School_Lunch

The Renaissance was a time of a vast labor shortage. This allowed workers to demand higher wages, and it also allowed leisure time to study new things and make new art.

"We're all domestic terrorists"

What future uses might it have? I have only ever heard that crypto's main selling point is that it's not controlled by any government. Why is that a good thing? I can understand that sanctioned dictators and money launderers would find that useful, but what benefits are there for the average person? You might be able to make a profit off speculation if you're lucky, but in doing so you're also supporting those dictators and criminals. If it had any other use it might seem less like a pyramid scheme, but I am fully unaware of what those other uses might be.

I don't even care if I'm not rewarded. I just don't want to be punished. They have made it impossible to have a simple life.

When I first moved in to my apartment, I became friends with one neighbor because I could hear him coughing through the wall and asked to buy some weed off him one day. He would occasionally ask me to take care of his dog when he was out of town. He has since moved and a nice old lady moved in. On the other side of my apartment is a special needs adult with care workers constantly coming and going, so not so much making friends anymore.

He was carrying around the gun and a manifesto... he was trying to be caught. Dude probably was going out to eat every meal and getting frustrated that no one called the cops on him till today.

I hereby nominate "The Adjuster" for president. He now can not be prosecuted and all investigations against him are no more than political witch hunts.

And then one of the strangers approaches you to tell you how they also lost their child recently and gives you a lot of support resources. The joke is no longer funny and you feel like an ass.

If I remember right, the rich confederates hid their wealth during the war in banks in Montreal. There were definitely Canadians who were allies with them.

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

"Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of."

It doesn't. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn't make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I'd say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren't due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I'm talking about policies with less than 50% support.

That's a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don't tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It's better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.