brankoB

GDP is a good measure of how the wealthy are doing, not so much your average citizen.

The best solution is communism. But you won't hear an economist say so ;)

What democracy? Citizen interests haven't mattered for a looong time.

The parent comment was fine, it just sounds like you're upset about what they said rather than how they said it.

Great, now make it so tracking my delivery driver doesn't freeze my phone and force me to restart.

Did you read the article? The author is concerned about spyware.

He was smart in the sense he knew how to best exploit his engineers and take credit for their work.

None of it would be possible without academia though. Industry just applies academic research.

Life today is better if you're already established, i.e. have a well paying job, own a home, etc.

Being young in todays world is exponentially harder than it was, say, 40 years ago. Many young people have given up on the idea of home ownership. I'm 26 and I've had friends laugh in my face when I suggested owning instead of renting. It's simply unattainable unless you're in a lucrative field. I'm in Canada for reference (our home price to income ratio is one of the worst in the world).

In Canada, $80/hr. Aiming for $90 for my next contract starting next month. Or to move to the US and make way more, apparently.

The whole ‘fair share’ of taxes argument presumes that the aggrieved group would pay less if others paid more.

I don't think it does presume that. I can want another group to pay their fair share of taxes without necessarily wanting my own taxes lowered.

This is my favourite genre and I think the photos are quite nice.

Not sure where you got this "manipulation is negative persuasion" definition. You can most certainly manipulate people without intending harm. For example, I could manipulate you into buying a bagel instead of a croissant, just to see if I could manipulate you into doing so. No harm is intended, but it's still manipulation.

In a similar vein, people using scientific facts in non-scientific conversations. The amount of times I've heard "well the SCIENCE tells us..." in a moral debate is mind boggling.

*Abundant for some

The fact you're tipping 10% for bad service shows the guilt trip is working

I can't imagine a situation in which someone dies because I used the term China virus.

Also the CCP definitely cares. Negative PR for a country which is a major exporter is a bad thing for the country.

That's true, however I do think the meat-only anecdote came from a good place. Him and his daughter had been suffering from clinical depression and a host of other problems for decades and the diet seemed to help them. I think if I was in a similar situation I'd try to let other people know too.

He wasn't "pushing an agenda". He was telling people about how a diet he went on helped him and his daughter. He explicitly stated multiple times that he wasn't a doctor and that his experience was anecdotal.

Sure but people understand the basic transaction (give money -> get milk). If on the other hand they gave you free milk but tracked your milk usage without telling you, I'd argue that's a non-consensual transaction and falls under stealing (roughly).

A lot of people aren't aware of the data collection. In those cases I think calling it stealing is fair.

Beats continuing to bailout the corporations instead of the people.

Started learning music 2 weeks ago, this will be very useful thanks

Ah yes the old "the majority of people are wrong, MY ideas are correct, why doesn't the government just implement all of MY ideas as they're obviously correct" argument.

Are you seriously equating misgendering someone with killing them?

Sure but where does the amount of dividends you're being given come from? All i'm saying is there's no objective "baseline", it's all perceived value no matter how you look at it.

I get what you're trying to say but having multiple potential buyers is literally the definition of liquidity. If you only have one for what you're trying to sell then it's very easy for someone else to sell their share and boom you can't get rid of yours. These secondary markets work because there's a low amount of buyers AND sellers but if there would happen to be a sudden surge in sellers then the low liquidity of the market would eventually show itself.

Disagree. Think about what makes a share liquid: lots of potential buyers (i.e. people perceiving it as a safe investment).

I can't prove that you didn't create me. Where are you going with this?

And here we are commenting on this "thing" that we clearly understand because X, Y, and Z study that affirms our beliefs says it's so.

No one is claiming to understand. In fact the whole point of the article is about how much we don't understand the problem.