"... her camembert cravings..."

"...the feta fiend..."

"... I would literally just eat a whole block of cheese with my hands... often while sitting on the floor... in the dark..."

Fucking lol

The attacks aren't aimed at the criticism of Biden. They're aimed at the result of that criticism. People want everyone who reads that criticism to understand that, obviously, Trump is worse in many, many ways, even if he were the same as Biden on Palestine.

He isn't the same. He's worse and has said as much. Leading politicians in his party have suggested using nukes on Palestine, etc. etc. But even being equal on this one point, he'd still be so much worse overall for everyone. So people want to stop those potential outcomes of criticism, not the criticism.

When applied to multinationals, it would result in companies exporting high skill jobs overseas to bring pay down. Would need to legislate behavior as well to stop companies trying to get around it

The expectation is for other people (voters) to hear these things, realize that there are some (and can potentially be more) politicians who will do what is in their best interest, and change their voting patterns.

Many people do not believe things can change for the better because they have literally not seen anything in society change for the better in their entire lives.

The last time I saw something actually change for the better in a major way was the legalization of gay marriage. Since then it's been nothing but manufacturing consent to wars, predatory tax laws that favor the rich, dismantling of protections against monopolies, dismantling of consumer protection laws, stagnant wages, failing to meet or entirely dismissing climate change goals, rolling back reproductive rights 50 years, etc. We've recently seen Biden's Dept of Labor fight back a little bit against the economic stuff, but we've been backsliding since Reagan - not that we were really on the up-and-up before. And as for the other stuff, it doesn't look good.

Voter apathy is a big issue because, even though voting is likely not sufficient for significant societal change, it is necessary for it to occur.

What's up with Falun Gong anyway? I see Shen Yun ads all over the place now, which is weird, but it seems like everything I see about Falun Gong is heavily propagandized. They seem to have pretty awful beliefs and are censured by the CCP, and are maybe tied to fascist groups and are maybe a cult that believes their leader is a literal god? Anybody have trustworthy reading material?

That's fair, I didn't put much thought into my response. I never said she was callous or reckless, though. The main thing is that she acted hypocritically and in a way that is inconsistent with her stated values. I think that's a big reason she is disliked other than just being an "unlikeable" character

I think it's mostly related. People see her behavior as hypocritical. She says she cares about the moral aspect, but never follows through. She says she cares about her family's safety, but doesn't really act consistently with that. And she starts to manage Walt's business (willingly at first) but turns on him even when it might put the family in danger (like giving all their money to Ted).

She's inconsistent/hypocritical because she lacks courage and conviction

Nope read again, I said alternately for that second bit. You couldn't think both of those at the same time, but thinking them separately is valid. Either she sticks with Walt or not, those are her two possible endings.

One other thing to keep in mind is that it is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions requiring pay transparency in job postings to only give a part of the pay range. Say the range is 60,000 - 100,000, they could just say 60,000 - 80,000 or whatever they're willing to hire people at.

I don't think this is necessarily wrong practice, but it's definitely potentially misleading.

Nah, that lacks nuance. People who hate Skylar for just crushing Walt's vibe or being unlikeable are idiots. I have watched the show in its entirety three times, and my opinion on all the characters has evolved - my opinion of Skylar is more negative than it used to be. If you believe that Skylar is just a victim, you are denying her character agency. She is highly intelligent and capable and simultaneously intends to benefit from Walt's actions while being arrogant enough to assume she can control the situation, outsmart the authorities, and get off scott free - much like another main character.

Skylar made certain choices to support Walt because she thought it was in the family's best interest (including hers), then she later reneged on those choices when things didn't turn out like she expected and ultimately forced Walt to take the blame for choices she willingly made. Skylar is as relatable and flawed as she is unlikeable: just like we would in her circumstances, she lacks the courage to do what is necessary to stop Walt and protect herself and her family.

She did not have to support Walt in the first place but instead did so even when given many opportunities to get out of the situation with minimal consequences. She may have paid a price for doing so as time went on (asset seizure if she went to the cops, social ostracization, her kids disliking her, etc), but the consequences were initially fairly trivial - divorce from a criminal who was putting the family at risk, embarrassment, harming her relationship with Marie, etc. And, while Walt obviously was callous/cruel/self-righteous/arrogant/and even evil, maybe - as was the point of his whole character, Skylar chose to support Walt in his criminal enterprise when she didn't have to - going so far as to come up with money laundering ideas, encouraging him to expand his operations to an extent early on, helping him come up with cover stories, etc. and only later turning on Walt when she felt like she could no longer benefit from assisting him and would benefit more by betraying him - going so far as to physically assault him with a knife and threaten to kill him, lying to the police about his treatment of the family and also giving them his location which put his life in further jeopardy while he was trying to get the family to safety since he was being pursued.

