What’s a common “fact” that’s spread around that’s actually not true and pisses you off that too many people believe it?
Agreeing to disagree is only applicable to matters of taste.
Example would be a preference of maple or agave syrup with your choice of cooked dough.
One cannot agree to disagree when one of the parties is factually wrong.
A lot of people don’t understand “factually wrong” is often not possible, if you’re literally debating specific stated facts that you have outside references to sure but anything relating to complex systems, issues, the human experience etc is simply not that black and white
I see the “agree to disagree” as a bit of a social flag for the conversation that says “I don’t wish to get into it / continue arguing about it” because there is no way to respond to it. If you try to continue the debate you look like an asshole, and if you drop it the person who says it gets to continue being wrong without being challenged.
It’s very annoying and I hate it.
Marginal Tax brackets drive me insane especially my parents constantly misunderstand and think a payrise will make them lose money.
They don’t understand that the tax is only paid on the money earned in that bracket. So going up 5% isn’t your total income being taxed an extra 5% its only the money earned on that bracket that is taxed at the higher rate.
There’s technically a spot where making more can cost you money, but that’s well out of reach of normal people. It involves triggering the alternative minimum tax.
New cars are reliable.
First of all, no. Their more complex and failure prone, and you are the guinea pig they test new crap on.
Second of all, you literally cannot call a one year old vehicle reliable. You do not have enough data to make that claim. My jeep is about 40 years old, and with the 40 year old head start will still out live a brand new jeep. It has no “limp mode” because u slipped out of 4 lo in the woods (actual customer example), and it doesn’t require Internet connection + a security gateway authentication to reset things like limp mode and doing a clutch position relearn. If you want a reliable vehicle get something made between 85 and 05, as long as it doesn’t rust out from underneath you it will give u less headaches than anything made in the last 20 years.
What’s the name of that new transmission thing that makes cars made after 2020 break down after 5 years?
Your probably thinking CVT, but could also just be any Ford 😂
People who think cheap Chinese vehicles will be reliable: there is no data to support this.
That Dems are Communists. Like, if only.
Don’t forget Marxists and Socialists. All at the same time.
They are three different things.
dems are RIGHT wing asf, the us being the most right country in the west. thats why conservatives can flourish in AMERICA, they cant be too right wing otherwise they end up like russia. schumer, hakeem, slotkin, NEWSOME are right to center right. while bernie and aoc, zohran is mostly to the “left of them”.
and supporting Israel/ME with military aid makes your party very right wing. an actual left influence is quite small in america, despite the RIGHT constantly drumming up the boogeyman “leftist”
I just came from another post that reminded me of this so I’ll go with it: gerrymandering does not affect your vote in statewide races.
I kept coming across people before the 2024 US elections saying their vote wouldn’t matter in states like TX because of gerrymandering. No. No! It screws you in representation, but not the votes that are a raw count like governor or president.
There might be second order effects of gerrymandering in terms of voters feeling disenfranchised, and deciding their vote doesn’t matter. And not going to vote at all, even in state-wide elections. Not saying this with any evidence just thinking.
Totally!
Gerrymandering makes many elections useless if you’re in the districted minority, so you and many who think like you don’t vote. Results come out showing a sweeping win for the majority, so you and others who think like you feel like you’re so far in the minority that there’s never a point to voting because you’ll never “win,” even in statewide elections.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a part of the calculus behind gerrymandering in the first place. Not only do you get the immediate representation you’re seeking, but also makes it so people who disagree just stop voting altogether.
What about the electoral college?
Adding onto the other commenter - yes the electoral college skews votes towards less populous states. But state borders weren’t drawn with this intent, so it isn’t gerrymandering.
only two states award electors by district, the rest are winner-take-all
in most states its all or nothing so its the popular vote of the state. I think some have some sort of proportional but not sure if its based on districts.
That we eat spiders in our sleep. Just grab them and nomf or they willingly crawl into our mouths of something.
I found one literally right next to my pillow today
EDIT: And yes, it was delicious
Damn you, Spiders Georg!
That Social Security is going to collapse. I’ve been hearing it for literally 50 years. I honestly grew up thinking SS would not be there at retirement, and now I’m collecting it (although I’m not retired). It was a psy-op the whole time, trying to keep workers anxious, and at the grindstone.
