damnedfurry

Not much, what's on with you?

Men prefer women to do it because women are the only ones with non-permanent options that are 99.x% effective.

Fact is, only the female body has a built-in 'mode' that naturally shuts off fertility, that pharmaceuticals can 'trick' the body into activating, making creating effective contraception for females extremely easy compared to the difficulty level for males.

There is no one to blame for these biological facts of the matter. They are as they are, all we can do is work with what we've got.

There's another wrinkle: pregnancy is a health risk for females, and is the consequence for unprotected sex for them. Males have no equivalent thing that happens to their body as a result of unprotected sex. Contraception needs to be at least as safe as the alternative to be viable. Therefore, female contraceptives need only to be less risky than pregnancy to be viable, while male contraceptives need to be less risky than doing nothing, to be equivalently viable.

Again, this is not anyone's fault. That's just how it is.

Oncome

Despite the current wealth inequality

It's not "despite" the gap, because the gap itself does not cause poverty. If the poorest person in the US made $75k/year (in other words, poverty completely eradicated), the size of the gap would still be pretty much exactly the same (after all, the difference between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the difference between 75k and hundreds of billions, which is the current net worth of those with the most wealth).

After all, 50 years ago, the gap was significantly smaller, but the overall incidence of poverty was much higher.

Someone's always going to have the most. And new wealth is constantly being created. And net worth is a valuation, a price tag, not an amount of cash (which is the primary reason it can go up as fast as it can--cash money simply can't do that). Given these facts, expect this gap to always exist (and almost certainly continue to widen), even after poverty is eradicated.

Looked it up:

McDonald's double cheeseburger hasn't been a dollar for over 15 years (started in 2002, and in 2008, the McDouble replaced it, which had one fewer slice of cheese). And the McDouble itself stopped being a dollar in 2013, over a decade ago. Bit more than "a few years ago"--I think Covid screwed up everyone's perception of time more than usual, lol.

That said, I get lunch at work several times a week at Wendy's and always pay less than $5, not too bad all things considered imo.

Yeah, the gap between the wealthiest and everyone else literally does not matter at all, when it comes to 'motivation for revolution'.

The overall level/amount/condition of poverty is what matters. And let's be real, things are not nearly as bad in the US today as they were in France before the French Revolution. Not even close.

Fact is, if you magically bumped everyone up so that no one was making less than $75k a year, the wealth gap would be essentially identical to what it is now, because the gap between zero and 75k is nothing compared to the gap between 75k and hundreds of billions. But no one would be suffering in poverty, so would anyone care about the wealth gap, then? I seriously doubt it.

The French were starving to death in the streets in 1789. In the US, the average poor person is exponentially more likely to suffer from obesity, than to die from lack of food.

I wouldn't hold my breath for the American people revolt like that--things are simply not nearly as bad in the US now as they were in France then, and it's ignorant to equivocate them like this.

Define "effective".

What changed for the better as a result of his actions, for either him or anyone else?

It's exactly as long as it needed to be to explain everything it explained, and it is a completely dry comment with no real tone at all, the "rudeness" is of your own invention.

Ironically, "Firstly you could read user names before going off" is far ruder than anything I wrote. Also, you're assuming I'm the one who downvoted you--have you considered that maybe your tone earned that from someone else, maybe?

But it has to be for something. And in Balatro, there simply isn't any gambling. You never wager anything to win anything based on that wager. All you have are points, and you can neither wager them, nor lose them in any way, chance-based or otherwise.

There is zero gambling in Balatro.

Minor correction, the three stages in an "ante" are the "blinds". The game instead uses "stake" to describe its 'ascension' system (a common mechanic in roguelixe games, where going to a higher ascension/"stake" adds difficulty modifiers to the game, for those who don't know what I mean by that).

Going off? Yeah, you asked a question, and I answered it. What are you talking about?