yyuugg

He said, on multiple occasions he was opposed to cutting Medicaid, but he did so. He signed a later saying climate change was one of the most extant problems the world faces then later called it a hoax. He said one of the most pressing concerns facing America was ensuring everyone had access tell clean water but repealed the clean water act. He was for universal healthcare, he was for lgbtq people, etc etc.

There are many many such instances.

Not his campaign merch, though that's good to see I guess. He's got business lines in everything from food, to home furnishings, to apparel. Is that all manufactured in America?

If these are strategic assets, nationalize them. Otherwise, stop sending them checks.

Trump supports whatever he supports on a given day. He's as unpredictable as the weather. I'd expect volatility in what he supports.

FWIW, though, he manufacturers his merch overseas doesn't he? Seems like if he supported domestic manufacturing, he'd... use it?

150-200k for a mid career engineer, according to the internet, which does seem a little behind. It's a livable wage in Washington county, Oregon, so if the standard for decent salaries is "pays a livable wage", then it seems they do. But if decent implies more than just livable, then it's questionable.

Do you think starfish and jellyfish are fish? Judging by the name they are...

It's also definitely not not illegal either. Case law is very much tbd.

Having worked with Lua and JS professionally for years, Lua is far, far worse than JS.

I think most people in America are more wary of foreign sounding voices. If the person on the other end sounds like a good ol boy, they get more trust.

Scammers don't have to sound like a specific person to be helped by software like this.

I don't think the parent said they were. "I'm the Nth person to do a shitty thing!" doesn't absolve them of doing a shitty thing. Just because there are other thieves doesn't make theft ok.

"If A (higher T) then not B (higher sex drive)" does not imply "If B then not A".

But agree, these men have built a culture where they believe that's true. I think that they'd be better served by not obsessing so hard. Sex will happen, and it's easiest to get when you are chill, safe, approachable.

And yet, these dudes feel the need to do toxic shit to themselves and others. It's a tragedy.

Even if you believe this, it's still nonsense.

Let's say you believe that trans women are men. And you believe you need to protect cis women. The number of trans women is so vanishingly small, that you've spent a huge amount of energy to prevent the 0.5% case. Legislating always has an opportunity cost, putting forward a bill means not putting forward other bills.

Women suffer domestic violence and sexual violence. 33% of women in the US report experiencing domestic violence. Protect women from that!

Because there are so many ways women suffer in this country, it's very difficult to take on good faith that anyone is protecting them by legislating against trans women. You could choose to solve any problem that affects women orders of magnitude more, but those problems see orders of magnitude fewer bills, if any at all.

No, the data shows this isn't about protecting women, it's about hurting trans people.

Maybe they object to the idea that anyone's labor should be used, for free, to enrich the wealthy. I don't think that's a terrible stance to have, abstractly. I dunno if that was the case here.

Less than one percent of Americans are trans, yet republicans have put forth hundreds of bills to make their lives difficult.

The parent is suggesting that the other side does already do the "imagine if..." thing.

You've moved the goal post. You said "we're better than this". You got several instances where, clearly, we are not.

Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this".

And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff.

Arbitrarily decided is how all judicial and jury decisions are made. They're all arbitrary. There are no objective court cases like this one. We have a justice system, it arbitrates. Sometimes those decisions are surprising. But like, using arbitrary in this way suggests you don't like the judicial apparatus generally.

"We are doing labor, and are not being fairly compensated for our labor" is a hilarious basis? How so?

Luddites were highly educated, skilled workers whose work was being replaced by machines. They just wanted to operate the machines and share in the increased productivity.

There's absolutely no parallels here, to AI. A machine that is taking work from highly skilled labor ohhhh wait

The machine itself and the operator are a problem. It is an unnecessarily dangerous machine and the operators do not operate them safely.

In American English "next best thing" means second best. It is used to suggest an alternative when you can't get what you want. "Don't have Coke, maybe get a Pepsi, it's the next best thing."

"Next big thing" means upcoming good thing.