gandalf_der_12te @ gandalf_der_12te @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

23

Comments

1,302

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly, that's probably the most effective thing that can be done.

In business, where it really hurts, is in the money. Hit them where it really matters.

I heard golden carrots are the best at that, which you can get from the farmer for the low price of 1-2 emeralds.

The best shit even. Some would call it great! All the experts agree with me, that i have the best shit!

(/s)

Yeah, i agree with you.

Just, tell me if i understand this correctly, please:

• The part of cigarettes that makes you addicted is nicotine, and the psychological habit of "smoking one" as a social ritual.
• However, nicotine is not really dangerous to your health. The smoke is what's damaging your lungs. Smoke contains half-burnt chemicals, that are acidic and corrosive, and that damages your lungs.
• Vaping uses (water) vapor instead of smoke, and since vapor is not as acidic or corrosive, it's less dangerous for your health.
• Vapes still make you addicted though, because they contain nicotine, and that's why you have to buy them over-and-over again, which means you still have the economic disadvantage of spending significant money on them.

I think people might smoke more in total because people are stressed out more?

I don't have a study on this, but from my personal environment, i can attest that people seem to be more stressed-out, and more worried, about work and wages than 20 years ago. But i could be wrong here. Maybe it's just that i'm getting older and paying more attention to these things now.

Anyways, "more stress" would explain why people smoke more. To many, it seems to have a stress-relieving functionality.

Fuck, how difficult could it be to create a system that heats water above evaporation temperature without releasing toxic metals in the process. Incredible.

I think it's good that people talk about it.

Trump had a "Project 2025" playbook developed and ready before he took office, so he immediately knew what to do, on "day one". That gave him a huge speed advantage.

I think the left should do the same thing. Write detailed policy explanations before taking office. This way, we can act faster and gain speed.

That is why it makes sense to discuss the policies before he's even in office.

By the way, i read somewhere that a big reason why the Mafia existed in southern italy for so long is largely to keep foreign investors out. No foreign investor would invest in a place where he might be gunned down. That is why the Mafia saw itself as a "protector of the local culture". They tried to keep American influence out of their country.

I'm just saying it because it just randomly came to my mind, not because it's relevant here.

I have a few questions in general:

• ICE is being used by Trump as a terrorist unit that "disappears" people - immigrants, dissenters, probably anyone who Trump doesn't like in the future.
• Is ICE a federal agency? If so, is it under Trump's direct control? Do the states have any say in what ICE can do in their territory and what not? Can the state's governor instruct the state's police force to stop ICE?
• Can it be reasonably demanded by the people that blue states take a stance against ICE by instructing their police to stop or hinder ICE? Has that been done so far?

The reason why this matter is very clearly because Trump is using ICE to terrorize the people, to intimidate political opponents and disappear dissenters. Can the state protect people within its own territory?

On unrelated news, what would happen if people stopped paying federal taxes?

I.e., if all of california, or blue states in general, stopped paying federal taxes simultaneously, what would realistically be the outcome?

How would it affect the US? How would it affect the states?

And: Is there a proper place to discuss ideas such as this one?

My (very rough) understanding is that people pay income taxes to the federal tax agency directly. From there, the central US government sends parts of it back to the states, to do things with it such as public services.

Blue states are more economically heavy than red states. They pay in more than they get out. If they stop paying taxes, the US suffers but they get to keep a larger share to themselves? My understanding is very rough, it's just a rough idea.

It could weaken Trump's government?

I also read that cars turned less colorful since 1970s.

And a colleague told me that he read that skirts got longer on average since 1970, but idk about that one.

Also i noticed that most pop music these days are break-up songs.

Really shows you the mood of society.

I think Ireland is still pissed about the Potato Famine, and how other countries treated them in their time of need.

Now they pull out a big "fuck you" to all their neighbors.

Bill Ackman is evil and actively harming the NY and US economy. He wants people to become poorer year after year, until they can't spend on consumption anymore, and that will cripple the economy.

lol, they are losing it

Mamdani’s emphasis on socialism and redistribution of wealth runs counter to Wall Street’s preference for unbridled capitalism and policies that support growth

Mamdani's policies do support growth. If the people have more money, they can spend more, and that stimulates the economy.

Also at room temperature, the average speed of atoms in the material is at 400 m/s, at least for a gas. That might give you a hint.

I used to like and look up to SpaceX for the interesting stuff that they build,

but nowadays i don't care anymore. The company can fail for all i care. Musk spoiled it.

The tipping point, for me personally, was when Musk seriously threatened to slash public spending in February this year. It shows a clear disrespect to the people, and frankly, a sociopathic attitude.

Musk had everything, lots of money, lots of fame, lots of influence, but he threw it all away when he decided to threaten the wellbeing and lifelyhood of a lot of people just so that rich assholes can make an extra buck through tax cuts.

"socialism" in the sense of the french revolution, where they executed lots of people with the guillotine, must never happen again.

The problem with killing people is that it's a lot like eating potato chips: Once you start, it's impossible to stop.

Look at the Reign of Terror that immediately followed the French Revolution. They basically continued to kill people after all of the nobles were gone. These actions discouraged a lot of people and were one big factor that scared potential revolutionaries in other countries away from trying a revolution in their home country as well.

Take the rich's resources, but don't kill them.
"Tax the rich", not "eat the rich".
That is socialism for the 21st century.

it also matters because the complexity of websites is a burden to end-user devices. especially on weak smartphones, as i'm using rn, the power usage of heavy websites sucks a lot, as it considerably slows down the device overall.