I don’t know if they’re still around, but when I was a kid and ATMs were still kind of new there were drive thrus at banks where you interacted with a teller using a speaker and a pneumatic tube for sending/receiving.

My mom would let me operate the tube from the back seat, I thought it was cool as shit.

I didn’t realize French territory is so widespread.

So if the U.K. ever complies with the UN and the ICJ and relinquishes control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, the sun will set on the British empire, but not on France.

That’ll be funny as fuck and I hope France never misses an opportunity to point it out.

I keep hearing about Niagara and everyone says the same thing, it’s different.

Could you describe how it’s different? Just the setup, or is it different when you’re using it?

So we’re both in agreement that driving too fast is irresponsible.

But you think diving an unlighted buggy at night is fine. And furthermore, if that unlighted buggy gets in an accident with a car, it’s definitely the driver of the car obeying all the laws at fault, never the fault of the buggy driving scofflaw.

Nope, doesn’t sound like dogmatic culty thinking to me at all.

BTW: the appeal to authority fallacy is no better than a straw man. Much like traffic laws, they’re all important.

Lol, nice straw man.

Hey, let me ask you a few questions.

What if the next law these fucking jerks decide they don’t want to follow is driving on the right? You come to one of the bends you go around and instead of a deer standing there, or a fallen tree, there are two horses pulling a carriage toward you making the combined speed too high to stop in time. Your hood takes out their legs and a couple thousand pounds of house torso blasts through your windshield killing you and your family.

Are you and your deceased family victims now? Or is the victim still somehow the asshole driving the carriage who miraculously always remains blameless just because they’re not driving a car?

What does fuck cars mean to you?

To me it means drastically reducing the share of infrastructure and space given to the operation and storage of cars by improving public transportation and cycling/pedestrian friendly infrastructure to reduce, or even eliminate, the need for personal motor vehicles larger than an E-Bike in most, or even all cases.

Based on your comments “fuck cars” is just a mantra. A mantra you’ve repeated often enough to inspire a religious-like conviction that the driver of a motor vehicle is always at fault when they come in conflict with any other road user, no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound.

I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don’t know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.

Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.

We’re not taking about a deer being a deer. We’re talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they’re sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone’s safety.

The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.

They have a very good chance of seeing me while I’m cycling because I’m lighted. If I’m forced to walk on the road at night without a light I’ll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.

I don’t necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can’t, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don’t apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it’s dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn’t decide the laws don’t apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?

The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you’re walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.

If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that’s a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.

They’re not using it legally, hence the legal proceedings.

By victims I assume you mean unsuspecting drivers coming across a dark, unlighted vehicle in the road at night who could be injured or killed by an accident or swerving to avoid one, right?

A person would only drop a couple points over time. 80s, and especially 70s, would be significantly impaired.

Ban or severely restrict abortion.

Ban or severely restrict porn.

Ban or severely restrict contraception.

Ban or severely restrict divorce.

When do we start hearing them question the concept of marital rape? That shit was legal in every U.S. state until the 70s and not made illegal nationwide until '93.

Is this lawsuit just about having the choice to use an ESG fund?

The article even mentions that people who aren’t invested in an ESG fund are included in the class action with those who are.

Here is a link to AA’s 401k page. Scroll down to “What are my investment options.” It looks pretty standard. Options for index funds, self-directed where you can invest in any Fidelity funds, target date funds, and other options.

What kind of a bullshit lawsuit seeks to reduce personal options that don’t affect anyone else. Or am I missing something and could one person’s selection somehow harm others?

Edit: I read a little more about the lawsuit. I’m not 100% sure about this, but it seems like the complaint is; the people managing the funds use the voting rights from everyone invested to vote for ESG goals. E.G. if you’re invested in an index fund the people managing the funds can use the voting rights of your shares to influence the companies in ways the lawsuit claims violate fiduciary responsibility.

Nominal is more than inflation so real is above 0.

Real just has to be above 0 for inflation adjusted wages to be going up.

I still call bullshit though without knowing where the increases are. All the increases could be in the top 10% with everyone else going down and only the average is above 0.

Edit: I was wrong, the growth is actually weighted toward the lower end.

Whether it’s you breaking or the car doesn’t matter. The person behind you sees break lights and reacts.

If it’s the car reacting before you, less braking will be required and the likelihood of rapid deceleration due to hitting the car in front of you decreases.

Both of those things give the person behind you more time.

I make a little more than double the cap. I’m in favor of increasing or eliminating the cap but that would double my check in the future. (Not quite, I haven’t made double the cap my entire working life, but it would increase it a lot.) That would still help a bit because not all of our withholdings go to basic social security. Some goes to disability, spousal benefits, etc. Increasing taxes and benefits proportionally, which is the way benefits are structured now, doesn’t solve anything.

I believe social security has a lot of value so I’m in favor of not just fixing the funding, but expanding it as well. But if you want to make it healthier just with payroll taxes they would have to be progressive, like income tax, without increasing benefits.

Again, you’re putting words in my mouth to argue against an imaginary person because that’s all you can do. Save that shit for the shower.

I never said there weren’t conditions that create the will. There are always conditions for everything. My condition is hungry so when I’m done typing this I’ll eat a banana because I have the will to do so.

I’ve read plenty of leftist theory. But unfortunately your reading has only prepared you to hammer anything you run across into the circles you seem to be unable to think outside of.

If any discussion with you requires one to accept your reading of theory that labels as impossible something that has already been accomplished, many times, that’s not theory, that’s dogma that ignores reality, and you’re in a cult.

Banana calls, you can have the last word. Imagine me dumbfounded and humbled by your brilliance, just like in the shower.

That’s a nonsensical thing to say. Everything that’s ever been done by anyone has been done because the person(s) doing so had the will to do it. From making lunch to toppling a government.

If your world view is some kind of circular human centipede of tautological alternate definitions that doesn’t allow for any discussions that don’t accept your conclusions a priori then talking to you isn’t likely to be any more fruitful than a discussion with a Qultist or a MAGAt.

That’s a lot of word salad for “nuh uh”.

Don’t put words in my mouth to make me fit one of your cookie cutter fake opponents, dealing with whom seems to be the only thing your theory reading has prepared you for.

There is nothing stopping funding levels from returning to the level they once were other than the will of the people with the power to do so and the will of the people that put them there and allow them to remain. We know this because we’ve already done it, in many places with a variety of underlying systems. We did it where I live for quite a while before the last few decades of reversals.

No system of government, with a capitalist economy or otherwise, is inherently incompatible with, or inherently supportive of people being employed by or receiving grants from national institutes for arts/sciences or other similar organizations, public or private.

If a country is lacking in that regard it’s not the fault of their economic system. It’s due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it’s partially due to the values of the voters as well.

In my country, public and private funding for arts and sciences without a profit motive has been on the decline for decades and I would love to see huge increases. But no matter what the system is, there are limits. Everybody can’t be an artist, scientist, or philosopher. A large portion of people are going to have to produce necessities.

Being able to chase your dreams is no guarantee you will be good enough to catch one of the limited slots, even if the number of slots is high.