The solution to global warming, then, is clearly to just set up a massive ring of fans all pointed in the same direction in a ring around the North Pole, to keep the jet stream going
Isn’t that literally just a thinly veiled Futurama reference? Like, there was an episode where planet Express was sent out to fetch ice from Haley’s comet to dump in the ocean to combat global warming which fails and they end up just pushing the earth farther away from the sun to cool things down?
I think it’s more of a case “fuck around, find out” but without any rules set in place they can incrementally fuck around and find out. That is to say, people tried this, some of them didn’t die, they got better at it, fewer people died, etc. Eventually you get good at managing risks. Not that they are smart risks. To a degree this makes people think and be extra careful, instead of just relying on rules to ensure their safety. Not that am implying electricians in other countries don’t think just that when rules are set in place there’s not so much of a tension and remembering whether you pissed on your slippers before working with electricity.
Lol … those benefits aren’t gifts that were freely given.
People had to fight, get beaten, lose money, lose houses, lose property and years ago even get killed to even establish those benefits and normalize them today.
I have old elderly friends who took part in union movements in the 40s and 50s, many of whom complained of getting beaten and threatened and a few recalling friends and relatives murdered for organizing successful strike action.
If we had left it to corporations and wealthy elites to give these benefits freely, they would withhold everything and prefer that slavery were reintroduced than to give up anything.
Those aren’t gifts … those are hard fought rights that people literally died for.
Yes. Sweden is currently a perfect example of how to unionize. I actually just found out that ubionsnin the US can’t strike in solidarity (is this what you mean by unilaterally)?
He spent a bunch of dough on that hair. I believe he is likely aware of his appearance. He is pale and overweight because he spends a bunch of time playing video games, being a nazi in his failing social media site, and (based on this picture) eating french fries.
Maybe at some point his vanity will compel him to get liposuction or just go full orange man with spray tan and wear baggy suits with ties that are too long. I don’t see him being like Bezos or Zuck and getting into shape.
Snapping half the life forms also snaps half of the world’s gut bacteria. If we removed half of the gut bacteria from those who weren’t snapped, that would be removing 75% of the universe’s gut bacteria, not 50%.
Why assume that though? The Infinity Gauntlet isn’t a Monkey’s Paw, it reads beyond the words and answers the intent of the wielder. So much so, in fact, that it even includes subconscious thoughts and feelings as part of its interpretation. I see often these ideas predicated on the Gauntlet working on Monkey Paw logic despite that being clearly and specifically not how it operates within canon.
50% of what Thanos considers life since it was powered by his will. Since he seemed to imply that nature (plants and animals) where not part of this it’s safe to assume it was sapient life only.
Do we know if Thanos believed in life at conception or birth? Does someone with a donated organ count as one life, two or zero since they wouldn’t be alive without the organ. If I only ate one foot, or how about one toe, does that make me a cannibal?
Yeah, the Gauntlet wouldn’t leave anything that can’t survive on its own, like gut bacteria, nor remove anything that’s needed for the proper functioning of another lifeform. It’s why there weren’t any fetuses falling to the ground after the pregnant women vanished.
I would assume that conjoined twins would be a both-or-neither situation, since removing one would leave a gaping wound in the other even if they could have survived independently with surgery,
It kinda sidesteps the whole thing, since the standard is life that is dependent on other life to survive is not counted separately. Like the conjoined twins thing I mentioned.
Which is, of course, just a bullshit justification. Reality-altering power, and your solution is to kill people? Not create more resources, or make it so living things require less resources? He’s an unimaginative idiot.
Wait. If that is how it happened that means when half the population came back they all came back with 0% of their gut bacteria. Holy shit that would be horrible. The population doubles overnight and every single person and animal has the worse runs of their life. Meanwhile they can’t get the nutritional needs no matter how much food they eat. Spend the next few months while their family cries as they wither away surrounded by food.
No, the desired effects was to undo Thanos’s snap, not double the human population. This means that all of the gut bacteria got unsnapped exactly the same as everyone else
Yeah you’re correct, my bad. In the films, however.
edit: I guess they kind of tackle the issue, although they for some reason seemed to focus more on where these people go rather than how to handle the sudden resource strain
Don’t worry, the litter of bodies from people that were on planes or high speed trains, or on ships will provide nutrients for the starving masses.
Then suicides and murders as people return to find their loved ones remarried or dead because they committed suicide, should also provide another nutritional bump in the following weeks.
Then the following World War should deal with everyone else.
This is one of the many reasons why I say Tony Stark is a bigger villain to the universe than Thanos.
A sudden LACK of mouths is much more favorable than suddenly DOUBLING them.
I order to keep his family alive, he just brings them all back, many years out of place in a universe completely and totally unprepared for their arrival. Not to mention all the people who died AFTER the snap, as a direct result of the snap, will still be dead.
Tony stark is supposed to be smart. So he should know the consequences of his action, and completely disregards it.
And the series pretends he did the universe a favor.
Look, I’m just setting my rent according to an analysis of the current market rate for similar properties.
Yes, that analysis is provided by the same company that does estimates for the other properties.
