“Splintering” sounds kinda negative, which bothers me. It’s a good thing if there’s less in the way of walled garden monopolies.

Too busy watching infinite porn, apparently.

It seems wise to always to agree with whatever these guys say, if there’s no binding language involved. So yes, sure, the EU is literally Stalin.

If you have to be in the club to see it, I can’t help but wonder if it’s not there.

Like, it could be that I just don’t get it, but until I see actual blind tests it’s suspicious.

I mean, it’s all blueberries in tomato soup, if you go granular enough.

Eh, both can cook off.

Negatively for sure, although if they choose the worst farmland it might be by a significantly less than 10%. People can decide if the tradeoff is worth it for themselves, I guess.

“Timmy, I swear, if you don’t stop stabbing Trevor with that crayon, I’m going to vapourise you with a small, tactical air interception device”

War, or shooting down cruise missiles with MANPADs? Technically, you could do the latter in peacetime.

Or yours, mate.

I think a lot of people on Lemmy do it for emotional reasons, too. They can’t handle a grey-on-grey world, they need it to be black and white.

So then the global north also supports Russia? Of course not.

You’ve only proven that nobody has strong principles at all, here.

I mean, it’s not that clear-cut. There’s still people who have a nice job and save a lot of money, it’s just a somewhat smaller group than there used to be, and at the same time the gap with non-nice jobs is larger. Furthermore, $900 is still $900, I question if some random shareholder really cares about a stranger’s raise that much.

More redistribution would help the inequality problem, for obvious reasons, though. You’re right about that. I also don’t buy that nobody will do anything without a small chance of becoming a billionaire, or that billionaires are really hundreds of thousands of times smarter than the average person and we need them to be happy.

At least in the original experiment, anyway. According to Wikipedia, later Victorian authors claimed it always worked, but modern scientists think that’s huey. Ponds can and do get slowly too hot in nature, so it’d be weird if that was just lethal.

Honestly, if you’re family is okay, not living with them because you don’t want to seem lame was always a dumb use of resources. That might be one of the stupidest things white people ever invented, and we did savoury salads embedded in jello.

And this is why it’s good to have a ton of different options - and preferably a society that accepts them all.

I know of other situations. Sometimes they give well still alive to avoid the taxes, haha.

Just to make sure I’ve pissed off everyone, it’s not boomers buying Temu every week. Climate change is a very abstract, slow moving problem, and if I had to guess humans just have a limit.

The funny thing is, we talk mad shit about frogs, but they actually will jump out of a pot that gets too warm - although they probably don’t think too deeply about it, as much as they just get uncomfortable.

I think it’s worse, actually. People genuinely don’t want to stop climate change if it requires any personal financial sacrifice.

The carbon tax pays out exactly as much as it takes in, even, and it’s not enough.

Albeit slowly cutting emissions. Nobody’s doing enough to actually stop climate change much ahead of schedule, as far as I know.

The bad news is that we’re probably going to get rid of our one significant emissions reduction program next election, because people don’t actually care that much.