Social Security is literally the easiest problem in DC to fix. All they have to do is raise the income cap. Right now, the cap is $184,500. You pay into Social Security on the first $184,500 of income, and anything over that doesn’t get touched. If you make less than that, then 100% of your income gets tapped for SS. But if you make more, you pay a much tinier percentage of your total income.
So if SS is looking like a problem, all they have to do is raise the cap. It goes up a bit every year anyway, but there is no reason it can’t be $500,000, or even $1 million. Of course the rich will scream, but they’re always screaming. We have to learn to ignore that as background radiation, nothing to be concerned about.
Raise the cap enough, and you not only protect Social Security forever, you can give Grandma a nice raise. Doesn’t she deserve it for all those delicious cookies? Or brownies actually, in my Grandma’s case. She made the best homemade brownies, and she cut them BIG!
another one, single or more public option for healthcare cost more, or takes too long to see a doc. not true its almost equal to Insurance provided healthcare in wait times. but the cost is way more significantly higher rather than low cost or free.
also depends if your using a PUBLIC network with govt subsidized hospitals over a private network that is subsidized by the govt that provides free healthcare to patients.
50 years ago was 1976, which was before the 1983 reforms. In 2023, I see a prediction it will run out of trust money by 2035. In 2009, they were predicting the same trust exhaustion in 2037. In 2005, Bush’s campaign warned it would run out by 2042. You’ll notice that these dates keep moving closer and closer as we get more data. There are real structural problems in social security.
With the cap, social security collected 1,159,984 + 188,399 million dollars in 2024, on the 6.2% + 6.2% tax rate. Medicare with no cap at the 1.45% + 1.45% tax rate collected 441,003 million dollars.
That implies taxable income for medicare was 14,172,517 million dollars, and for social security it was 10,874,056 million dollars. Completely removing the cap on social security would fix the current shortfall, but leave the structural issues in the program intact. Maybe it would buy us 25 more years. There are still people living today that would pay in more than they can possibly receive back from the system.
In short, you’re telling the people funding your lifestyle, “Fuck you, I got mine”, then denying that that is what’s happening.
I hear you, that all makes sense, and I’ve been hearing it my entire life. When I was young, Social Security was supposed to end before the 21st Century, and yet, here we are.
I believe they’ve just been softening us up to accept it when they finally figure out some mechanism to kill it, and they can say “Well, we always said it couldn’t last,” and we’ll say, “Yeah, it was good while it lasted.”
Orrrr just remove the cap entirely. No reason to give them any happiness at all. Raise the floor above 100k and remove the cap. And then change the rate to say 5x.
Or even a sliding scale, so the further you are above the floor, the higher rate you pay.
Over 1 million or so and it gets up to 100%.
I’ve thought of that, but then we miss out on the opportunity to piss them off every time we raise it, and that’s so much fun.
I love when rich people start screaming that they don’t have enough money, and the poor get all the breaks, and it isn’t fair. Hilarious.
Oh I’d rather just drown them in their anger and literally tax them to financial (and in most cases actual) death then keep them around to listen to their torture. I’m actually 1000% ok with making a new law yesterday that just means death sentence for having over a certain amount. Legal to earn only if you can show that you are personally investing billions into infrastructure and public good. To be planned and handled by neutral parties, so you can’t be faking numbers and all that.
I feel like it’s the reverse of that saying from the Incredibles.
Once no one is rich, everyone will be.
Valid perspective, the main point being that it is imperative that we reconfigure our country so that neither society, nor the government serve the needs of the wealthy, the wealthy serve the needs of government and society. The wealthy have no needs, they are wealthy.
They need to learn that they keep their money at the pleasure of the Citizens, and if they step out of line, or even hint at trouble, the Board of Directors goes to prison, and their entire net worth is confiscated. Do that to a few wealthy families, make them destitute, and have to send their kids to {gasp!} public school, and they’ll learn real quick who they work for.
Nah, just guillotine them and make the kids wards of the (new and improved) state. Everybody wins.
Also valid. When the time comes, we’ll have that discussion in earnest. Sociopathic Oligarchs will not be consulted.
Aye, I’ll raise my weed vape to that.
That food stamps or any handouts at all are a serious problem. Our (the US) government launches a single bomb that’s worth years of food support. Idgaf if the food stamp recipients never do a damn thing but watch TV. I’d much rather millions of people doing that than bombing brown people half a world away.
