This reminded me of that video when the covid lockdown caused the air to be so much cleaner that a mountain range could be seen from ~200km away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazeeu3yZkg

This has got to be my biggest pet peeve among most news organizations. Most links on their articles just go back to an older page on their own website instead of pointing at the actual source.

China has enough air pollution that the smog from Los Angeles blows over from there

I think you meant to say:
“China has enough air pollution that the smog from there blows over to Los Angeles”

Anything I could do to make sure my heir continued on with my vision would not be guarunteed, and it would only be temporary. As the saying goes, you’re putting all of your eggs in one basket, from one ruler to the next.

A more permanent solution would be to overhaul the current system and setup checks and balances so that no one person could have too much power.

You could divide up power between an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial Branch. Then you put in place like-minded groups of people in each of those branches and voilà.

This isn’t a trolley problem. Killing CEOs is not going to save any more lives or “fix the system” in any way.

There’s no guarantee that the new CEO will be better or worse, and if they feel threatened enough they’ll just hire security.

That’s not what I’m saying or implying in any way.

Coyote vs Acme

The movie is already completely finished, but some “genius” thinks that they’ll make more money by shelving it and claiming it for a tax-writeoff.

No… A closer comparison shows that she would be like Sam Bankman-Fried with a 25 year sentence and ordered to repay $11 billion. Although she probably would end up on a cover of Forbes.

Can you expand on this?
Either you replied to the wrong comment, or you’re clearly thinking of some context that I’m not, or it’s related to some saying that I’m not familiar with.

I think it’s a valid question. I wouldn’t say that the only reason for abolishing the death penalty is because we might make a mistake… that definitely factors into it, but there’s more to it.

Ask yourself what purpose does it serve to put someone to death? They’re already in jail/prison and no longer a threat to society. Deterrence? Is the death penalty any more of a deterrence than a life sentence?

The only purpose I can think of for the death penalty is that it’s for “Revenge”. It doesn’t actually fix anything in of itself. It doesn’t resolve disputes, it doesn’t really solve anything.

The amount of people in here pushing for the death penalty when it’s used on people they dislike is sickening…

This is a penalty that needs to be abolished, not expanded or made exceptions for.

Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.

Twain.

“He split Robin’s arrow in twain!”

insane

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.

How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?

Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.

I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)

A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller

And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick

I’m not very musically inclined, so I have no idea if this is B-flat minor or not, but what you described kind of sounds like “Jazz in Paris”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLJMTRvyj8

It’s one of the songs that you can select from Google Photos when making a highlight video.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

And replace it with what?

If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.

When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.

Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.

Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/