24_at_the_withers

joined 1 year ago
[–] 24_at_the_withers 2 points 2 months ago

Sadly, reading comprehension of Lemmy users leaves a lot to be desired.

I also think many that misunderstand something would rather entrench and make a ridiculous argument than admit any kind of fault.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Tapped out tenderloin?

[–] 24_at_the_withers 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But. But. But it says "do no evil," right on the box! ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

[–] 24_at_the_withers 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have two pickup trucks that are basically identical, only separated by year of manufacture - a 1990 and 1991 Chevy Silverado. The 1990's transmission is bad.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 35 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Eh, I think it's more related to survivorship bias of the movies we remember. Most movies from decades ago were utter trash then too, we mostly remember the good ones while most of the rubbish fades away and is forgotten.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're talking about income tax rates, and I agree that the top tax rates should be higher, but this won't fix the problem because billionaires don't make their money from salaries. Most of their money is theoretical and tied up in ownership of shares of a company.

They can sell shares or earn dividends to make money, so capital gains should also be taxed at a much higher rate. But billionaires often choose not to sell shares either because they have a better option...

They take out low interest rates loans using their shares as collateral. The interest rates they are charged are generally going to be far lower than the interest on their stocks that stay invested,. This is where most of their liquidity comes from, because loans aren't taxed, and in some regard is almost an infinite money glitch for billionaires.

I think we need to make it illegal to use financial holdings as collateral for loans, at least for starters.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 3 points 2 months ago

Good point, but it's not that either. I guess most of the people here don't watch the ground crews at the airport before boarding - it seems these clamshell panels are opened between every flight (or at least very frequent intervals) for engine inspections and probably oil sampling. The far and away most likely cause is the ground crew forgot to latch the panel back up after performing their inspection.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 6 points 3 months ago

This happened in port, not international waters. Normal rules will apply. Seizing assets from a foreign company may be a little more difficult if it comes to that, but it'd probably be in Maersk's best interest to pay up rather than lose the ability to do business in the U.S.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 7 points 3 months ago

Uh, the normal way. Fines, lawsuits and potentially sanctions, if needed.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Maybe not if it were an American company on the brink of collapse, but Maersk is a Danish company - and an exceptionally wealthy/profitable one at that. The cities, governments, and companies that are all affected by this will be eager to collect their pound of flesh from Maersk.

[–] 24_at_the_withers 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're definitely right, and I kindof lumped those together - it's hard to write a complete response during a poop break at work.

I was not aware of 'athiest christian nationalists' being a thing. Fascinating.

I also didn't adequately explain that I feel 'modern' Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, much less the content of the Bible even as a whole. It seems it's much more a justification of their targeted hatred.

view more: ‹ prev next ›