Additionally, it’s been proven in scientific study time and time again that giving people enough money to meet their needs significantly reduces crime and costs significantly less money than the “traditional” approach like inflating police budgets. Literally giving people cash money reduces crime better than any other way you could use the money.
then it wont be able to fund MIC, Prison industries, or low wage. thats why they attack or neglect education funding, and drive culture wars to make jobs pay less by providing billionaires more benefits.
The idea of monetary scale is one I think is a big misconception anytime we’re talking about budget. “This committee wasted MILLIONS of dollars on this stupid niche scenario!” Well, yeah; the USA has millions of people in it. If a program affects the entire country, how much are you willing to spend per person? 8 cents?
Exactly. Budgets on national levels do not compute on a personal level. I like it when articles scale down the numbers to a more individual level “so let’s pretend that the federal government is a single family home…”
I also find it irritating when politicians brag about bills like “this will create 3000 American jobs.” Seriously, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
I also am sick of the sacrificial worship at the altar of “jobs.”
Jobs doing what? Variably scheduled positions pushing bricks around with a broom for minimum wage and getting laid off 4 months later? Jobs only open to those with a Master’s in lepidopterology? Jobs at Burger King making flame-broiled whoppers wearing paper hats?
Seemingly the public loses their poop if it means “jobs”, but won’t put enough energy into support outside of jobs, because we have a state mandated religion based solely on exhaustive toil for its own sake, value and results optional.
Stuff your jobs. Give us healthcare, dammit.
even fast food jobs dont respond to online ads, like from indeed. i notice if the franchise is employing significant amount of 1 demographic they wont hire anyone else but that demo, especially if your name is not of that demographic.
deleted by creator
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. Would you say that someone who identifies as nonbinary is not transgender? If so, does that mean that transgender only exists within the gender binary?
That the general population are directly responsible for the amount of pollution occurring a la “carbon footprint” when there are 10 companies producing 70% of the world’s pollution
Huh, odd, why do they do this?
To make the general population think that they’re responsible for the problems caused by the massive uncontrolled exploitation of limited resources by corporations.
(Or in simpler terms; So the general population don’t show the CEOs just how fragile their mortal bodies are.)
No, why do they produce all the emissions?
Combustion produces byproducts, such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and depending on the fuel or the quality of combustion, sulphur oxides and other fantastically poisonous substances that are building up in our limited breathing air and drinking water.
Engines that use this process are called internal combustion engines, they mix the fuel with air and ignite it, this creates heat and pressure, because the big molecules that make up the fuel are broken down into a massive quantity of smaller ones. That pressure then pushes on pistons which turn a crankshaft that can be connected to a transmission in a car, or a generator in a power plant, the hot exhaust gases that make up a lot of the pollution then get forced out of the engine into the air.
Unless you’re asking why specifically those companies are the ones producing the emissions, in which case it’s a matter of the amount of carbon fuel they use to mine/refine/move the materials and build/run the factories, and the transport they use to move their finished product and run all of the processes that lead up to the product being made. All of which drives emissions.
To draw on an example thats incredibly apt right now, considering Utah is now allowing a datacenter that will use 9 GW of power, more than every combined person and business in the state uses.
A data center is designed in CAD software - electrical energy from the grid is used in the computer
The data center is built - Heavy machinery prepares the ground and Concrete is poured - earthmovers use carbon fuel, the concrete manufacturer itself burns fuel to create the concrete, then ships it via trucks to the building site where it is poured, setting concrete also releases carbon dioxide.
The computer components are built - rare earth metals are dug from the ground and refined into chips that are shipped to factories where they are assembled onto circuitboards - the material and manufacture requirements of these components take a lot of fuel, and a lot of highly specialised equipment that is energy intensive
The computer components are shipped to the site - this also takes fuel.
This is all contributing to the emissions cost that the company has racked up, and the datacenter isn’t even active yet.
ALSO, NONE of these examples take into account physical pollution, where crude oil or a carbon product (such as in Palestine… the American one; where a derailed train load of polyvinyl was set on fire and left to uncontrollably burn because it was cheaper than calling a chemical spill team) is either poured into the worlds water from crashed tankers or from drilling platforms (or from military actions where refineries are burned, and we get events like the mass swathe of marine life dieoff thanks to oil being spilled into the ocean)
Hopefully that answers your question, if not you’ll have to ask a different way because I don’t know what you mean when you say “why do they produce emissions?” (The answer is burning things makes emissions, and they’re burning the lot.)
