I saw a tip a while back that you could search for "commercial display panel" or something and buy high-quality dumb TVs with a few HDMI inputs and that's about it. They're designed for restaurants or shops, so they're reliable and good looking, but dead simple.
I don't honestly remember if that was the right phrase, though.
Make a rule not to eat while you're doing anything else: watching a show, playing a game, reading a book, browsing Reddit Lemmy. When you're eating, focus on the food. Taste and enjoy it. And when that gets boring or you feel full, set it aside and go do the other things.
Then what's your explanation for the huge rise in life expectancy and food availability--starting in capitalist Western countries, and then spreading to the rest of the world along with the market economy?
Capitalism is certainly imperfect at distribution of food and medicine. As the saying goes: it's the worst system, aside from every other that has existed. And the margin isn't particularly close.
You date the origin of capitalism to Columbus? Seems pretty arbitrary. Markets date back thousands of years, and recognizably capitalist forms of government emerged in the 18th and 19th century at the earliest. Columbus was sponsored by a king seeking new land, not capitalists seeking new markets.
Alternative systems such as...? I can think of several, but none I'd describe as 'successful'.
It's kind of a red flag (no pun intended) when your preferred system can be destabilized with some money stuffed in the right pockets, isn't it? Most failed systems that were 'undermined by capitalists' mostly involved funding and support, not invasion or anything. Meanwhile, democracy and capitalism emerged in the midst of hostile aristocracy and royalty, and survived decades of attempts by the USSR (and now Russia) to undermine it.
My personal opinion is that those systems were doomed from conception, though I don't deny that the US certainly engaged in speeding their demise.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. Both populations and consumption increased under the Soviets, and any other system you care to name, proportionate to their effectiveness at keeping people fed and healthy.
This isn't a property of capitalism, though. It's a property of humanity, and really of life. What capitalism did was just to efficiently provide food and medicine to people, and the population graph turned into a hockey stick.
Is starvation and infant mortality preferable? Do you think if people had found some (as yet unknown) economic system that was as effective at supplying food and medicine, people wouldn't have had kids? And if they did keep having kids, wouldn't that have taxed the planet like capitalism has done?
I'm finding it better. Yeah, there's less content and diversity, but the quality feels a lot better. I'm interested in a much larger share of the posts I see.
The Million Dollar Homepage. Some guy made a 1000x1000 canvas and sold every pixel for $1. Lots of dot-com tech companies bought little banners and stuff.
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. The 'evil' is the same force that replaced carriages with cars? The world would be better if carriage-making was still a critical profession?
I saw a tip a while back that you could search for "commercial display panel" or something and buy high-quality dumb TVs with a few HDMI inputs and that's about it. They're designed for restaurants or shops, so they're reliable and good looking, but dead simple.
I don't honestly remember if that was the right phrase, though.