It isn't a monopoly. iphones are not a public utility, and anyone can buy a different phone on which they can install apps.
635 karma · joined February 17, 2023
That is, I don't find it fundamental to our psychology nor history. To address your perspective.
It's an atheists view, sure. It assumes that if one god is real, then all gods must be real. Because in the mind of the atheist, all are equal in that they are imaginary or, at best, avatars of psychological phenomena.
It necessarily assumes the inverse logic that if 1,999 gods are fake, then 2,000 gods must be fake.
Again, because they are all fundamentally equal. And therefore it is the Christians that are illogical because they have dismissed 1999 gods as fake but couldn't quite get there for the Last God Standing.
I believe that's the sum of it.
Which is a statement that about illustrates the intellectual limit for atheism. I will give Ricky credit for that much.
Where Ricky's quip stops and Christian logic starts is that Christians know that their singular God is not imaginary nor an avatar, but is a living being. With the figurative 1999 additional gods indeed being either imaginary, psychological avatars, or worse.
Which is clear to the Christian, because he understands something singularly fundamental about Christianity's God that others may not. This fundamental characteristic, at minimum, is the difference between real and fake.
At which point the atheist would quip that there is no logic to see the Christian God as different from the other 1999 Gods, and as concrete.
The Christian would finish up with telling the atheist that their failure to see the difference is a failure in being able to interpret the Bible, a failure in being able to interpret the Christian religion, and a failure to understand their own nature including from where they come.
Some of this lack of understanding on the part of atheists is rooted in a lack of perspective that is otherwise glaringly true, and a lack of logical rigor. In other words, they take too many lies on faith.
The conversation frequently continues with a debate over supposed proofs rooted in belief (faith) for atheists.
With the Christian making more general appeals to their own faith that is rooted in Biblical and religious interpretation, ideally combined with their own verifying observations about the nature of the World.
Or, for those who have blindly committed based on instinct, then just appeals to faith alone. Which is also acceptable, because it is a correct instinct. Being a Christian doesn't hinge on knowledge alone. It hinges on faith. There are good reasons for this state of affairs.
What both sides will agree on is that he who believes in the least lies "wins" so to speak. The process of parsing being roughly parallel to discovering the rules of a game. The disagreement is over the substance of the lies. What Judeo-Christianity does is attempt to convey those rules in clear-enough language, even if the motivation to follow them is solely based on faith. With deeper Bible reading often being revelatory for greater insight.
Whereas the atheist dismisses the traditional rules out of lack of faith and lack of understanding, and often then devolves into inventing his own rules. Which is specifically against the rules, but does align with the atheist's chaos theory of his own existence.
I agree that they shouldn't do business in the EU.
Affording it is another discussion.
If Apple weren't popular, then its payment control within its own system wouldn't matter.
If other companies have an issue, then they can build their own software, their own hardware, and compete.
You don't understand the term "rent seeking". Because in this case, it's Apple's competitors that are rent seeking by utilizing the force of the government to make Apple give competitors access to its private but non-monopolistic ecosystem.
I think that Apple should call that bluff and leave the EU.
Which in turn will increase public pressure on the EU, but not as functionally as it would in a democratic system.
All hollow talk. It will lose all of its aggression the moment that Apple leaves the EU, and EU citizens are left with the remaining options.
Not learning to write and not learning to write well until... are not remotely the same thing.
Kids are inherently joyful, unless they are abused. One doesn't have to teach kids to find joy.
Whereas an admonishment to "teach kids to find joy", aka: "do what you feel like" according to the article, rings true as detached from reality self-talk meant to make adults feel good about themselves. Its almost a class signal, that is a privilege signal. With varying results across classes.
Unmitigated bs.
Use your web browser and find an in-network hospital via the website. Like a person.
This article stretches the limits of credibility.
Garbage premise and clickbait title.
I could continue on to talk about the "walled garden" issue, but I don't think that step is even warranted given the facts.
Being wrong about the effects of (and rationale for) a crime is a symptom of criminal insanity.
For example, you think that the crime that you facilitate is "justice" for perceived wrongs but in reality it is only the execution of an innocent man with a family. Such a delusion is the definition of criminal psychosis.
>All it takes is valuing other things above the life taken.
Very seriously, see a skilled therapist. Tell them what you wrote. Hope that they are able to begin to help you.