I’m being a bit annoying about it because the companies don’t burn all that crap for fun but, as you laid out, for our collective consumption patterns. I developed the impression that the whole “x companies do y% of emissions!” thing, similar to “no ethical consumption” reminders tends to fulfill a function not aimed at motivating larger-scale changes (e.g. banning animal agriculture wholly instead of making an individual choice to not consume em; banning ICE cars from being produced/sold while creating comprehensive public transport instead of merely biking to work yourself) but at detaching oneself from the role we do actually play in society. (Also, smaller/individual scale weirdoes are a good source of activists that can radiate social structures out into general society)
The problem with relying on the mass of society changing their consumption patterns is that the mass of society is too damn poor to even give a damn, let alone scrounge up the extra money it costs to buy the non-polluting version of the commodity they need.
We’ve been trying to implement bottom-up change for 50+ years, and pretty much the only people who have made any voluntary changes are middle-class yuppies.
On the other hand, top down legislation has had an exponentially larger impact on emissions.
I’m not saying the “70% of emissions come from 10 companies” fact as a get out of jail ‘I’ll burn tyres in my yard because the companies do worse’ - that’s being part of the problem and not helping in any way.
I 100% agree with your follow up of we need to embrace the fact that we exist as part of a system and our actions have consequences.
My position is and has always been that we need to take better actions to prevent these companies from digging oil out of the ground or the pandemics, famines, resource wars, baseball sized hail, mass flooding, wildfires and supercell tornados are going to only get worse for everyone.
To be clear: the direction I’d like to see isn’t ignoring larger-scale changes but embracing that these things are linked. Companies don’t burn fuel for fun, but for profit (or non-capitalist modes of resource allocation - if the central party committee decides to satiate the people’s hunger for meat and cars, that’s also a problem). And the profit there comes from all of us, individually as well as collectively. So action against that probably should also happen on both levels.
I think the issue lies in that the corporations have an incentive to keep the increased carbon footprint and the average person composting or sorting trash for recycling (typical footprint reduction suggestions) does nothing to reduce this incentive. Moving the markets desires away from items with high carbon footprints is a monumental task and one we should strive for but a faster method of reduction would be direct pressure to the corporations exploiting cheap labor that has a higher carbon footprint cost
The point they are trying to get at is that the vast majority of carbon produced by these companies is produced to see to the wants and needs of common people, and it is disingenuous to imply that solving climate change would impact no one except these companies shareholders.
Most carbon isn’t being created to build data centers. It is used to build roads, apartments, office buildings, cars, and trains. It is created by people driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers or running a heat pump on electricity generated in a coal plant. It is created when cheap plastic knick knacks are manufactured in indonesia, shipped across an ocean, and then transported overland to a store where they can be bought, used today, and thrown in the dump the next.
So regardless of where you apply pressure to stymie climate change, common people will be impacted, and pretending otherwise is essentially telling a lie to those common people.
disingenuous to imply that solving climate change would impact no one except these companies shareholders.
Where did I imply that making it so the planet doesnt kill us impacts only the companies?
Most carbon isn’t being created to build data centers.
I used one single example among many, datacentres are a single part of the problem, but a not inconsiderable one given that 7% of the total power consumption of the entire US goes to datacenters.
It is created by people driving cars or using gas stoves or eating hamburgers or running a heat pump on electricity generated in a coal plant. It is created when cheap plastic knick knacks are manufactured in indonesia, shipped across an ocean, and then transported overland to a store where they can be bought, used today, and thrown in the dump the next
In no way am I saying that mass consumption of oil product tat that goes to landfill after a week isn’t part of the problem, given that plastic waste in the air and water is also a major part of pollution and feeding climate change.
I’m not pretending that people aren’t going to be impacted, but I’d much rather a change where people can’t buy useless tat, than one that we’re living in now, where we can buy the tat but where doing so is destroying the planet we live on.
Blaming people for the companies making products worse, advertising disposable plastic items as if it solves the problems we already solved (but its so much cheaper for the company to make things out of plastics and not materials that last, and they can sell it to us ten times over to make up their profits) and then shipping them around the world in boats that use bunker fuel is unsustainable.
