pnongrata

Key word is perception. A society can be very inaccurate in how it perceives its own country. Take the US, for example. In a recent survey, people were largely off regarding inequality. There are other instances of crooked relationship between entities that people (and laws, even) don't regard as corruption, such as lobbying, affecting perception outcome in surveys.

Probably the "greatest" achievement of the PT government is that many Brazilians now take the word of criminals in plea bargain deals as true narratives for their country. Very sad.

I find it's very hard to watch anything Netflix-related without a grain of salt.

If GitHub was granted an exclusive word trademark, then copying some or all of it should result in an accepted opposition by the USPTO. It doesn't matter if the offender company is in another segment, since GitHub is a notorious trademark (i.e. if you try to trademark MacHair for a hair salon, you will get sued by Apple and/or Macdonald's).

However, I don't think it's the case, since the word GIT has been used by other entities long before GitHub came to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't have GitLab, for instance.

People play and have been playing violent videogames all over the world for many years.

Much like mass shootings, violence in videogames might be symptoms of rots within our capitalist society.

Very powerful people are profiting off our rots.

> Traveling allows you to viscerally see how people live and value things differently from you. There is much to be gained from it if you do it for the right reasons.

Yes, they also have tours to help you 'experience' the life of a local, like going through a favela in Rio. Anedoctal, but from what I've seen it can be really offensive to people on those places, because it works pretty much like a safari.

Maybe you meant 'oil'?

Thus, reinventing it, no?

We can start by voting for politicians that are not tied to corporate money.

A few examples of things we could do to stop a little the bleeding out of democracies:

1. Outlaw lobbying;

2. Tax the ass off the filthy rich;

3. Break up big corporations in tech, oil, media, you name it. No more monopolies or monopsonies;

4. Change the electorate system.

5. Increase work conditions. Higher wages, jobs availability, social welfare, etc.

The obvious takeaway is that if you reduce wealth inequality you get a healthier society and democracy.

Meanwhile companies are hijacking governments by pouring billions of dollars directly or indirectly in order to push policies that benefit their profit-driven agenda.

Big companies and governments go hand in hand, so the only way to enact some REAL change is to strike where the MONEY is and cut their economic power.

A vote becomes worthless in a society where lobbying is legalized and media channels have economic interests in play.

See conspicuous comsuption by Veblen:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspicuous-consumption#ref...

Why should there be any superpower policing other countries? IMO, China, like any other country strong enough to put up a fight, so to speak, acts out of self-preservation. It's understandable if you look at US' decades long foreign policies.

As a complement to your list, I'd say it's more marketable AND makes the transition for some people more smooth.

That's maybe not what has been said here, but it's said pretty much in every discussion I've been. They argue that religion is necessary to "give" us a good moral compass, that without it we would be lost, etc.

If what you are saying is true, then predominantly atheist countries (or societies) are mainly unethical and immoral (exaggeration). Children of atheist parents will grow to be rapists psychos (also exaggeration).

It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people. There isn't a single "good" that church does to other people that couldn't be done by secular means.

Taxes are also a way to disincentivize "behaviors", like taxing alcohol and tobacco, taxing pollution emitters.

Both quotes are true. He never says the author created the theory.

Not many people care about startup failures, except high profile ones.

There wasn't consensus before about racist laws and forced sterilization. As a matter of fact, they were completely moral! Consensus on the immorality of it was achieved after many people struggled with the judiciary system and lawmakers. It takes a whole lot of noise to open some eyes.

It is completely reasonable to hold a judge's discretion and judgement under scrutiny.

It would be great if everyone had good working conditions and decent wages.

Agreed. I think one of the messages she is trying to convey is that the legal system is 'bogus'. So it's coherent refusing to play ball with it.

People debate about that all the time, whether there's life, a 'soul', etc.

Don't forget "economic warfare", where the US crushes its "enemiy countries" through painful sanctions, which always leaves the poorest portions of those countries in shambles. Not to mention the refugee crisis it creates, which in turn has the "pleasant" effect of lowering wages across the globe.

This Jobs story sounds like some myth-building BS that shouldn't ever be applied in the real world.

I would very much like to see some evidence to your claim, other than anecdotal.

Couldn't stand 5 minutes looking at it, sadly.

There is. Innocent means you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty, OTOH, means that the current presented evidence was not sufficient to determine that you did commit the crime, thus not meeting its burden of proof.