Classic skullet
Do you have to sign in to Bluesky to see all content, or just videos?
Boom headshot
I did not, but I do now!
Now do your usernma
The Great Leveler
Germany's Left Party wants to halve billionaires...
It's another clickbait article about roads with no intent but to rile people up
You are correct about uncontrolled intersections, this suggests we could remove the separate pedestrian signals at traffic lights
As shown in the image: "Pedestrians walking the same diection as main road traffic share the same green light"
As you say (and included in the article) there's a stunningly obvious reason we don't do this already: pedestrians are vulnerable, and we can make good estimates about how long the pedestrian red should be to allow safe crossing
Just put 'making intersections less safe' over there on the garbage pile with 'speed has no impact on the likelihood or severity of accidents'
"Did you hear about that crash in Washington?" "Yeah, the Republicans took $3.8m in bribes from Delta to let them cram in an unsafe number of flights, and now 70 people are dead"
That's it, that's the response. No Republican will read this if you send them a link. Just give them true sound bites.
If they say DEI, just ask them about the bribes. If they say terrorism ask them about the bribes. If they blame Biden ask them about the bribes. Don't engage with any sentence that doesn't include the word bribe.
I didn't say "Websters Dictionary defines" - I showed that the word is in common usage as a non-perjorative by Jewish sources
A simple search of DDG found multiple Jewish sources using and explaining the use of the word 'zionist' as an adjective for individual persons e.g.
The Times of Israel: "To be a Zionist means to recognise the land of Israel as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and to believe in the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Zion, or Israel."
Permanently Deleted
They mention in the article that they chose to use dollar stores to demonstrate the challenge of eating well in food deserts
And this sentence in the conclusion is pretty spot-on:
"Targeted policy to expand food access ... will be necessary for the Lancet climate food plan to become effective."
Life, uh, finds a way
Every Best Picture Winner Ranked by How Good a Muppets Version Would Be
"Imagine this. Kermit the Frog in his little Columbo jacket and tiny fedora, backed up by Fozzy, Gonzo, Miss Piggy, and Rizzo. What are they doing? Uncovering the sexual abuse crimes of the catholic church. Billion dollar box-office."
And considering that the book has nothing to do with space...
Circling back to the books - Bond is actually your everyday high level intelligence officer with a 9 to 5 job, except that a couple of times per year M needs someone he can trust who has a licence to kill
I think the article is a bit thin. Sure the total dollar value is going up, but that is not due to a policy change (mainly explained by inflation)
It then goes off on a tangent about when tax is collected, while acknowledging that it is hard to compare systems and at least at a headline level it is pretty much the same
Finally we get to the meat, high earners get more benefit, but it doesn't really explain why that shouldn't be so i.e. intuitively people would expect they get more total $ benefit because they contribute more
It would be really easy to show that the tax benefit increases as you earn more, just bung up a chart with marginal tax rates, then add a line 15pp (percentage points) below it to show that you get more and more benefit as you earn more. Then graph the benefit against balance with some income assumptions - get people wondering why someone with $2m+ in super earning normal returns needs a $30k+ tax concession in super each year
Where is the discussion on potential solutions? Why couldn't we tax super contributions at marginal tax rate minus 15pp rather than flat rate? Should we give blanket concessions on earnings? What would it mean to tax withdrawals?
A summary (no AI, I actually read things then summarise them):
The digital world is the real world - It's where most people in Western society spend most of their personal social time, and a lot of other time (e.g. work)
But it's shit. It wasn't always shit, but it is. Platforms don't do what you want them to do, or even what they used to do. Cory Doctorow's enshitiffication describes one mechanism, but really the problem is the rot economy - a mindset that causes technology providers to consider only growth and profit over anything that might be important to real people
This has made technology (and by extension much of everyday life) traumatic. As a tech savvy person you may be aware of some or all of this, including the effects and motivations, and may even be able to avoid some - but by being in the readership of this article, you have to acknowledge you are in a privileged minority
Take the example of someone buying one of the most sold laptops from a big retailer - a common and necessary way for large numbers of people to access the digital world. By the time you fight the kludge of Windows with its integrations and bloatware and updates, then try and use a browser on this underpowered machine, you've already been bludgeoned into accepting that everything digital is just terrible, with no way of knowing or understanding that this is not your fault
This is not a trap you can easily escape, and any suggestion that these users are to blame because they bought cheap technology is just another example of the lack of economic awareness and empathy that lead to recent US election results. Similarly, blaming users for a lack of digital literacy when the technology is actively thwarting them would be inappropriate
So what's the answer? I don't know. At the very least we need to be empathetic, be aware, and raise awareness that this is happening. Why is this important? Because the digital world is the real world, and it's being stolen from us