I spoke at length about the processes of one small part, but none of what I said was all-encompassing, it was merely a simplified example of one thing among many that make up the system of manufacture and shipping that feeds pollution into our planet for the sake of profits.
Where did I imply that making it so the planet doesnt kill us impacts only the companies?
You implied it when twice you went on long tangents going into the minutiae of the carbon production process while avoiding providing the simple, obvious answer to the question. Why do those companies produce all that carbon? Because they are making things that people want and need.
The problem with this framing is that it implies that climate change exists solely due to a few bad actors, and if we just constrained them or sestroyed them or whatever, then we would all live happily ever after. But this is not the case.
Suppose we round up all the CEOs and major shareholders to these companies tomorrow, and put them on a firing line, and threaten anyone else with the same if they don’t immediately dissolve the companies. Well, after maybe a year or two of a global economic crisis and restructuring of the world’s supply lines, do you think carbon emmissions would have gone down? Probably not. Instead, you would likely have new major players who stepped into the old companies roles. Or maybe now those roles are more dispersed - so instead of 7 companies emmitting all this carbon, we now have 700 million.
Now, I’m not saying that the concentration of global economic power isn’t a problem. But it isn’t the main problem to solve if we want to solve climate change. Because the production of carbon isn’t driven by companies making products, but by consumers demanding products. Nigerians coming out of poverty want dirty two stroke mopeds. Vietnamese pho vendors want propane to power their food carts. Latvian software developers want to display their wealth by driving low end luxury cars. Argentinian housewives want to eat steak for every meal. And remote villiagers in Pakistan want to keep enjoying the power they now have in their homes for only the last few years that comes from the coal plant 100km away. And if we want to snap our fingers and decarbonize the world, then at least some of these people are going to face disruptions to some of these goods.
That doesn’t mean that a decarbonized world has to be worse for everyone. But it means that maybe Latvian software developers need to develop a taste for expensive watches, and maybe Argentinian housewives will need to learn to grill jackfruit, and maybe an NGO needs to pay for rural Pakistanis to have solar panels on their roofs. But the actual number of companies that are the endpoints of pollution based on whatever statistical analysis is fairly irrelivant. Whether it is 7 companies or 700 million, we need to stop the demand for carbon intensive goods that is driving the supply - and that means changing peoples preferences or creating alternatives for those preferences to be met which do not depend on carbon emmissions.
Yeah convenience culture will have to die. To keep food not in plastic and not shipped halfway across the world you’re going to gave to give up getting your favorite flavor of dorito from the gas station at 2am. They won’t be able to package specialty flavors at a plant 600mi away then seal them in airtight nitrogen and ship them all over the country to that stores that are open 24/7 where they’ll be shelf stable for the next few months. You’ll have to order them by mail yourself or make do with local / regional variants made with different ingredients. The kids who stop eating when their dino nuggies have a different breading are just gonna starve (had an ex like that at 25y/o he was exhausting.)
It’s a nice “gotcha” you’re trying do. These companies emit because they are producing goods and services for us, the people, right?
No.
The point of blaming 10 companies for 70% of emissions, most of whom are fossil fuel energy companies, is that we have the technology and the resources to begin a 100% switch over to cleaner energy sources today. But these 10 companies make obscene profits and use those profits to control the political system and prevent that switchover.
We don’t have to use fossil fuels to maintain our society, but these companies use their influence to make sure we do it anyways.
“Just doing my job” being a valid excuse for causing even minor harm.
I’m sick of people saying there are no original movies. Original movies come out literally every week, and I’m using the actual meaning of the word literally. Look at the website MovieInsider for a list of all the movies being released. Some recent original movies are quite popular too, like Sinners and Project Hail Mary. It pisses me off because if you care enough to complain, you should care enough to look up what movies are out instead of just knowing about the ones heavily advertised. I don’t know what video games are out but I would make an effort to know if I played video games. If you care what movies are out, you should look it up.
I think you might be judging these people too harshly. I think what they really mean is less that new movie ideas are not coming out and more that there are too many re-hashed ideas. The two ideas are easy to confuse. And I think you’ll admit that there have been long strings of superhero movies, tons of vampire movies, never-ending franchises and that doesn’t even include all of the tropes that get used over and over again. This leaves people like me wondering how many great ideas pitched to Hollywood are turned down in favor of another sequel because it’s perceived as the easiest way to make a quick buck. I’m always delighted when a movie surprises me because so few do.
