As a voter you are compelled to vote for the candidate with the largest campaign budget. Oh… wait, that isn’t true at all.
Money is important, but you still need to find voters that are interested in your message. If you have the money to activate them you can win, but they have to be there in the first place.
If there is somebody willing to pay more for what is ultimately a limited supply of potatoes, why not sell to them. If the price per ounce of chips is too high for you, you’ll buy less chips. People who just can’t live without those chips might buy less candy to make sure they can afford them.
All the while people who make chips are asking for raises because the chip market is hot and the boss just can’t get enough people into the plant to make them. The workers know their boss needs them badly so they are comfortable asking for more. The boss relents because he needs them in there making those chips or he’s gonna lose money with potatoes rotting in the warehouse.
Sellers raise their prices because they have buyers ready to pay that higher price.
Say your have the best restaurant in town and you have a line down the street and everyday you sell out of food before lunch. If you raise your prices the line will get shorter as some of your more price sensitive customers decide to go elsewhere. Keep raising them and your shop will be empty as nobody wants your food at those prices. The “right price” is where you get the most money you can for the work that you do in a day. Right?
You should be looking at your wages exactly the same. Ask for 10k per hour and you’re going to be jobless. As for 5 per hour and you’re gonna have lots of offers but not make enough money. Try to find the “right” wage. This is why wages have been going up faster than inflation pretty much every quarter since some time in 2022.
And no, we shouldn’t punish you or our hypothetical restaurant owner for setting your prices properly.
Also, taxes don’t remove money from the economy so it would be neutral from an inflation standpoint. But that’s a much longer story.
This comes from a memory of a digression during a lecture in an ecology class I was in 20yrs ago… so you know, grain of salt.
From this particular professors point of view. Symbiotic was the term to describe mutualism until recently. And then. A few papers started using symbiosis as an umbrella term for all relationships with sub-terms to describe the “benefits math”. This, to him, was annoying pedantry. But eventually all the textbooks adopted the new hierarchy of terms and the world moved on.
If you took a biology class with a text published pre-2000s, it’s very possible that your book described symbiosis as a mutually beneficial relationship between species.
Long story short: the language is fluid and ever changing, even in science fields.
I have to know what the Detroit soccer team did to get so high on that list. Somebody here must know. Please!
I mean the problem is that on an international level might will always make right. You cannot solve that unless you force every human being on earth to submit to some single authority…
So I suppose it will be solved up all nice and tidy if an alien race comes and enslaves us. Until then, we surf the rising and falling waves of human empires just like we have been doing for 10s of 1000s of years.
Making institutions that have “authority” but no power to enforce that authority except against the defeated isn’t really doing anything except encouraging some of humanities worst instincts (revenge, feuding, and making all conflict existential)
If you want to maximize peace and safety for civil populations, you de-escalate conflict by offering face saving off ramps to the belligerents. Affording grace and forgiveness to people who are probably complete shitbags who don’t deserve it. Humanism is hella hard though, I’m not sure we’re up to the challenge.
I managed to amass a pretty good horde of downvotes the other day with a sentiment that mirrored this comic. I probably meandered and missed my meaning but the comic author nails it
You arrest the leader of a belligerent faction by forming an army and defeating their army. Not by knocking on their door and serving papers. The ICC really doesn’t have any purpose except punishing the losers once the war is over. The winners always seem to walk free, no matter what heinous shit they did to get that win.
Play out the game theory of that in your head and think about what effect the threat of war crimes prosecution for losers (only) has on how and when leaders commit war crimes. (Hint: it strongly encourages doing ANYTHING to make sure you win)
Anybody who tries to arrest him will be at war with Israel and probably the US and probably a lot of other nations. They will break their treaty with ICC before they start that war and everyone fucking knows it. Why do we pretend?
No, it means they were ONLY held accountable because they lost the war.
Nobody prosecuted Churchill for Dresden
People’s take on this stuff always seems so naive to me. All war ever can be viewed as an attempt to arrest the leader of another group for “crimes”. When you get arrested… that means you lost the war. Winning a war means you didn’t get arrested.
The ICC is such a silly stupid waste of human attention. It’s like an idea that children came up with after watching Star Trek. It has no utility whatsoever for our species. We fight, we have winners and losers. If you start a fight with somebody stronger than you, you are gonna have a bad time. If you start a fight with someone weaker than you, others will think you are dishonorable. That doesn’t mean you get arrested.
RTS did go mainstream and it indeed turned into games very different from old school SC et al.
Plants vs zombies and LoL are the descendants of the genre and are or at least were, HUGE. Tower defense and moba are the two evolutionary paths that RTS took.
Tower defense is super mainstream, but moba, while huge isn’t really mainstream in my opinion. But one things for sure, they don’t have much in common with SC except the lineage.
This joke is both very good and EXTREMELY local.
Meh, sometimes I drive places a really should have walked. Same shit different scale. I am not moved to anger by this. Eliminate fame or accept that it’s resource intensive.
I’m not sure I fully understand the criticism to be perfectly honest. Is it actually possible to have a mega pop star of that type without them having a more intensive carbon footprint? Like she can’t really fly commercially for a lot of reasons. Tour schedules are one thing but can you imagine the scene it would make?
Fame is really just letting one person, who we consider special for some reason, use the resources of many. They get to live an extravagant lifestyle and we get the cultural benefit their work.
Bottom line: private jet travel seems to me like a requirement of her job. I’m not about to sit here and shame everyone for the carbon output that their job requires of them. She is not some capital class, passive income, leech. The lady works.
FWIW, I don’t really think I could name or identify one of her songs. Everything I know about her is what bleeds through into my media sphere. She could be a real shitheal for all I know.
I agree, though I am super disdainful of any argument that is sort of reskinning “other people are really stupid”.
On the other hand, participation in a congressional primary is pretty low and should weed out the casuals. Nobody who is going to the polls without much info is probably going to show up for these right?
Further, when you have “safe” districts for your party, you sort of invite people from the entire political spectrum to participate in your primary. The parts of the American electorate that WANT muscular support for Israeli military operations are on the right. If those folks skip this primary, they have no influence over their representative at all. Activating conservative voters is probably easier than changing minds.