If a government raises taxes for something so that working class people cannot buy it, that government becomes richer by exploiting the working class.

1. If the working class cannot buy it, then they are not getting taxed. If the government is making more money from implementing that taxation scheme, then all that money has to come from those who are wealthier than the working class.
2. You only become richer if you hold on to the money. The government’s job is to spend that money to the benefit of its constituents, not hoard money.

In the past there have been ice ages while the atmospheric CO2 level was 10 times higher than it is now.

Implying we want another ice age?

The notion that eating insects will save the world seems a little dubious.

I agree

Legally, yes. But laws get broken all the time.

When someone starts complaining about what bathroom everyone is using, you can’t just ignore it and hope it goes away. It’s your job as their superior to address these issues.

Similarly,

Their gender/identity should have absolutely zero impact on the ability to do their job.

Making this stance clear requires talking about gender identity and politics.

For the same reason I’d attend a meeting and complain afterwards that it could’ve been an email, despite knowing that I was going into a meeting.

I think it’s reasonable to expect the video formats to only be used when it’s a good medium for communicating whatever it’s communicating.

Changing the voting system involves changing the law, doesn’t it? Can’t you just revert the ban in that very same bill?

Edit: Ah, I just saw in another comment that this affects lower levels of government that wouldn’t have the power to make this change.

It’s very helpful in figuring out your own opinions on a topic too. It doesn’t matter much if you convince anyone else.

One of the biggest challenges when creating something new is in not knowing whether or not it’s possible. Once you know, you can just keep pouring resources into it and know with near certainty that you’ll eventually hit your goal. Since the US already has so many other tools for avoiding a nuclear strike, there’s no reason to publicise a new one. Keep it for when the other tools fail, or else everyone else will also have it and you lose your advantage before you could use it.

I think at this point, it would be more economical to distill the water than to burn up contaminants.

Just because an English word was originally Latin and is written the same way, doesn’t mean it’s pronounced the same way. It’s an English word now. It has an English pronunciation, pluralisation and definition that can all be different from the original. “Kentawur” is not correct for the English word.

An idea I’ve been toying with is that laws should be written like software with lots of test cases. It makes no sense to create laws with ambiguous terms that only become concrete when it goes through court. We should know what the law actually is before it gets passed.

If you’re your own audience, then you can keep the joker in your head. Posting it on Lemmy broadcasts it to everyone here and that makes all of us your audience.

It only works as a joke when your audience knows you well enough to know it’s meant as a joke without the /s. That does not apply to you when you post on Lemmy.

It allows you to plan out what happens during/around it. For example, should my leisure time the day before be something more fun but cognitively demanding or more chill and relaxing?

It also allows you to get in the right state of mind for the work. In my experience (is this also an autistic thing? I don’t know), if you’re mentally prepared for something very difficult and unpleasant, it greatly cuts down on how unpleasant it is, sometimes even turning that difficult thing into a fun challenge. If you mentally prepare for something that’s worse than what’s actually ahead, you end up with way too much excess energy and the need to look for problems to solve even when no problems exist.

Fascinating thread. Is there some genetic component that makes broccoli stinky to some people and not others? Is this why some people are averse to broccoli? I’m surprised to see everyone just accepting the premise of the question. I love boiling broccoli precisely because it smells amazing.

If we have this data for each election, someone could also compile statistics on how well each party follows through with their promises. Ideally weighted by how much voters care about each promise.

tldr but I am outraged by the existence of this comment.

No more worries about UPS. If your base grows too big and UPS drops, so will your brain’s processing speed and you’ll never notice a thing.

Asexuality isn’t about sex drive. It’s a question of where you direct sexual desires. If it’s not directed at anyone (whether it’s because it’s non-existent, because it’s undirected, or it’s directed at fictional characters or objects), then that’s asexual. Apparently, non-asexual people experience this thing where they see someone attractive and get a “I want to have sex with this specific person” feeling.

Yes? I get the impression that you mean to disagree with me, but I can’t tell how.

I don’t know if my explanation of the phenomenon is correct or not. I don’t know much about the science of traffic dynamics. All I know is that when you’re on the road, pretty much everyone ends up at approximately the same speed. That speed can differ relative to the speed limit depending on time of day, road and weather conditions, which road you’re on, etc. and there’s no one to tell me what speed to aim for. I just look at the flow of traffic and follow it. That’s all.

No negotiation is needed. As long as everyone agrees to follow everyone else (i.e. no one tries to overtake and you keep a constant gap with the car in front of you), then everything will naturally fall into place.