Did you see someone shoplifting? No you fucking didn't, narc.

EDIT: Okay, so just grabbing a top level comment to dispell some misinfo.

Stealing baby formula to onsell online does happen: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/money-issue-baby-formula-crime-ring.html

Parents stealing baby formula out of desperation also happens: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-desperate-reality-of-stealing-baby-formula-because-you-cant-afford-it_uk_64635704e4b09eef8308cfc6

The problem here is that baby formula is something people need to feed their babies, and our society has decided that if you don't have enough made up arbitrary tokens, you don't get to feed your baby.

If I don't know 100% that the person I saw stealing baby formula is doing it as part of a crime ring, then I'm not going to ruin a parent's life because they did what they needed to feed their baby. Even then if the crime ring is selling it at a discount then I don't particularly care to stop them either.

If you want to tell people that shoplifting is such a problem and you want to focus on the crime rings and ignore the poor people, your priorities are messed up. Also none of you know how to source your claims. Also, don't start with some BS about how nobody ever does it to feed their baby, that's just false.

In conclusion:

Did you see someone shoplifting? No you fucking didn't, narc.

It turns out the supply & demand story of economics is basically horseshit, and if you look at how the economy works scientifically - which in this case just means paying attention to what actually happens and letting that shape your theories rather than demanding that your theories are correct and patching them ad-hoc to pretend you were always right - then essentially inflation is caused by price setters just hiking prices.

https://strangematters.coop/supply-chain-theory-of-inflation/

This is a decent interview with the authors where they also talk about how orthodox economists gatekeep their theories and launder other's theories so they never have to admit they were wrong:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-it-could-happen-here-30717896/episode/the-imf-admits-we-were-right-121530013/

So yeah, you're not crazy, it is just corporations using their price setting powers to shit on us, and economists giving them cover.

It's almost like we're under an economic system that perpetuates itself at the expense of literally every single person on Earth, and we would all be better off if we abolished it.

The problems with nuclear power aren't meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that's just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.

It's not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can't do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.

And it wasn't some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don't know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn't some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.

Also there is good science on why we actually can switch to entirely renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

This analogy is so absurd. Like if you have a vote on driving off a cliff, the answer is not to treat the vote as legitimate. The answer is to attempt to stop the bus by any means necessary. Pry open the engine panel and chuck a wrench in the gears, cut the fuel line, break the shifter lever, anything, just get off the fucking bus. Neither driver should be trusted.

EDIT: I am sick of hearing "WHY WON'T YOU VOTE THO"

First of all, I already said this:

The only reason to vote for the less-immediate cliff driver is to give you more time to stop the bus.

That's the other problem with this post: the non-voter is a strawman. Most people with real critiques of the bus vote too because they understand this. Voting barely matters for the most part but you may as well do it. Most people yelling about "don't vote it's pointless" are like 15 years old doing baby's first radical politics.

I just don't understand why every time we criticise the bus we have to deal with loads of people yelling about why we don't take the voting more seriously, as if who we vote for is the bigger issue than the fact that we're stuck on a careening death machine with a bunch of people calmly debating how fast we should all die.

The translation is, "It wasn't us don't get angry, but also it kind of was one of us and also we are sticking by the decision so it may as well have been us." I don't really see that it matters if the story is true - in the best possible case they're just saying that they don't have a way of setting policies and having those policies be followed.

If we've learned anything from centralised platforms it's that size doesn't protect platforms from the consequences of making bad decisions.

Makes sense, it was already open source, just attaching to the activitypub protocol is a straightforward move.

It's everywhere too. Blogs, webcomics, special interest forums, and they will all potentially become new fediverse instances virtually by default. It's pointing to a future where people join the fediverse without knowing what it is or seeking it out. They just want to join a forum to discuss their interests.

Piracy is becoming the safe option, think about that.

Idk who downvoted you, I guess people who think the problem with Musk is that he's cringy or like a cartoon supervillain. No, all billionaires are evil. If you think Gates is a good guy that's because you don't understand what it takes to be a billionaire, what he does with his "charity", or the history of how he's run his business or destroyed antitrust purely because he was embarrassed at how bad he looked under cross examination. He has the charity specifically to launder his image, and as a result he's found ways to be evil using it as cover that he wouldn't have found back in his embrace, extend and extinguish days.

EDIT: Also behind the bastards did episodes on both these absolute jackoffs:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-ballad-of-bill-83715310/

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-i-do-not-like-63419860/

You don't get featured on that show unless you properly suck.

73 million is so much money I wouldn't know what to do with it in my entire lifetime.

Its ~0.3% of the ~20 billion twitter has lost.

Rich people live in a different universe.

You can see she really didn't want to address it at first. Like she immediately apologised, then the host stopped her to ask about it and she cringed when she said he had touched her. Only after the host put a stop to everything did she call the guy out on it, which she handled really well.

It seems to me her first instinct was that this could become a real problem for her, and she was safer just letting it go. It's also probably way more normal for her than for the host.

One good thing is she is the visible person and the guy who assaulted her was just some random guy, so public opinion should easily go in her favour.

Strawman fallacy.