That doesn't meant that there aren't special programs apart from that. Because I'm not of the demographic, I didn't dig into how a Chinese, Indian, or African student or family, for example, might qualify for residency under whatever qualifications. Last, I assume that there's been a significant amount of refugee resettlement.
But if you are an average person from the US, you may be boxed into the standard calculations.
Undoubtedly Adobe has legions of users who take a more nuanced view of Adobe and who would also be the type to use Bluesky. And yet.
I'd consider the complaints to be essentially the emotions that come up when people covet unaffordable privately created property.
If you are a French speaking PhD in a preferred industry who is under 29 years old, you may be gtg.
So they are tactically not paying the doctors after agreeing to, as perhaps the best legal chance to escape payment that still avoids the primary PR focus: the patient.
The public is going to now have pity on doctors, and from a strict terms of agreement standpoint they may have a good point.
However, these aren't normal times. And what we may be seeing is a type of insurance industry early death throe.
First, lets preface any further commentary by the fact that it must be kept in mind that the sole reason that doctors make a lot of money, at least "a lot" relatively speaking from certain perspectives and in certain roles, is the insurance industry. Otherwise, they'd be paid mostly like plumbers.
And so a shifting of financial pressure to doctors, or anyone else who is both politically and legally vulnerable, may be expected during existential changes in the insurance industry.
Next, I'll suggest that when a portion of the public looks to break the system, even for noble reason in their minds, that what they finally get may be completely unpredictable. And I'm not primarily speaking of this specific tactic, but rather of an unforeseen end-point.
Some unavoidable truths:
a. The insurance industry can only remain financially solvent when it has the ability to turn down claims, specifically those that the terms allow it to.
b. A certain portion of the public wants Universal Healthcare.
c. Any future denied claims will be framed as catastrophically unjust by this portion of the public, even if insurance carriers were to significantly (somehow) adjust their models to be able to operate while paying more claims and keeping premiums the same. There is no placating this portion of the public within the current system.
d. Some within this sector of the public, like Luigi Mangione, are criminally insane. They are willing to engage in terrorism and murder to destroy the insurance industry in the hope of eventually arriving at Universal Healthcare.
e. Some of the Press is politically supporting this criminally insane contingent.
f. If the Insurance industry can no longer function, or is otherwise forced to raise premiums beyond which many can afford in order to be able to pay out virtually all catastrophic claims, what will happen is either it will cease to exist or people will go without individual insurance and then businesses will stop offering insurance.
g. There is zero guarantee that the next step is Universal Healthcare. Saying that it is inevitable, for the United States specifically and after destroying the private insurance industry, is like saying that a manned NASA mission to Mars is inevitable because private aviation is deeply flawed.
The article author is a complete piece of shit for suggesting that the Brian Thompson assassination was due to anything other than the psychosis of a maniac. Mangione is criminally insane, and so are his sympathizers. At least to the extent that they aren't too low IQ to understand what happened while somehow still having an opinion.
As the value of money is always relative to its scarcity. More money held by all individuals always leads to higher prices, because it leads to money being worth less. Life only becomes less expensive when making more money than others. This is a basic dynamic of how money works, at its most fundamental level.
Society would need price controls to stop shelf prices from rising, and to maintain the beneficial effect of UBI (being able to afford more goods). At that point shortages are incoming, and UBI income functionally transforms from money to credits for goods. Even if it is still called money. Credits implies a limit on how much goods people are allotted, even if given credits / money to redeem said allotment. The government needs to decide how much in goods each individual is allotted.
This is where it gets bad. Communist propaganda practice is to promise that the communist society will allot a maximum amount goods per person out of its GDP, implying an evenly distributed yet relatively well off populace. Visualize a pie that is cut in large slices and completely distributed.
The rub is that the government gets to keep any part of the pie that is not distributed, and so its incentive is to distribute the least amount of the pie and the smallest slices. Which is what we see in practice. People given the minimum of their collective production value to sustain their existence. With the government hoarding the rest. Slaves in all but name.
The government now has a taste of control over wealth distribution for part of its GDP, which it enacts via entitlement over some production value of work and private business. Whatever production value is left for the private sector economy is now tempting for the government to also take over and minimally distribute in the same manner, because again the government gets to keep much of the money. Private business and employment begin to become dirty words.
