Maybe going keto would grow them some extra brain cells so they could realize it’s a bad idea

Even beyond like actual facts and evidence proving this wrong, I have one fundamental question for all these nutcases making wild claims about diet: why the fuck would X diet do Y thing?

Like what about eating more meat and fat & being in ketosis could possibly have any effect on schizophrenia, of all things.

It doesn’t even make sense on any basic level. Could there theoretically be some counterintuitive thing that would cause an effect? Maybe, sure. But come on - these wacky claims don’t even pass the sniff test.

Nope! None of those situations should be motivated by profit imo. Basically, nothing that is necessary for life should be for profit, in my opinion, as long as the state can handle the administrative burden.

But like… if the people demand some random, superfluous thing and the state doesn’t have the will or resources to produce it, maybe that’s where markets come in.

All they have to do is effectively use the public funds alloted to do the things they’re tasked with doing. Not everything should generate profit.

For so many services, profit-seeking creates perverse incentives. Well… all services. But maybe it’s tolerable in some circumstances.

Came here to say this. I get what he’s trying to say, but we are all definitely apes. And that’s pretty cool - apes are awesome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae:

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/; hominids /ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), whose members are known as the great apes,[note 1] are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); Pan (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans (Homo sapiens) remain.[1]

Anyone know what’s up with Fred’s head? Did he have some sort of congenital deformity or did he have part of his skull removed or something?

Administration: “Okay, potato… err… Spud. Here’s our suggestion: Don’t support murder and internment of minority groups. Especially publicly. It’s likely to make people angry at you and may be dangerous.”

Potato: “No that’s my only hobby”

It’s a type of kei car - a kei truck

I receive: being in trouble

You receive: “okay”

I’ve literally been doing this for lunches. Bake a loaf of bread, have a rotisserie chicken on hand for the week, a block of cheese. Boom. Lunch.

And when I have some more time or am tired of that, make some porridge with oats and chicken. Maybe a little broth, some onions, seasonings.

Dont underestimate peasant mode. Lunch for the whole week for like $12

“acting in shareholders’ best interests”

That is from the loyalty section. Shareholders best interests are achieved by balancing the various duties, as I said.

That is why I said that it isn’t about short term profits necessarily. The best interest of the shareholders is not short term profit seeking that destroys the business. It is long term profits and a company that can continue to generate them.

It would be very difficult to argue that decisions damaging profitability in the long term are in shareholders best interests.

In this case, union busting, clearly executives think union busting is in the best interests of shareholders. If that isn’t because of profitability, why is it not in their intersts?

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/fiduciary-duty-to-investors

They owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders - they (named executives) must act in the best interests of shareholders. So that doesn’t necessarily mean doing everything possible at all times to maximize profits/share price in the short term, it does mean they need to attempt to do that in the long term while balancing that duty against other duties they owe (like to act lawfuĺly).

True! Co-ops are great

It also depends on the state the company is incorporated in, but yeah that’s true.

And it is a duty to the corporation (legal entity), notably not to the workers themselves; so while the interests of workers and the corporation may align sometimes - you don’t have to do what’s best for the workers if it isn’t best for the company.

You still need to operate lawfully, and you can’t pay so little that you can’t hire/retain anyone, and you need to pay enough that you can hire people skilled enough to do the job, but you need to pay (ideally) only that amount and no more. Anything else takes away from profits and, you could say, makes the company less likely to succeed - if the company doesn’t succeed, then no one would have jobs. Or so they’d argue.

The same as for goods, the price of labor is treated by employers as “what the market will bear”. For goods, that means higher prices, for labor it means lower prices.

The reason for this is pretty simple: necessity.

Companies Corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders.

If no union exists, that means depressing wages as much as possible while meeting staffing needs.

If a union is forming, it means spending as much as you need to stop it since, if you don’t, you’ll be unable to depress wages over the long term.

When a union exists, well then they have to negotiate to continue operations and so workers get paid more fairly.

Join or organize a union if you can.

Dobles para defensa del hogar también

I’m not saying it’s rational, it just feels like more money.

Many are. It’s been going on since the 1950s. And it’s a private event that politicians choose to participate in - so it isn’t like it’s state sponsored, technically - even though it politicians attend in their official capacity. It isn’t something that can just be easily shut down on constitutional grounds and is a complex issue. I think lawyers would have to prove that government resources are being used and that it creates an unconstitutional breach of the 1st amendment.

Here’s what the freedom from religion foundation has to say about it

Little different for me:

$1 - 5 = $5

$6 - 12 = $10

$13 - 20 = $20

$21 - 50 = $50

$51 - 70 = $100

>$70 = $1000

Beanis shitposting in spaaaaace