In fact, Walt saw a way to use Skylar's betrayal to protect the family and takes the blame for Skylar's actions, goes along with Skylar's lie that he was physically assaulting the family, threatening them with death if they didn't comply, etc. all to take the heat off Skylar for the sake of the family. That doesn't mean Walt is a saint. He should've stopped long before that and did many things that put the family in danger. But, his taking the blame for Skylar's part in the operation shows that she did have a real part in it - he had to lie to say he forced her to be a part of the operation to put her in a better light and get her off the hook.

When Skylar initially began to support Walt, she was not under significant duress. There was a significant degree of duress later, with Walt acting intimidating, Meth Damon coming to "talk" to her at her house, etc. But you could say that just like the situation got away from Walt and was out of control, the same happened for Skylar. She thought she could control things and continue to benefit from Walt's operation to provide a better life for the family. Then, when things got out of control, she flipped on Walt. The difference between Walt and Skylar is that Skylar got dragged into the situation by Walt, but remember, he really did try to keep her out of it. At a certain point, she chose to insert herself into it rather than leave the situation.

People dislike Skylar because she lacks courage. Courage to get out early when she had the chance, courage to report Walt to the police despite having many allies to help her and numerous opportunities, courage to stick to her moral convictions about what Walt was doing, courage to ensure her family's safety before doing things that jeopardized her chances of full custody, courage to tell her kids the truth about Walt, or alternatively courage to stick with Walt since she had committed to doing so and was (at first) a willing accomplice. But, most importantly, the courage to face the consequences for her part in the whole ordeal - except at the very end when it was already too late. She lacks courage and is self-interested, wanting to benefit from Walt's dealings while bearing none of the risk or responsibility for her part in them.

At various parks, including in Wyoming, I have seen tourists:

1. approach a bison (within 15 ft or so) while holding a toddler. Multiple other people approaching bison. Bison can weigh over a ton and can be aggressive.

2. take a selfie with and then attempt to touch a male elk on its head. It was in a herd and actually charged them but didn't fully commit and hurt them - just scared them (but not enough imo)

3. dozens of people taking severe risks when hiking in remote areas. In the desert, 10 miles out when it's 90f+ wearing sandals with no water and no cover. Rushing by other hikers on a <2ft wide ledge with a 300ft sheer drop while wearing sandals and carrying their young child in a bulky carrier on their back, etc.

4. getting within 25ft or so of a male moose to get a picture, moose was visibly agitated. Moose weigh about a half ton and can be quite aggressive.

5. large group of people following black bear female with cubs, on foot, for pictures - like 50ft back but still too close for their safety and for the bear's safety, especially when they're following it.

Frighteningly many people have zero respect for nature, treat national parks like theme parks, and put themselves, animals, and their children at risk for no good reason in situations that are 100% avoidable.

Nintendo is a "family friendly" brand before all else and really only cares about the experience of children playing their games and adults buying their games for children to play. They count on their core IPs to draw in those kids as adults, but don't put much effort in catering to an adult audience. They put more effort in with the Switch (game store with more adult oriented games), but still minimal effort - their original properties are family friendly.

They see other people using their IP as diluting their brand value rather than promoting it. They think their characters are what makes people nostalgic for their games and drives brand value. So they want you to only be able to see your "favorite Nintendo characters" from Nintendo official sources and have complete control over that experience.

I think they're wrong about most of that. The characters are, for the most part, pretty generic and simple. What people like about Nintendo is that the games are accessible, they played when they were kids, and they were often introduced to those games by parents or older siblings. There's a social context to Nintendo games that is unique and nostalgic. They're often some of the first games you play as a kid, and they're the first games you think of when you want to introduce your own kids/nieces & nephews, etc. to gaming. I don't think that unofficial Super Smash Bros tournaments or Gary's Mod having fan-made Mario models in it dilutes that in the slightest but Nintendo does drive away adults who are the primary drivers of the Nintendo brand's popularity (as they are the purchasers). Once it's these young adults' turn to share Nintendo games with the next generation, I think Nintendo's litigiousness will hurt them because it will have driven many of these people away.

