They all just want to be good boys for Daddy.
myrmidex
joined 4 days ago
The karma system increases engagement, which entices shareholders, resulting in an increase of share price.
I don't. Some of the reasons: I have way too many hobbies so my free time is precious, too many people on this planet already, raising a child costs 250K, we live too far away from our parents for any free babysitting, the current society is not one I want my child to grow up in, ...
Ahhh I hadn't considered that. It's a good reason to switch.
What's the issue to switch to dumb phones? Tracking SIM cards? Cookie and other web tracking by big tech? The smart phone as a spying device? Can't be SIM tracking, as dumb phones would have that issue too. I guess the latter is easily resolved by using GrapheneOS, and I imagine the second one by a having good privacy setup. Any other reasons?
I'm just wondering, as I was imagining switching to a dumb phone. I wouldn't be opposed, and I don't think I'd miss much, mainly email and lemmy. However, I would love to no longer have an easy map at hand, and actually having to look for places, and asking for directions. As for a weather app... I could just ask for the weather forecast when I'm asking for directions ;)
TIL! Never heard that definition, thanks for that.
As for your point, it's one I like to make sometimes, even though I'm fully in favor of veganism. One just cannot avoid trampling ants when walking. It's such a fine line, even a paradox that keeps sucking me in. None of the extremes would work: eat everything vs eat nothing. The line drawn by society will always seem arbitrary, no matter where it's at.
Interesting coincidence: Ryanair raises its fines right after the EU eases compensation rules for delayed flights. Almost like they were waiting for it.
Will future generations ever look at trees the way we look at primates today?
I imagine that would spell trouble for our eating habits.
It seems we've entered a post-satire world.
Wow, your post sent me down quite a rabbit hole. I suspected 94% was rather high, this page puts it into clearer perspective:
The “exceedingly high” part of this question most likely refers to the federal income tax’s “confiscatory” top rates coming out of World War II, which the Eisenhower Administration left in place into the 1960s. During the war, the top “marginal rate” was 94%, but 94% of what? Then as now, income tax rates moved up at distinct break points. In this made-up example, consider a 15% rate up to $25,000, 21% from $25,000 to $50,000, and 25% over $50,000. Those making $50,001 or more won’t pay a quarter of their total income, but rather 15% of the first $25,000, 21% of the next $25,000, and 25% of everything above $50K. That’s why the system is called progressive - the percentage rate progresses upward with income, but the higher percentage applies only to new (marginal) income above each break point. In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation).
Very few individuals encountered this top rate, however. The actual proportion of earnings citizens paid as income taxes in 1945 was far lower: for the poorest 20% of Americans, 1.7%; for the next 20%, 6.2%; for the middle quintile, 8.9%, for the upper-middle 20%, 10%; and for the wealthiest quintile, 20.7%.
Still, your point stands, taxes can be an instrument for (more) equality. The article I referred to (see another reply of mine for the full article) also gives an example of how taxes can be fairer, and also gives an example of a time in Italy when they were.
view more: next ›
That strategy does not require military grade equipment. DENIED!