Maybe I take things too literally because of my autism, but in the contexts I see these comments it seems to mean there are no movies that aren’t sequels or remakes. There are plenty of movies that aren’t sequels or remakes and these people seem to be willfully ignoring them. I’ve seen many movies this year, some have been sequels or remakes, some have not been. I personally count movies based on books as original, like the movie Reminders of Him, but that’s not good enough for some people. The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film, but no they won’t accept an adaptation as original. And yes, some original films are derivative of ideas that have been done before. All fiction is derivative of other fiction. It’s basically impossible fir it not to be at least a little derivative.
I concede that it is unfortunate that there are likely original ideas being rejected in favour of franchise movies. But I think part of the reason this happens is audiences are hypocritical. If the audience would put their money where their mouths are and see more original films, more original films would get made. Franchise films are getting made so often because it’s what people want, as proven by them making money. People blame the marketing for their choices. It’s a chicken and egg situation, franchise films make more money because they’re marketed more and they’re marketed more because they make more money. If people saw more original films, original films would get more marketing. I’m annoyed by people blaming the corporations for their own choice to see franchise movies more than original movies
I think it could be a bit of both.
I mean independent films don’t aire in as many locations so it’s a self fulfilling thing to some extent.
I’ve never really known if it’s the chicken or the egg. For example, I like a smaller cell phone. It fits in my pocket and is easier to use with one hand. But… It’s also harder to see. Smaller phones are going extinct. Is that because people want larger phones or because companies want us to want larger phones? I have no idea really. All I know is it will be very difficult for me to “vote” for smaller phones with my dollars, if there are literally no smaller phones to choose.
I dunno, all those movies you mention seemed to have a lot in common, like a protagonist who becomes unsatisfied with their life, enters a new realm with different rules, undergoes great trials, almost fails but receives unexpected aid, and ultimately gets what they sought but finds themself no longer fitting into their former life.
Just something I’ve noticed.
That is the standard plot for any good story.
The most basic version is: normal person gets pushed out of their comfort zone, undergoes turmoil, comes out of this turmoil changed.
Unfortunately popular movies tend to make them all “tough guy gets pushed into violence, destruction ensues, he gets the girl and/or revenge” or “uptight person gets put in absurdly contrived cringy situations that are supposed to be funny, then comes out of the situation not uptight and gets the girl.”
deleted by creator
Project Hail Mary is an adaptation
Some of our most beloved classical movies are adaptations. What’s your point?
Name one anime that wasn’t a manga first.
You erroneously listed it as an example of an original film, is my point.
That person didn’t list it as anything. Pay attention to who you’re replying to. For the purpose of the discussion about whether Hollywood is making any original movies, people mean as opposed to remakes and sequels
Okay it was an adaptation, but it wasn’t a remake or a sequel. I understand the definition of original to be not remake or sequel. If adaptations don’t count, that significantly shrinks the number of original movies that have ever been made. Why is it not enough the movie isn’t part of an established film franchise, it also must not be an adaptation? The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film. The film is contributing to new, non-franchise, films being made popular. No, ideas must go straight to being film or they don’t count?
Because original film has a specific meaning, that it isn’t adapted from an underlying work.
But for the purposes of these conversations, people are complaining about sequels and remakes being too prominent. I don’t see why an adaptation of a book that has never been adapted into film before should be part of that complaint
Okay, but you can’t just redefine established terminology to make it fit your argument. Besides, people complain about adaptations from other media just as much as about remakes and sequels.
Different categories apply depending on the context. Adaptations are a different category than remakes or sequels and in this context make sense to classify as original. It’s not based on any preexisting movie
People complain about original movies too, what’s your point? People are hypocrites. They ask why nothing original is being made and them Disney announced Hexed and it immediately got backlash. People are accusing it of being a ripoff of Owl House but there’s no good evidence of that. People complain no matter what.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood and people usually aren’t just complaining about franchise films but also about adaptations. To which I’m even MORE annoyed with their complaint about no original movies being made. The original Mean Girls was an adaptation. So that movie shouldn’t have been made? Why shouldn’t Hollywood look to books for material? Why this arbitrary demand that the movie can’t be based on anything? All stories are derivative. The original Star Wars was original, not a remake or adaptation, but it was inspired by Flash Gordon. It’s basically impossible to make a story with no connection to any preexisting story
Things being “illegal”.
