partial_accumen

And nothing of value was lost. I've never liked Matisse's works. Especially considering others that produced works before and after his time. His look like the epitome of laziness, but without any artistic commentary or meaning to justify it. I don't begrudge works that can look simple to produce. I appreciate Rothko and Pollock for example If someone can point out something redeeming about Matisse's work, I'm open to hearing it.

So its USAID purchases with extra steps?

This one seems very equal to me. Its a usually a tragedy to lose someone of either gender. I’m not upset if a rapist or murderer commits suicide, however, irrespective of their gender.

I don’t really get your point here, but there is something like 3x more men suicide than women suicide, and this is pretty much true everywhere in the world: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/male-female-ratio-suicides-rates

My point is that neither men's nor women's suicide are dismissed. A woman committing suicde is an equal tradegy to a man committing suicide. I'm not aware of any social convention which dismisses men's suicide. This is what I meant when I said they are equal. Society treats men's and women's suicide the same.

I’m not following where this is a detriment to men. Statistically and my own anecdotal observation, women are much more negatively affected by job inequality.

It really depends on the fields, you’re right in most, pretty much all, cases it is a detriment for women, but for example when it is about working with children men get less hired, and even when they get hired they have to be really careful about what they do, they quickly get called pedophiles.

First, you're right on your very specific example, but that is a very very very small representation of job inequality. However, even in the case of male and female elementary school teachers where you're calling out discrimnation, it is men that are out earning women in the same jobs as elementary school teachers.

Further, the scare around male teachers being around young children is a construct mostly from the last 20 to 25 years. Trying to use that as a statement to suggest that there is equal job (and pay!!) discrimination against both men and women would be disingenuous.

I can’t say I see that reflected in society. What I do see are some calling out specific issues (at least one you’ve raised above) as recently negatively affecting men, while the same issue has been negatively affecting women far worse and for far longer and that it had been ignored. It comes off as lack of self reflection and disingenuous where men have allowed women to suffer for years (decades? centuries?), but as soon as men are experiencing it too, its a crisis now!

When you complain about something happening to you as a men pretty much all the time either people tell you to “just man up” and/or they even just laugh at your face.

What you're describing is an example of "toxic masculinity". I see a lot of irony in you citing it here as supportive of a position that would negate the argument of discrimnation against women vs men.

In short, we both agree that "just man up" is a problem and that philosophy should be discarded, but it isn't on women to fix that when its largely perpetuated by men.

Certainly not all, but certainly lots and lots of bad things. Only 13 of the 193 UN member nations have ever had a woman leader of the nation. source I don’t see how anyone can say women are to blame for that, nor the policies those world leaders put into place.

People in power are responsible for most of the bad things in the world, the fact that they are mostly men doesn’t mean all men are responsible for this,

Strawman. I didn't say because men are in charge that all men are responsible. Thats a common strawman on this topic. Please don't introduce it here.

women in power do lot of bad things too(Indira Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Park Geun-hye, Elizabeth Holmes to name a few), but it’s because of the power and individuals values they have not because of their gender.

You're straying pretty far from the topic here. This isn't "women leaders good, men leaders bad". The point you're replying to is specifically in the context of defining public policy in which discrimination occurs. There have been so few women leaders, and their tenue in modern politics so short that I'm not sure if we can really measure very much impact (positive or negative) on discrimination yet.

Sorbitol

Hamilton is the only one in that poster that doesn't look happy to be there.

Alternate headline: trump accidentally establishes list of plausibly trustworthy journalists

but I think the realistic reading is it was simply a kickback to fortune 500 companies that got these politicians elected.

If there were no legitimate geopolitical reasons, then the "simply a kickback" would be much more plausible. Also, if it was a single source company, then "simply a kickback" would look true. Additionally, if was perhaps just domestic companies "simply a kickback" would certainly be even more likely. Lastly, the Chips act wasn't just about production domestically. It also blocked sales/exports of completed high end chips and chip making equipment to China. If the Chips act was "simple a kickback" you wouldn't do all that other stuff, and you certainly wouldn't allow foreign winners (like Taiwan's TSMC).

Was their rewards because of industry lobbying? Certainly. However, unless you're in a purely communist system of government where all the companies are owned by the state, you're always going to have private companies benefiting from government spending, tax breaks, and subsidies. As to this just applying to fortune 500 companies, there isn't really a "mom and pop" semiconductor industry making handfuls of chips at a time except outside of engineering sample that are used in R&D for fortune 500 companies.

The worst of it hasn’t happened yet. The point where consumers can no longer afford to consume is coming.

Its mostly already arrived.

"As of June 30, the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 63% of all spending"

source

This means that the other 80% of Americans represent only 37% of the spending done today. If a company is looking to maximize profits the typical path is to do so by marketing to the group where they could earn the most money. That is less and less the bottom 80% of Americans.

The creator in that video seems to think the Chips Act subsidies were to benefit consumers by having affordable memory produced domestically. That wasn't the goal. The goal was to derive drive GDP by having another source of domestic production, and drive job growth/tax revenue from workers working at the domestic facility. Lastly, it was to have strategic domestic production decoupled from other nations so we, as a nation, could not be held hostage by another nation (like we do to so many other nations) for crucial (pun very much intended) resources we need.

Nothing about that is about making RAM cheaper for retail consumers.

This sounds like the answer then. Activists get a ballot measure up for vote to outlaw corporate voting then spin up 100,000 LLCs on paper to participate in the next election.

Blagojevich had the "D" but was also a bad pardon. Criminals need to account for their crimes and serve their sentence.

Metaverse was like the AI nobody asked for getting pushed into apps. Nobody wanted Wii Mii like hangout rooms where you have to water a clunky headset.

I was willing to give a shot to something like the Metaverse, but the instant I heard it was a Facebook/Meta project I had zero interest and hoped it would die. This was my same experience with Occulus. These are both technologies I want for a cyberpunk future, but Facebook cannot be the one to control them.