We live in a World that is dominated by the fundamental nature of money, some would call it a fallen world. Making a low amount of money feels like a slave's existence.
However, at least in a free market economy there is a type of escape hatch from that existence should someone figure out how to provide society with relatively more value than others. Whereas in a socialist society, that escape hatch tends to legally close as the years tick by and the personal allotment of goods declines.
Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".
It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.
Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.
Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.
I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.
You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!
The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.
I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.
Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.
But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.
Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing.
Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won.
Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent.
Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver...
Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-...
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...
Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why?
You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language.
Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else.
Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage?
What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem.
You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board.
It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise.
How do you intend to win?
US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United States. Which is irrelevant, on balance, in the modern period.
What are these complaints about? DJT in general? Same record, different guy. Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.
A bottomless fall along which that particular immortal complaint is always relevant is no fall at all. Which was my implication about the relative silliness of the boilerplate comments.
This isn't even a defense of any particular issue. More like a wish for a better breed of critic, if nothing but for a change of pace and interest. Or maybe because we need actually effective critics, to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
I mean, "they aren't aware of their own interests" is truly basement tier immature rhetoric.
Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.
Education isn't virtue signaling, and it's value isn't because it is virtuous. It's value is that it provides a deeper understanding of the foundations of civilization and language. Speaking solely of literature education.
>If there is anywhere in the World where we should question the value of that, it's on a forum dedicated to helping entrepreneurs build new things and to disrupt the World away from that kind of thinking.
Just because you write the words "should question" and "disrupt" doesn't imply that either of these actions are ultimately correct.
>Literature does socialize kids to values, whether you or I like it or not. It socializes adults too: that's the point of literature. We're all just stochastic parrots. Literature - and all other art - shapes what we parrot.
I disagree with your generalizations. Some literature might have that effect in a significant manner, some in a moderate manner, and some in an insignificant manner. The point being that traditional literature education doesn't hijack the curriculum to effect that primary goal, whereas your values are apparently so abandoned and otherwise unattractive that you feel the need to hijack literature education in order to force them on students. Who gets a vote as to what values will be taught, exactly? I assume that you'd be uncomfortable with that. It's better to keep explicit partisan politics and political grooming out of the secondary classroom.
>And yes, I also happen to think a lot of it is very dull writing liked by fusty old men in universities, rather than being a list of material that makes a person of impressionable age take something of it to use for themselves as they go out into the World. It's a missed opportunity. It is therefore dull and mediocre, in my view.
I think that your view is dull and mediocre. Lots of students love the material of the traditional curriculum, for good reason.
>I'm allowed to share my view on this mater as a comment, on a site dedicated to people sharing their opinions as comments. I'm sorry that my doing so seems to have upset you.
It doesn't upset me. I'm just not letting it stand as an assertion of facts.
>you are affronted by someone saying things you disagree with for reasons you can't explain
Don't gaslight me. I can explain my views perfectly, and was clear.
In contrast with you obviously and necessarily needing to be cagey with your full views. Like exactly what you want to see taught and replaced, down to the book. And why.
Whereas I correctly discerned and stated that you have partisan political motivations and want to see a shift toward student indoctrination with your preferred political principles. As a primary goal of the literature classroom.
Just like any sneak who can't bear to the thought of leaving the overt task of values to parents, education to teachers, and whatever you are peddling to less impressionable adults.
If your preferred values are so attractive then they students can become better acquainted with their explicit curriculum as adults. And make reasoned decisions about them.
All the while being more prepared and confident due to their better education.
What else did you want to know?
>I also have a concern that they aren't a great foundation for a young person approaching adulthood trying to understand their place in the World and their own beliefs and values about themselves and the World they live in.
Is your concern valuable because your opinion of a standard literature list is that the books are mediocre or provide a mediocre education? Why should we care that you, specifically, are concerned? Or why you, specifically, see the list as mediocre and dull?
You seem to be implying that literature has to socialize kids to values (those that you prefer, I assume). You seem to be perturbed that everything that a child reads may not cater to that goal.
What I see is an essay whining about how standard English lit material isn't teaching kids political material that the writer prefers.
Ironic to the post-author's role as a literature critic, the post is too indirect and employs too many words toward expressing that complaint.
In general, these books are categorically different. The provided list isn't missing them. They'd just be on a different list.