I think technically he could order someone with the legal authority to use lethal force to do that. So probably the NSA or CIA.

Is the implication here that adult women snuggle/wrestle with their friends? Outside of porn videos?

If this is a transition from how I live now to never needing to work again, I’m guessing the first 6 months to a year would just be disbelief and slacking. Video games, TV/YouTube, etc.

I’d probably do more of the things I do with my limited off time: gardening, taking care of family & pets, taekwondo.

Honestly have no idea what I’d do once I became accustomed to it. Maybe travel? Participate in local politics more? Volunteer? I would definitely have a sense that I needed to do something to make my life “worth it” that I currently get from working to provide for my family.

It’s definitely a result of conditioning, not some fundamental truth of the universe. But nearly 50 years of that conditioning is hard to break overnight.

Lemmy for good content and discussion. Reddit still has niche fan communities that will probably never migrate over here, but I can always hope.

I read a pretty convincing article title and subheading implying that the best use for so called “AI” would be to replace all corporate CEOs with it.

I didn’t read the article but given how I’ve seen most CEOs behave it would probably be trivial to automate their behavior. Pursue short term profit boosts with no eye to the long term, cut workers and/or pay and/or benefits at every opportunity, attempt to deny unionization to the employees, tell the board and shareholders that everything is great, tell the employees that everything sucks, …

I’ll let others address the “enshittification” angle but I thought I’d point out that “shareholder value uber allies” is a relatively recent … “innovation” … in economic theory, brought about by failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and Milton Friedman in the last half of last century:

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy

The rethinking of what the boards of companies are supposed to do (from maximize stakeholder value to maximize shareholder value) and how they can operate (from requiring justification to approve mergers to requiring justification to block mergers) really took off with them, and exploded when former union boss Ronald Reagan found “religion” (because Nancy’s pussy was just that good) and ruined the economy for workers.

Lots of other people contributed, including Clinton after he “won” the 1992 election with 40% of the vote due to Perot splitting the Republican vote. His campaign of fiscal conservatism but without less bigotry became the model for the Democratic Party for the next two decades.

Anyway, Biden’s FTC is finally working to help workers again, which might even release the death grip of the Chicago School from our economy. We’ll see after November I guess.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/fact-sheet-ftcs-proposed-final-noncompete-rule

I dunno it seems like there’s a pretty solid “type” for mass shooters - young, white, male - that means something is left out of your evaluation. Economic oppression (by the owner class) and easy access to guns (enabled by the owner class!) makes it easy for these disaffected people to commit mass violence on the rest of us.

I’m sure if people had more economic security there would be fewer shootings but I don’t expect they’d go away. But a lot of these shooters talk about feeling alienated or disrespected. In my estimation that comes from expectations not being met. Probably unrealistic expectations.

(Yes I know “not every shooter is a young white male”)

I mean Serling and Sterling are so close it seems stupid to me to call it Mandela effect. More like humans gonna human.

A lot of cocoa farmers have never tasted chocolate, so it tracks that in the terminal capitalism of the Galactic Empire, moisture farmers wouldn’t have access to moisture.

https://youtu.be/FwHMDjc7qJ8?si=HKzSDbIVKrI9BzFo

First: a company should pay at a minimum a wage that can afford housing nearby (probably within 15 minutes’ drive). The company should pay everyone for work hours + that round trip nearby commute time

If the company is paying that wage, then employees who live farther away are making a free choice to do so. They still get that round trip nearby commute time paid, but time beyond that is not paid. Or paid at some diminishing rate.

Companies should recognize a worker’s time list for the company’s benefit. But there has to be a balance because of the temptation to game the system.

“choose” is doing a lot of work there. Have you priced housing lately? The real “choice” I see is that companies “choose” their location such that their employees can’t afford to live nearby on the wages they’re earning, or the companies “choose” to pay employees to little in wages to afford to live nearby.

You’re kind of arguing against the foundation of human society. If we’re all required to “do our own research” about things, where does that requirement end? How can I buy food if I have to do my own research on what’s healthy or what’s dangerous? What about my tap water? How can I put gas in my car? Use electricity? A computer? A phone?

Somewhere along the way you have to trust the systems that have been built by the people before us to function, and for people who work in those fields who are experts to use their expertise.

Obviously oversight & verification is also important. It’s important that people earn trust and work to maintain that trust and get booted if they violate that trust.

But it’s foolish to just stop trusting experts out of nowhere. It’s extra foolish to stop trusting experts specifically because they say things you don’t like to hear. As far as I can tell, that’s been the accelerating project of the Republican Party since at least the talk radio explosion following the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe longer if you go back to Moon landing deniers and their ilk.

It might be a big tripping hazard to go full “free trade agreement” just to get a carbon tax. The better approach is probably going to be some sort of mutual taxation/tariff/duty pledge. Something where all the countries that opt in would levy a duty of some sort on all goods that involve carbon emissions in their lifecycle outside the transportation of said goods (this is a trade agreement after all), and waive that duty on all member nations’ exports.

When people hear “free trade” they think of a system that waives all import duties, which may or may not be what is desired here. I can think of some bad actors passing a “carbon tax” just to get all the other duties on their goods dropped.

The alternative of course would be an actual free trade agreement but with a lot more qualifications than just “carbon tax.” Like union support, a living minimum wage, free education through age 18 (for example), environmental protections, reasonable intellectual property protections, no wars of aggression, etc etc., PLUS a carbon tax.

You’re not going to have a lot of luck targeting areas, regardless of what Internet and checkout lane magazines might claim. Your best bet is generalized diet and exercise based weight loss plus building areas you want to build (arms, legs, butt, chest, whatever).

The other thing to note is that nearly all the “permanent” weight you lose (the loss you can actually maintain) is lost from exhaling carbon. Water weight comes back when you rehydrate (and you should hydrate). You don’t poop much weight out (it’s a lot of water and dead blood cells). But the output of the Krebs cycle (respiration) is carbon dioxide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

That’s carbon you ate in various forms: protein, fat, and sugar.

Strength training is useful but a weight loss exercise regime will have a lot of sustained heavy breathing, i.e cardio.

(Plus with cardio you’ll be ready for most zombie apocalypses.)

Our kids swapped the position of our bowls and plates in the cabinets, and our knives, forks, and spoons in the drawers. They definitely won.

Well that’s why I asked OP if this is “net” calculation (good - bad) or if just the good counts.

By my evaluation I don’t think any billionaire (or equivalent using PPP calculations) has ever or could ever do enough “good” to overwrite the “bad” they have to do to accumulate that much wealth, unless they literally spend it all on improving people’s lives including getting down in the trenches themselves.

Do you mean net good (more good than bad) or is a good thing like “established public libraries” acceptable even if he also oppressed workers and stifled unions and bought government officials and stuff?

Yes, 46, my first car that was “mine” (my mom’s old car) was a manual. The first car I ever bought had a shitty automatic (I think the seller may have pulled one over on young me). Since then I only buy stick shifts for myself. (My wife’s is an automatic.)

Because they’re busy going out of business, I’d imagine. It’s actually a pretty complicated process if you want to avoid a bunch of extra problems down the line. If publishing the recipes helped avoid some of those problems, they might do it. But they’re more likely trying to protect themselves from creditors and get their taxes sorted and final paychecks and selling inventory and equipment and real estate…