cars, and electrolyzers which make hydrogen, is it truly green? I would say this is acceptable for the same reason EVs are acceptable. It'll become completely emission free once the grid is run on renewables.)

That's another powerful advantage we have from the information age. We aren't just limited to our neighborhood and towns anymore, we can talk with people all over the country and worldwide. Cities are also more populous. The average person is exposed to far more diversity than before, and they know that people different from them also just want to live their lives in peace.

I think fascism has become fundamentally disadvantaged compared to the last century. The only reason we're observing an apparent rise is because people trust the system will keep them away and we won't need to act otherwise. But if fascists prove us wrong and break the system, there is a much larger oppositional force than they would've faced back in the 1920s-40s, and it is in much closer communication than before.

They keep trying to break the norms and standards that are the only thing standing in the way of them being punched in the face. I suppose this an inherent flaw of fascism actually -- the democratic and societal norms that fascists want to overthrow are also the exact same norms that are stopping political violence against them.

And perhaps therein is our strongest advantage against fascism in the modern era. With how readily available news is, a lot more people know what's going on and are up to date on current events. More of the masses are informed and politically active than back in the 1920-40s. Overturning Roe alone has created a very large angry population.

A fascist takeover means all bets are off, and there's more of us than there are of them.

It depends a lot on where the hydrogen is sourced from. Hydrogen that is generated from electrolyzers using renewable power is completely green (and funny enough, called Green Hydrogen), and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.

Oil companies however want to market hydrogen from drilling and refining, which is dirty as hell.

It's an important differentiation to make though. Hydrogen is not inherently bad and will have plenty of green applications. We just have to make sure it's coming from the right places.

Please tell me you meant racist and not raciest

This can be intuitively understood if you've gone through difficult college classes. There's two ways to prepare for exams. You either try to understand the material, or you try to memorize it.

The latter isn't good for actually applying the information in the future, and it's most akin to what an LLM does. It regurgitates, but it doesn't learn. You show it a bunch of difficult engineering problems, and it won't be able to solve different ones that use the same principle.

Not of children. You have to get written permission from their parents -- or you used to, at least.

It must drive him nuts that he's actually incapable of doing all this. He can't actually create anything. Certainly not shareholder value lmao

Please proceed, Mrs. Alito.

Seriously though she's just exposing more and more how the Court is an absolute sham that isn't even close to impartial. It actually convinces me that long terms are a bad idea for everyone -- including the judges' family.

The Supreme Court must be impartial, and that binds not only the judge but their immediate family as well. It's unrealistic to expect people to show political impartiality for that long, and the way that it should work is that judges effectively give up their right to free political speech while serving. They cannot be allowed to express political opinion whatsoever.

With that in mind, shorter terms with a much larger body of justices feel appropriate. There also needs to be a new check on the Supreme Court so that their word isn't final -- the very idea goes against our idea of Checks and Balances. 2/3 of Congress, or a simple majority of Congress plus the President should be able to override the Court.

Anyway, what I remind myself when I get pissed about this -- reform will happen. These cretins have made it inevitable. The only question is when, and each time they spew their vile hate, the justices and their spouses bring us closer to reform.