ReallyKinda

That sounds about right to me, maybe throw in government supported and nonprofits

I do—I support a handful of creators (including some web content creators) directly via patreon, and donate to the important guys like wiki and craigslist. I don’t support any news organizations and am not sure how they’ll pivot.

I already click right back out of websites that don’t make it easy to reject cookies or ask for an email. I certainly won’t be registering anywhere and will find other ways to get the information I need. At this point I am immediately turned off by anything that relies heavily on ad-revenue to exist anyway.

This guy obviously shouldn’t be in jail, can someone expand on the guy who the article says was forced into psychiatric care?

Anyways this one legal loophole has been around for awhile—rich people can acquire really low interest loans against their assets so they do, and they use that to pay their expenses, and when it comes tax time they write down that they made some money but they also took out a massive loan so actually they’re in the red. If you own a house you could probably leverage this to some extent yourself. Maybe if everyone who could did it they’d close the loophole? Obviously you couldn’t get rates as low as a politician who chills with the Schwab CEO.

Isn’t the Corolla the luxury line vs the camry though? And having an early prius definitely a rich person thing.

okay, this is really cool. Love when people make interactive stuff like this to help us grasp concepts

If 2/3 of people can afford to pay the higher prices for basic necessities and 1/3 cannot it’s not difficult to see the direction things will move.

In capitalism agency=price discrimination and when some people are willing to pay 300% for potatoes and milk the people who cannot are SOL, and increasingly so as things progress. Obviously the manufacturers will set the price to wherever they’re profiting the most. This is also why inequality throws a wrench in the myth of well functioning capitalism.

Either governments need to step in or people who can afford to pay 300% need to refrain on principle (the latter seems pretty unlikely on a mass scale).

I had a philosophy prof in college who had a pet peeve about movie buffs who use box office numbers as a metric of success. It makes sense for the people profiting to look at it like that, but it killed him cinephiles would adopt that perspective to quantify success over other more artistic markers of a well-made film.

The only part I feel confident with right now is safely obtaining the media. I’m fine with that step being manual.

I feel like a solid half of the books I was assigned in k-12 had to do with the holocaust, slavery, or the cold war. To kill a mockingbird, number the stars, boy in striped pajamas, Anne Frank, ~~number the stars~~, night, the hiding place, animal farm, the giver etc. This definitely doesn’t seem out of the ordinary or inappropriate to me. I’m more skeptical of teaching books like Lolita (though I personally feel even young kids can read reasonably critically, especially with the guidance of a teacher).

It’s interesting to me that less people are religious but moral absolutism seems to be on the rise.