roboticide

It's not. It's a common mathematical fallacy stumbled upon by crackpots who think they're geniuses and have found a fundamental problem with math.

There's a math professor at Harvard who gets sent this "proof" like once a month.

Exactly this. Police unions should go. The UAW is pretty rotten too. The DoJ cleaned them up a little bit in the last few years with those corruption charges, but working with UAW in the plant is a crapshoot. Some are fine, some are shitheads just exploiting the fact that they can do basically anything and not be fired. And the workplace environment in non-union automotive plants is so much better than union plants and the pay comparable enough, it makes you wonder what benefit the UAW currently really provides.

But teachers, teamsters, actors, Starbucks even... Those unions are doing some good work.

They planned on implementing a change, and we protested that change, but users and mods gave in and that change happened anyway. The protest failed.

You can reframe that all you want, but we did not accomplish the actual objective of the protest, which was changes to API pricing. We lost.

I was a mod too. A very active user too. I left. And I'm happy I left, but that's just being happy that defeat doesn't taste nearly so bitter because there are viable alternatives.

Good article.

Definitely anti-NFT.

Most mods who actually cared were purged and replaced with lackeys which I'd bet money on were checked to see if they use the official app.

The new and current mods won't be a problem. They'll happily eat this bullshit straight from the trough.

Right? Like someone actually wrote that.

After what Spez did. A few weeks ago. Fuck, maybe Spez himself wrote it.

I know we lost and the protests failed, but still, to write something like that... Doesn't actually surprise me, but also I'd think even a total moron would have enough self awareness not to say that.

I mean, boo hoo?

I bought a house, not because I wanted an investment, but I wanted a place to live. Fuck the CCP, but man were they on the money saying "Houses are for living in," their current, ironic, housing bubble aside. Houses are homes. You want an investment vehicle, buy stocks or bonds.

If the people who see housing as an investment are outweighed by the people who simply want an affordable home as a right, it's become an unsustainable and unjust privilege and needs to be rectified.

Also, I think this ignores the larger factors of: poor zoning due to NIMBY-friendly policies at the local level, and corporate greed as companies, not people, buy up supply. Solve these two problems and we don't have to pick between housing as a right and housing as an investment.

We didn't cut off all their profit potential. It's just limited.

I don't really see the problem with this hypothetical. Small time flippers are unaffected. 10% or whatever profit is still profit. If it disincentivizes big commercial flippers or investors because they can no longer make "enough" profit, good, that's the point.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Economists want a perfect supply-demand capitalist dreamland. Demand drastically outstripping supply indicates something is wrong with The System^TM and that's not acceptable, so they want to fix The System^TM .

It's clear the demand is there, so it's not a consumer problem. The supply is super-limited and being reduced every day. That's a supply problem. The only options are incentives (don't really work in this situation) or regulation (which economists hate but no other choice).

I assume most economists just don't want to see what happens when that system reaches an absolute breaking point, so sign on for regulations it is.

Same. I paid off my loans but I'd love it if my friends and wife had an easier time. To say nothing of the millions being dragged down by over a trillion in debt.

But I get why people who may have invested in Student Loan asset backed securities might not want student loans forgiven. SLABS may be part of 401Ks or pension plans. I think debt shouldn't be something people can even invest in, but for those who did, I get why they oppose it. It could even potentially harm a student paying back a loan who also has a retirement account that invested in SLABS.

And this absolutely is just a band aid on a gaping wound. It doesn't actually resolve the problem, and with no attempt to remedy it in the future, I can see it just making college access even more difficult for the less fortunate.

Biden should do everything he can to push it forward, but that is just a first step, and the people opposed to it may have some valid concerns.

If John Wayne is the standard for being a "man," I'll stay a "boy" thanks.

I think my wife who I don't abuse won't mind it either.

I mean, that's definitely a fair opinion I guess.

I enjoyed it. It has an 81%/94% score on RT, versus 85%/87% for GotG 2 and 92%/92% for GotG 1, so I find it really hard to understand how anyone could find it particularly "terrible."

I think the High Evolutionary was a pretty good villain. We got a lot of resolution specifically to the Guardians and I have a hard time buying that it was inconsequential? Like, did we watch the same movie?