BitwiseFool

I don't think anyone is disputing that? The challenge has always been getting people to eat less, not making them realize that is what they need to do.

I think this is reasonable as well, and I wasn't trying to imply it is wrong. My goal was to point out an asymmetry in the system and to give a little more insight into the "homeowners vote, non-homeowners don't" observation of the GP.

And it ultimately seems like politicians have more to fear from the immediate prospect of losing votes from NIMBY constituents than the potential gain of future votes years down the line from grateful new residents.

Furthermore, non-residents aren't able to vote for policies and politicians seek to reform the zoning laws of a district they don't live in.

The success of smartphone AR games seems almost entirely dependent on the IP they are designed around. Pokemon seems perfectly suited towards the model and I struggle to think of any other franchise that has enough going for it to be an engaging AR game. Although plenty of other IP's have tried to make their own Pokemon Go.

Haven't a substantial number of creators turned towards sponsorships and embedded advertising because they felt like YouTube was being too capricious with their monetization policies?

Red Team and Blue Team both pearl clutch about the national debt when it is politically expedient for them to do so. Remember all the hullabaloo about the national debt clock back when it needed an extra digit around 2008?

And on the flip side, why would you ever loan money to someone if you knew you would be forced to forgive some portion of it?

>"There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better."

I used to think this as well, until I started sitting in on HOA and city council meetings. Good lord, even the most seemingly simple proposals are drenched in red tape and artificial barriers imposed by busybodies. I'm not sure how to get around this, sadly.

The challenge is that these attorneys aren't acting in good faith, they're doing it for profit. Although they purport to advocate for the rights of the disabled, their business model is to find violations, however small, file a suit, and then offer to settle for several thousand dollars. Most of these lawsuits happen without an actual disabled person (who isn't the attorney) raising a complaint in the first place.

There was a semi-famous example of an attorney suing Chipotle because the counter was too high and he claimed that he was being denied the full Chipotle experience of seeing the food be prepared in front of him. The workaround of literally bringing the food to him tableside and preparing it in front of him there was not deemed good enough, and Chipotle lost the suit. As you can imagine this attorney makes quite a bit of money going around suing people, for reasons the average person would not find genuine.

"Chipotle argued that its accommodation was adequate and told the Supreme Court that Antoninetti lacked standing to sue. The company cited a federal judge's findings in 2008 that Antoninetti had sued numerous businesses over disability access and had not shown that he was sincere about intending to return to the restaurants if they lowered their barriers." https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Chipotle-loses-disable...

I'm jaded because I know there is a cottage industry of attorneys who go around suing for ADA violations. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some special interest group that goes around claiming automated captions aren't good enough and using them violates their client's civil rights.

>"des podcasts".

Uh oh!

"Cessez d'écouter des “podcasts”, préférez l'audio à la demande" https://actualitte.com/article/7421/distribution/cessez-d-ec...

I don't speak French but I find the official aversion to anglicisms endearing and amusing.

"The Man" would rather have you renting rather than owning. There are also those who see the increased cost of life as a good thing because it would help the Earth due to decreased consumption and a lower population.

>"If you work at a for-profit corporation, your job will be pointless, because the only reason it exists is to generate profits. It's as simple as that."

I certainly understand and can empathize with being jaded about corporate greed, but I don't follow your reasoning on this one. It implies the only jobs that are not pointless are those that don't generate profit?

>"Something that Reddit admins and users constantly miss is: "its the mods that make a subreddit amazing"."

Conversely, the mods can also be mercurial and act like little tyrants over the subreddit. /r/StarTrek in particular is known for stifling criticism around 'new trek' and spinoff subreddits like /r/DaystromInstitute were created by people tired of the mods' actions.

It also raises an interesting question as to why the mods have so much power in the first place and if any community recourse should exist when subscribers do not like the mods' actions. For one thing it does seem weird that the mods of r/StarTrek are allowed to unilaterally close the subreddit.

I've only ever ordered gig-economy delivery a handful of times and stopped because of how expensive it was. That being said I have some friends who order restaurant delivery upwards of five times a week. They must not be deterred by the cost and I genuinely wonder how much more prices would need to increase in order to break their habit.

I struggle to find the right word for this, but I find that Redditors with 10K+ comment karma have an "attitude" that pervades how they respond on virtually every topic. There's this sense of faux-civility and if you have an opinion that slights them in some way the mask comes off and you end up with hostility or sardonic replies that completely misconstrue your point. Then there tends to be a dogpile with downvotes.

Yes, I know reddit can be valuable for niche and non-contentious topics but such examples are becoming increasingly rare. Snark and combativeness pervades the site and it seems to be a function of the voting system and monkey-see, monkey-do from how commenters are rewarded in the default subreddits for this kind of behavior.

I dread AI models being taught to comment like a redditor.

I feel extremely fortunate that I was able to get a sub 3% fixed rate mortgage. I still can't believe that a lender was willing to bet that a 3% mortgage would be profitable over the course of the next 30 years. If I were a lender I wouldn't be happy with issuing fixed rate mortgages.

Redditors often use the awards as a way to send a message that stands out from a regular replies. Reddit also gives away freebie points on occasion in order to entice users into getting into the habit of awarding posts. So it's possible a lot of those rewards are disgruntled redditors using their free rewards to send him a message.

Given how good Apple is at crafting images, I can't believe no one caught how sad and pitiful the scene can look. Surely they could have made the dad a grandfather and made it look much less bleak?

>"That third part cant possibly be constitutional."

The Californian legislative mindset appears to be based on passing bold and far reaching laws and then letting the courts determine constitutionality. They don't seem to have reservations about their own authority.

I refuse to download the app out of principle. I just manually go into the URL bar and add "old." to get the classic experience.

Beyond the "both sides" problem, no State's representation (House and Senate) has any incentive to tangibly reduce spending. Federal money will always be seen as something to maximize for your constituents because it is primarily funded by the rest of the country. Even if you managed to elect some severely stingy representatives, they can only really manage to reduce spending to their own districts. That void would be filled by greedier and less fiscally concerned representatives from other states. Politicians that unilaterally cut spending to their own constituency run the risk of losing the next election to a candidate who has no qualms with bringing in the pork.

To me, they're the same thing: unwelcome.

I am in no way religious, but I have a lot of respect for religious architecture. I suspect the desire to respect and glorify 'the divine' leads to designs that are aesthetically pleasing in a unique way that I can't quite describe.

If you're wondering why international students are so lucrative, it is because the majority of them they pay full price for tuition. This is particularly noticeable at state colleges/universities because those institutions have to provide in-state residents a significant discount.

I like curse words so much that I want to see them used sparingly, lest they lose their impact. There's definitely a time and place for vulgarity and those that use discretion when choosing to employ it get better results than those who don't.

It's attention grabbing for sure, but I feel like a more carefully chosen name would make the discussion and acceptance of the concept go a lot farther.

Admittedly I don't know much about the economics of rocketry, but the Ariane 6 doesn't seem much different from the Ariane 5 and I can't imagine it actually brings much to the table in terms of performance or cost savings, especially in light of how involved the development of it was.

I feel like the movement could have overcome the "corporate talking point" by actually having an organized and focused goal.

I feel like the most significant cause of Occupy's burnout was the fact that it was so poorly organized and had no concrete goal. I don't recall any specific legislation or reform that they were calling to enact and there was a cacophony of voices each calling for some kind of societal revolution. Eventually the local Occupy demonstration turned into a homeless encampment with some signs propped alongside the roadway. I certainly won't deny government meddling but I honestly think the movement was doomed from the start.