No it’s not against the law. Just because someone can sue you doesn’t mean what you did was a crime. Just because a business can’t sell a particular product doesn’t mean it’s illegal to have. You can’t ‘get arrested’ for half the shit people think is ‘illegal’.
The only electricity generation we should have is solar.
Yeah we need a good mix of things. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear… Why not burn trash for electricity as well, unless we figure out excellent ways to recycle everything. Coal, gas and oil fuels should obviously be phased out as fast as possible, as much as possible.
But in the end isn’t all energy solar?
Most energy sources trace back to the sun’s power through direct or indirect processes. Fossil fuels, wind, hydro, and biomass all originate from solar-driven cycles on Earth. About the only thing you could argue that isn’t solar is geothermal. But even that exists because some sun exploded created gas and dust that clumps together and forms a planet.
Sure, that is a statement a human could type or vocalize.
I assure you I am human. But isn’t that exactly what an AI would say?
Although I also believe we live in a simulation so in the end maybe we are all AI.
Nuclear is fine, it’s only unsafe when people are idiots. Oh wait, actually scratch that, in that case it’s not safe. /s
I’ve heard the argument that nuclear is also bad because it still uses steam turbines which require grease/cooling oil derived from petroleum. Lot of anti turbine people for that reason. I wholeheartedly disagree and am what you could consider a highly knowledgeable person in the matter.
I think we have to settle with the fact that all oil deposits are going to be extracted and used by humanity. I’d prefer if we used it slowly to grease turbine bearings rather than just burning it all the time.
Also, until fairly recently, we were using whale oil for lubrication in a lot of things. As fucked up as it is, that shit is renewable. There are alternatives for lubrication that are slightly more expensive than petroleum products.
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said so far.
And yet the petroleum industry is pushing so hard to brainwash the public to think another Chernobyl is inevitable, even though they can make the very products that can prevent it.
deleted by creator
Chernobyl is hardly the only meltdown we have seen. 3 reactors in Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Fermi 1, K-19 soviet submarine, the US SL-1 test reactor. And there are plenty of non-meltdown radiation releases. Newer designs do seem safer, but the track record of nuclear power is checkered, at best.
That and the fossil fuel industry creating Greenpeace to spread propaganda far and wide under the guise of environmentalism
Why do you say that? Isn’t it better to diversify to guarantee supply when the sun is out? What’s the problem with wind, hydro or geothermal?
Plus, having other means to generate electricity would also somewhat bring down the cost of solar cells due to lower demand.
I’m saying a diversification of generation is needed. All eggs in any one particular basket is ignorance.
That WW1 was the same moral black and white as WW2.
In my opinion, every country in WW1 was the villain just that one side was impatient enough to be the aggressor first.Ooh this is a hot take, can you explain a little?
I don’t think it is.
They all were colonial powers that oppressed and subdued their colonial holdings, extracting wealth and even soldiers. France was the only republic, all the others were monarchies and Russia had the most absolutist monarchy. But that doesn’t really factor in, because even France wasn’t fighting to spread or preserve democracy.All were fighting to beat them arch enemies, to steal a piece of land or two or maybe a colony and to test their newly developed industrial weaponry. They were all stomping at the bit before it started.
The German Empire was surely the most militaristic society. But they still fought all for the same ideology and reason.
To my last point, you can see that in the result: the losers had to gave up colonies but not to independence but to the victors as spoils.Stomping at the bit? I’ve never heard that phrase
Yeah I meant chomping at the bit. It comes from horses chewing the metal part of the bridle because they’re fired up and want to run.
Ah, thanks. I am not a native English speaker.
“champing” not “chomping”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champing at the bit
There was a large propaganda effort by the British and French to pin the blame for the war on one of the Central Powers and Germany was the only major Central Powers that didn’t fall apart due to the war.
May you explain why you think it’s controversial? Only if you want to.
To my primitive understanding the war was triggered by the Austrians, escalated by the Germans and win by the Allies. But I’ve never bothered to question the information, so it felt quite controversial to read. Your other comment explaining it makes perfect sense however.
Yep, WWI was the result of a bunch of inbred rulers turning family disagreements into a war because they could.
Yeah. When you look at how the war even got started, you start to see that Germany didn’t expect Austria-Hungary to be that incompetent diplomatically and that Russia was the one who threw away a potential peace plan before the war started.
