APassenger

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Ad hoc and poison the well while being very wide of the mark, too.

Nicely done.

My politics align more with Sanders than anyone well known politician. Surplus is surplus and the left needs to retain the right to call a spade a spade.

Not all infrastructure spend is good. I'm both envious of what they have and stymied by articles documenting unused cities.

For ease of research, I recommend "China ghost cities." Maybe those cities will make sense and not every idea has to work, but that is surplus, ergo excess.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Did you read the article before posting?

There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.

And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.

Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.

Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they're doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).

If someone has a source or refutation, I'll click and read, but until then I'll run with what I find.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

ITT: a lot of "either/or"

I'm not sure that evolution cares one wit about any of our theories. If it means I'm the dad and I'm the dad more often... then it will be favored.

If I enjoy it more, she enjoys it more or it means that my sperm have increased likelihood of winning... that's all that matters.

And when I say "or" above, it can include any of those things. It need not be exclusive.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They have no heart or soul, only brief flickers of "try" followed by "squirrel!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If everyone who claims that is a loon (and they may be), then the leakers are auto-discredited.

Again and with clear emphasis because it looks like it was missed: I'm not saying UAPs are extraterrestrial. I'm making a meta-point.

If leakers are almost automatically easily classed as loons, then any inquiry isn't an inquiry. They may be off their rockers.

And even "super-advanced tech" need not have extraterrestrial origin. But UAPs happen. We all seem to have forgotten O'Hare. Whatever happened was in passenger jet airspace.

Regardless of what planetary origin, UAPs deserve inquiry.

This is a thought provoking book. The author was even interviewed by Colbert and presented very cogently. Which is why I bought and read it.

Before anyone knee-jerks, it attempts to only use the most credible UAP encounters and looks at them with skepticism and a scientific mind.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

It was their fiduciary responsibility, wasn't it?

The shareholders weren't going to get a better offer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It wouldn't though. I'm not saying UAPs are extraterrestrial. I'm saying as long as each person who leaks is met with plenty of, "no, you're crazy." It would help contain it.

Both with pressure and delegitimization. Now... proof is the thing that's required. Not simply testimony.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

You've done it here, you're doing it in others threads.

Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.

It's an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.

You're boiling the options down to a suck ass, "eat your dinner" message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.

We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn't working. Then voting for what we got when we must.

Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, "this is the best I can do." You can do more than that.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No. It was alpha. If Google approves, look for excitement tomorrow.

I can accept a day or two of delay if I get a functional app for lemmy. I miss Sync so much...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

I'm not saying to do something other than voting. I'm saying you keep framing this like that's the only thing when they could do more.

Voting is not the only option. It's a good one, but we have more/additonal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Needs a far better citations. Than "unnamed soldiers."

Not saying nothing happened, but I'm saying your headline/the story is thin.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not even a little.

There was th Civil War and white folk got to pretend shit was settled while back folk knew better. Took until the 60s for things to start to shake up and even then White's weren't sure they should support something like requiring equal treatment.

Then we got the Voting Rights Act Then SCOTUS, in recent years, decided we didn't need that anymore. People are legitimately surprise the Court decided this way. Recent rulings have been a constant erosion.

view more: ‹ prev next ›