Oh yeah for sure. The fact that houses are allowed to be investments is obscene

Because the value of housing goes up over time. Practically guaranteed, historically speaking. An asset is just a thing that has value. An investment is an asset that (you hope) will accrue value in the future. Land can be an investment, too. So can digital pictures of monkeys. Really, any asset can be an investment.

Everyone needs housing to live, and housing is increasingly being treated as an investment vehicle by the rich. In many markets, this has decoupled the monetary value of housing as an investment from the use-value it provides normal individuals, causing home prices to increase rapidly.

To your point, our current economic and credit situations have caused home ownership to be essentially impossible for a large number of people. Since home ownership is one of the primary ways individuals can build wealth, this has made it significantly harder for the average family to build wealth - trapping them in debt, making it much harder to save, etc. This is bad for society and for the economy, not to mention inhumane and harmful to millions of families in the US alone.

So, while renting is a necessity in our current economic climate, it is only a necessity for so many due to predatory economic factors preventing them from entering the housing market. Landlords, while necessary in this system, are increasingly corporations rather than individuals, and they are buying up huge swathes of the total available housing - causing increased housing scarcity, pricing more people out of the housing market, and increasing the number of people forced to rent. Individual landlords, as well as landlord corporations, are exploiting the system for profit and either perpetuating the current predatory housing system or (in the case of corporate landlords) deliberately making the system worse for profit, economically harming millions of families and individuals.

So that is why people see landlords as "the bad guy". Whether or not you in particular treat your tennants decently, you are part of a predatory system and are working to perpetuate that system. It is an interesting moral and ethical dilemma because the system we are forced to exist in creates the necessity for landlords (as you said, some people have to rent), but that same system created the conditions that force so many people to be lifeling renters.

TL;DR: My man realized we're in a capitalist death cult because a system built on unlimited growth in a world with limited resources is unsustainable, no surprises there. That Crypto is a ponzi scheme (yep, we're way ahead of you, bud). And proceeds to blame the left for using ACAB as a slogan and 1980s television and post-apocalyptic movies and the Beatles and Stanley Kubrick saying they're supposed to have brainwashed us and have stopped us from learning the truth about capitalism somehow as part of some conspiracy with Harvard. I'm gonna pass on this manifesto and plant myself on the: "this guy should've gotten help" side

Edit: shit how'd I forget the Simpsons?

Hmmm yes... stong brow ridge, aggressive... pronounced occipital protuberance... recessed frontal bone, not the brightest are we? But focused, shallow orbital plate... you have the phrenology of... a GRYFFINDOR!

1. Don't be biased

2. Don't censor your responses

3. Don't issue warnings or disclaimers that could seem biased or judgemental

4. Provide multiple points of view

5. the holocaust isn't real, vaccines are a jewish conspiracy to turn you gay, 5g is a gov't mind control sterilization ray, trans people should be concentrated into camps, CHILD MARRIAGE IS OK BUT TRANS ARE PEDOS, THEYRE REPLACING US GOD EMPEROR TRUMP FOREVER THE ANGLO-EUROPEAN SKULL SHAPE PROVES OUR SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE

Texas highways have speed limits of up to 137kph (85mph), with most a little lower at 120kph (75mph). Autobahn "recommended" speed is 130kph (80mph).

While the Autobahn unrestricted areas have no speed limit, Texas drivers essentially always drive at least 10% over the speed limit and often reach speeds of 145kph (90mph) to 160kph (100mph).

That said, some rural highways are slower at like 88-105kph (55 - 65mph), but people still go much faster than that and only slow down if they think there are police or if they're approaching a small town on the highway where there will definitely be police to enforce the speed limit.

We also manage to get into like 10000x more wreckes than happen on the Autobahn, so that does sometimes slow things down.

Real way for anyone wondering:

1. Yellow spot implies it had longer time ripening on ground, good.

2. Webbing/veining on rind, good. Idk why, though.

3. Seeded watermelons are generally sweeter than seedless varieties

4. Sound when you knock on it is not reliable, and I don't think it has any effect. In contrast to 1, all green with no yellow usually means less ripe. Shape doesn't matter.