No, I’ve never heard of “price fixing”. Look, your avocado toast is super expensive and it’s cuz the government gave you $600 three years ago so PAY MY MORTGAGE ALREADY YOU EASILY REPLACEABLE COW IN A PEN.
Instead, make being poor illegal (arrest people who can’t pay for the essentials), arrest them, and THEN use them as slaves, it’s fine since they’re criminals
Clearly they must be giving out free land in good places to live (near were all the jobs are), free materials and free time over there.
It’s either that or that house you mention is supposed to be made out of opinions and built in fantasy la-la-land, as it’s only how the materials and places to put it in would be endless and free.
There are tons of natural limitations in all kinds of things and all sorts of Markets - which is why Free Market Theory is mainly bollocks: the conditions for it to work as advertised exist only in a handful of Markets.
In Housing, clearly Land is the main limiting factor in places like cities and surrounding suburbia, though if that was removed we would eventually run against other limiting factors, probably on some kinds of building materials or manpower (hence my mentioning of both), though all that could be overcome with time whilst Land limitations, although made worse by Landownership laws, are ultimatelly down to there not being possible to make any more of it (though different work patterns could make it be much more efficiently used if they weakenned the need for people to live in and around cities).
Also keep in mind that land usage efficiency can be increased by building more multi-story housing, though in the current situation with land ownership that possibility just gets translated into higher land prices, so in places like the US you end up with sprawl rather than medium density housing: the whole economics of Land and thus housing pricing make a bigger and nicer living place far from a city center be the same price or cheaper than a crummy appartment nearer the center, even though were land was used with higher efficiency and dwelling size is smaller the price per dwelling should actually be cheaper.
Even in space I expect there will be some areas that are most desireable than others because of proximity to resources and markets. Increasing density is something I am very much in favor of but as you correctly pointed out this mostly leads to higher land prices which represent value captured by the ownership class as explained by the Iron Law of Rent.
Oh so wait, so building a house isn’t free then since nobody is giving the land and materials away. So why do you expect a landlord to let you live for free if he had to pay to buy the land and build it?
Nice to see you’re getting close to the core of the problem.
Yeah, Land is owned rather than belonging to everybody as it used to be back before monarchs and as land ownership works in this system - any one individual with massive wealth can own way more Land than they need - it can be easilly hoarded by those with more money in a way that’s impossible for those with less money to overcome (short of a Revolution) and thus create cartels or even monopolies in Land in desirable places to live, a market positions from where they can extract as big a rent as they want since everybody else has no alternative.
It’s from the massive imballance thus created by Law in the main, essential and irreplaceable, “raw material” for housing that the massive house prices we see come from, and landlords usually use their priviledged position in that highly imbalanced market to extract excessive rents.
The whole situation is actually the very opposite of the “Free Market” you state it is - Land (and thus housing) ain’t like teddy bears and soap were a competitor can just enter the market and make more of it when somebody tries to corner the market, quite the opposite: it’s dependent on a naturally limited resource on top of which a trully ancient kind of legislation makes hoarding extremelly easy for those lucky enough to have lots of wealth, artificially transforming the limits of that resource into an extreme kind of scarcity.
In this Not-At-All-Free Market, most landlords will extract excessive rents far beyond the value they add. If rents were not mainly based on exploiting a dominant position in a market dominated by hoarding and artifical scarcity and only paid for the actual service being provided by landlords, they would be tiny in comparison with the current situation and very few people would be critical of landlords.
Let private interests amass huge amounts of resources and you have hugely powerful autocracies.
Let these autocracies hire so-called economists to convince everyone that they will settle into some kind of optimal state if we just let them be and you have the current situation in the USA.
Your point being what exactly? My landlord has spent his entire life working at a coal mine to buy a building that needed to be torn down. He then tore it down and built a modern one in its place. Since then, he is here all the time doing maintenance, packing the trash so it gets accepted, despite being over 70. But fuck him regardless according to you guys, since every landlord inherrited millions of houses, and if only you were so lucky, you would have given those houses to the poor.
See, you can’t even believe someone telling a real story. You need to ridicule, make fun of it, because you can’t fathom that people still work / worked recently in coal mines. Newsflash, read up on European coal mines. Read up on industrialized regions - Ruhr in Germany. Silesia in Poland.
Yeah and I know to block you now. People like you only want to push their agenda, even when confronted by an actual example that says otherwise. Go be a hateful person somewhere else.
I mean I get both sides here. We live in a free market economy, where the scarcity of something affects the cost of it. People want land close to the city and there’s an extremely limited amount of it. If there are n*100 people and only n parcels of land in a small area, how do you provide it to people? Do you sell it? Is it a lottery system? Is the land sold at a base value that never changes? Like, how do you envision this going?
Right now, people have to freedom to buy as much land as they want and set the pricing for that land. What we need is a property owner tax that scales up depending on the amount of property that you own. Though this will just make more land available. No one in their right mind will sell it for less than it’s worth though.
I once got a temporary ban from one of the larger subreddits for calling someone a nincompoop. It was considered “abusive” language. At least that’s what the mods said. I suspect it was more to do with me having an unpopular opinion though obviously I can’t prove it.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.