I’ve never had a job where my wage kept up with inflation. My annual raise was always below inflation, and I felt lucky to get annual adjustments at all.
I suspect this is simply an artifact of math. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as long as the average of the two looks good then the people in charge can nod their heads, say “good good,” then go spend a week on their yacht.
Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it’s never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896
You’re correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.
IMO you should report the things to the labor board and let them decide. You never know what you might be missing with your own read through of the rules.
Because there couldn’t be any legitimate reason to do the things they’re banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.
Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.
You mean birth rates + immigration > people leaving the state? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.
Seriously though, there does need to be an asterisk after “fleeing” that says “if they can afford it” which, let’s be honest, excludes most people who want to leave the state.
My parents were just telling me about a friend of theirs who moved back to Ohio… fucking Ohio… after discovering that retirement in Florida was terrible.
Yeah it must be pretty bad if Ohio and Kansas are looking better.
Never mind that the whole point of a provisional ballot is “I don’t know if this vote is valid, but here it is just in case it is valid”
I feel like casting a provisional ballot should protect you in cases like hers, not condemn you!
I think it’s pretty authoritarian to seek to stifle any speech.
Ohhhhh you’re a free speech absolutist. Gotcha.
There’s a fuckton of philosophy and case law behind why free speech absolutism is a bad idea. Maybe you can spend some time looking into that, you might gain some insight into why everyone is shooting you down.
Also, words mean things and while authoritarianism always shuts down free speech eventually, not all restrictions on free speech is authoritarianism. This would be the nuance that you claimed other people refuse to see, that you yourself have eschewed in this case.
Yup, it’s taxpayer money.
The logic is that shit like this will cause voters to demand change and vote in people who will make sure stuff like this doesn’t happen again. But the reality is that most voters simply don’t care, and there’s a non-zero number of voters who are unhappy because they want the black man to stay in prison whether he’s innocent or not.
I don’t follow that particular but if politics very closely, so I’m genuinely asking: is that still the case post-Brexit?
I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.
If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.
And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.
You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.
The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.
Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.
Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.