No one is obligated to patronize any business or artist (generally speaking). Obligation isn't the issue. But it sounds like, yes, you choose not support/patronize artists who have certain opinions you disapprove of.
I've seen this sentiment floating around the Internet sometimes, and it always strikes me as very limiting.
Netanyahu's legislation would give the Knesset the power to overrule their Supreme Court with a simple majority vote. I've not seen anyone make an argument for such extreme measures to redress the US Supreme Court, and certainly not in this article. The most common arguments I've seen are,
Impose a Code of Ethics, and possibly to impeach the most obviously compromised justices
Add term limits, possibly retroactively
Expand the court
These all have risks, but so does taking no action.
I just tried two of the instances listed with a search for "how to filter mineral spirits", and they both gave me errors. Both Google and DDG gave me an answer. Is there some trick I'm missing here?
Changing the acceptable terminology every decade is never going desegregate a neighborhood, or shrink demographic wealth disparities, or improve health outcomes, etc. I think it's mostly a distraction so people can feel like they're doing something.
Quite right. I did get one with speakers, but they were even worse than I expected. I bought a sound bar to go with it. There are also a few quirks that remind me it's a commercial display. Like there's no power button on the unit. I have to use the remote. I suppose one wouldn't want their signage turned off by randos.
I went on that journey a couple years ago. What I ended up buying is technically considered "digital signage" rather than a TV. Basically zero bloat. You may have to pay a little extra but I don't recall it being that much. Pretty sure I got it here.
This is one of those arguments that never made sense to me. People like to say that adding lanes just creates more traffic, but what is the proposed mechanism? Does anyone suppose that people who didn't want to go somewhere suddenly remembered that the highway added more lanes, and then decided to go for a cruise?
It suggests to me that the demand for transit far exceeds capacity, or that this traffic would otherwise have just taken a different route. Probably some of both.
That's not an argument to just build 15 lane highways everywhere, just that the common form of the supply creates demand argument seems implausible.
It's hilarious how many different definitions of fascism I see on Lemmy on a given day