Look, I get I’m being a bit of an asshole with this answer, but given what little you’ve provided it’s the only one I can think of: get a phone (a google pixel) that can install an operating system that actually cares about your privacy (grapheneos). Then use its sandboxing to protect you from privacy invasion generally, and Life360 specifically.
When you want to feel special but not enough to go to the effort of using FreeBSD
Guess I’m just lazy :/
It absolutely isn’t, but it’s good that he’s saying so anyway.
Huh. I got a couple of popups the other day. A quick refresh fixed it though. In my experience, YT has been miserably failing its war on adblockers. I’ve yet to disable mine to watch a video.
You have to wonder how people are so willing to damage their reputations. I just can’t imagine stooping so low as to invite Pinker on to my podcast.
Ideally a psychiatrist. Failing that, a licensed therapist. If you can get a hold of a social worker they can often point you in the right direction.
[edit: or talk to your doctor about it]
Legit heroes resigned. This coward should be put in stocks and subsequently run out of public life.
Krasnov
Wat?
Wanting someone with disastrous mental health issues to not be capable of launching a nuclear strike isn’t ableism.
Would you loan a gun to a friend who’s been really depressed lately? According to you, you should.
Oh, I forgot that Truman, the only person in history to actually use nuclear weapons, famously only did so because he had depression. Or he was a perfectly mentally well person who was also a racist to the extent that he didn’t care about the lives of Japanese children. One of those. I always get it confused.
Anyway, the answer to who I would loan a gun to and who should be capable of launching a nuclear strike is the same: no one. But I would trust your averaged depressed person with the nuclear codes more than I would Trump. To be clear: if Trump has a mental illness, that is not the thing that is wrong with him. What’s wrong with him is that he’s a fascist.
I had a co-worker who said he didn’t want a woman to be president because “she’d start a war every month.” I guess he’s not really misogynist like I thought.
It’s always disappointing to see how much people on here hate people with mental disabilities. Under no circumstances would anyone be OK with comparing Donald Trump to another minority. I think even insulting him by calling him fat is perceived as too gauche. But ableism? 100% OK by most of Lemmy.
Go find a successful and ambitious person to fall in love with, marry, and be a happy male housewife.
Fun fact: the word husband comes from house-bond, i.e. homeowner. So “house-husband” is in a sense redundant.
Alternatively, find a job you are at least decent at and can tolerate. You don’t need to love your job and be passionate about it to be happy.
https://massgrave.dev/ works just fine with ltsc as well and https://www.pcrf.net/ can always use more money
Those were decisions to change the specific names of specific places, not a decision to handle country names in the general way OP was describing.
why did they decide
Nobody sat down and made a decision to handle country names the way we do. It organically happened the way it did for no particular reason other than it works well enough.
why don’t we change everything back to how the countries’ place names are pronounced by their citizens out of respect
Nobody cares enough to undertake this. I don’t particularly care that people call the US by different names in their languages. People in Turkey aren’t asking us to pronounce their country’s name the same way they do. Most people are happy to apply the inverse golden rule on this, i.e., I don’t pronounce your country’s name the way you do, so I’m not going to expect you to pronounce my country’s name the way I do.
Would it make things harder or would it allow us to grow?
Yes, but I think it would be a lot of work for not much growth. You don’t learn a lot about a place by just pronouncing its name differently.
It’s very funny to take this tack when you are basically claiming to be the smartest person in the country, the only one to see the plain truth of the situation
I can’t think of Reagan’s shooter’s name, either. That isn’t proof it was staged.
Love that straight up QAnon level shit is getting the majority of upvotes here. Good sign, the future is bright
This is a very econ 101 take. A similar argument is that if you increase the minimum wage, people will per se lose their jobs because of supply and demand curves. But the empirical evidence doesn’t support that. I don’t think we know for sure why, but increasing the minimum wage has second order effects that seem to counteract this. Similarly, it’s true that if you print money, you increase the supply of money which according to supply and demand means the money will be worth less. Now I don’t think we have as clear empirical evidence that shows this isn’t true, but we do print money all the time. I mean, that’s how government works; congress passes a bill, and the federal reserve supplies (“prints”) the money to fund it. There’s not some bank account somewhere that has to have the money and if it doesn’t we have an overdraft situation. But, if the bill is printing money to support farmers and provides an increase in the food supply, the cost of food relative to the dollar could go down. Now maybe the cost of other things goes up, but the point is that it’s much more complex than “government print money, inflation go up.”
The argument I’m making here is based on Modern Monetary Theory (maybe I’m doing a bad job of representing it or understanding it), which you should definitely check out if you haven’t.
Before the cuts, the IRS generated $0. After the cuts, the IRS will generate $0. Getting rid of the IRS can’t cost the US government any amount of US dollars because the US government has infinite US dollars.
To be clear, I think it’s a bad idea to cut the IRS. We should be beefing it up and tasking it with going after the rich, because taking money away from rich people is a good thing. But buying into the framing that the US needs to take money from people because it can then spend that money on something else is a mistake, and not just because it’s false. It’s bad politics. Conservatives don’t actually give a shit about government efficiency or fiscal responsibility, they just hate taxes. If it makes the deficit 10x worse they still want to cut taxes however they can. But they are happy to weaponize concern trolling about the debt and deficit to cut government programs that benefit the poor (or prevent such from coming into existence), and liberals are very susceptible to these arguments.
This is a bad analogy. The person involved seems to be genuinely introspective and repentant. The south post civil war was unrepentant, and the north didn’t have the resolve to keep control, partly because the north was also racist as fuck.