So this isn’t at all in response to what you wrote or this specific situation, but your comment spurred this out of me regardless, so feel free to ignore.
To clarify, the small business owners that he regularly screws aren’t “greedy,” they’re jumping at a chance to grow their business. I fell for this trap once, the billionaire even flaunted to me about how he was in the process of suing his former partners because they “screwed him.” Well, I wanted so badly for the deal to be real (because it would mean growing my business to the point that I could hire on employees, talking maybe a dozen or so $22/hour jobs that would have meant solidifying the business. I could finally invest in some much needed machinery, find a better location… so many things I wanted to do with that sale) that I ignored all the red flags. Ended up getting royally screwed, lost everything. Business, assets, all of it. Gone.
Chalk it up to inexperience, and naivety of trusting a billionaire to operate in good faith and in accordance to the contract he signed (and to a greater extent naivety that our justice system worked for poor people). But greed? I wouldn’t call it that.
thats a lot of words to say 'its not greedy to grow your business', but i would counter your greed clouded your own naive judgement. which , to my point, is only human.
you’re victim blaming. do you do the same to rape victims? say it’s their fault because they’re sluts? I shouldn’t have dressed like a business owner who wants to get screwed, sorry, that’s my fault. I should have covered up.
Man i trusted someone to do what they signed a contract SAYING they would do. I wasn’t over charging them, I wasn’t doing anything shady besides trusting someones word. I’m not the one who deliberately fucked over a small business, that’s the other guy. I trusted someone rich to pay me what they owe and I got fucked.
I took that contract to 3 lawyers, all said the same thing, “they’re too rich to sue. they’d stretch the legal battle out for years, you’d have to cover all our fees, and even if you won, they probably wouldn’t pay anyway because they’re rich enough to have their assets held by another entity.”
Good comment but you just fleshed out a real life scenario where a rich grifter fleeced you by appealing to your greed. You just replaced the word greed with “growing your business”. Im not greedy, I have good REASONS! Donald has damn good reasons for his behavior as well, probably “growing his business”, and certainly doesnt see himself as greedy.
yeah i did nothing but trust someone who signed a contract saying they would pay me for the goods and services i provided. I didn’t do anything shady, I trusted someones word, and I lost everything because of it. but yeah, I’m greedy. wtf is a small business owner supposed to do, turn down every opportunity because the person their dealing with is rich? That for some reason the failing of the justice system to account for rich people abusing the court system to fuck over small business, and you’re saying it’s MY FAULT they did that to me?
Because the secret truth of the world is: rich people are the dumbest motherfuckers on this planet because they’ve been challenged the least, yet moronic humans CONSTANTLY assume they must be rich because they “earned it”.
I don’t know that ‘stupid’ is the right word. I think it’s arrogance and ignorance that no one could possibly cheat them because they’re rich and powerful. They might be smart in other ways, but their narcissism makes them make stupid choices.
Yea that’s fair. I do tend to use generic terms like “stupid” when a decision is so asinine as to be a stupid decision regardless of motivation … but intent always matters.
I don’t get it either. When The Art of the Deal came out, there were tons of stories about how it was all bullshit. And there was also the Central Park Five thing.
Outside of Gaza, I think Biden has done a surprisingly good job. A lot of shit landed on his plate and he’s dealt with it better than most presidents would have.
And while he may not be as progressive as many progressives would like him to be, I feel he’s been more progressive than most ever expected him to be…which is pleasantly surprising, since it’s not a course he had to take for political reasons.
I think even if he had gone more to the center, he wouldn’t have lost any significant portion of the progressive vote he did get, and I think this holds true this year as well. (And at that, a shift to the middle would likely have netted him more votes pulled from disillusioned non-MAGA moderate Republicans in 2020 than he lost far left Lemmy-user votes).
Having the name Donald Trump on the other side of the ballot is sufficiently powerful motivation for most reasonable progressives to “hold their nose and cast their ballot” for Biden. It might be a very different story if Biden were running against, say, a John Kasich or Larry Hogan, but that’s not what we’ve got. In that case, many on the left wing may see it more as a “both sides are the same so I’m voting third party to make a statement” election…but again, this isn’t that. In 2020 and now again in 2024, the choice is more accurately, “not making much ground on progressive causes” vs “regression on all fronts, combined with an attack on democracy, emboldening of fascists, racists, and militant bigots of all stripes”.
…and personally, if a progressive can look at that decision and think they’re basically the same thing…I see that as only slightly less disappointing than a loud and proud MAGA zombie.
There have always been dumbass leftists. I think this is the most vocal I’ve ever seen them though. And the most numerous. In previous elections we’ve been able to ignore them. Or at the very least, redirect them to doing something good, like punching Nazis.
Now they’re more likely to team up with the Nazis against rational people.
Yeah… i kinda feel this is more bc of increasing pressure via political climate, givenhis record in the senate, which also seems to go under the radar.
Of course Netanyahu, his ministers, the IDF and many of the people of Israel are to blame. Biden is also enabling him by sending weapons. How can you ignore that?
If people really followed Biden’s attempts to rein in Bibi, they would have a LOT more appreciation of his efforts too. Netanyahu is a madman yet Israel still needs protection.
I think the problem is even for people who have followed it, he’s still funding his genocide. I think Biden had helped with the bombing pause and hostage release. But since then, his attempts to rein Bibi in have fallen flat and he’s given a blank check.
You make a good point about what if he stop supporting them and they are attacked. Israel is just as much a victim as Gaza. That would pretty quickly turn back around on Biden from a political perspective too.
It seems to me that it really strains credulity to suggest that the US has no further ability to reign in Natanyahu, especially if Isreal needs protection that badly. They basically depend on the US for their existence, but they also have the US over a barrel? How does that square up?
Israel needs protection to continue its apartheid. If it ceased its illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and allowed Palestinians to return to their homes per international law, it wouldn’t have nearly so many enemies.
It’s possible to support 3rd parties in the US. Just not for the 2024 presidential case. If you really want to support them, unfortunately you will have to do more than just appear at the ballot box.
If you want 3rd parties to be a viable option, you need to vote Democrats.
HOO. That would be like democrats voting for their own destruction. One of the only things Republicans and Democrats agree on is our current 2 party system, as it perpetuates them into eternity without any real competition and enable them to use wedge issues to get votes instead of doing actual work.
Ok doomer. That’s entirely false. I provided sources showing, as I said, that Dems support RCV and GOP does not. Tell me: which party instituted RCV in North Carolina? And which party repealed it under the guise of “voter security”?
I’m not going to say that Boeing had this guy directly killed, but I can certainly see them and their legal team explicitly trying to make his life as hellish as possible until he felt that he only had one way out. Legal threats if you stop proceeding with your case, legals threats if you don’t, they want a terrible warning for any other whistleblowers.
Yes the FBI wanted to make an example out of him for the crime of downloading research papers from a service he had legitimate access to. Even JSTOR thought the prosecution was absurd and didn’t want anything to do with it.
I’m fully expecting to learn in a decade or so that spez was behind it using his family connections to push out the one person dedicated to keeping reddit from becoming a profit machine.
The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
You fucking morons are literally adopting Florida's failures from a decade ago.
Does that make it OK to use the welfare money for drugs?
Did Florida’s system just cut them off when they found them using or did they offer them assistance options for getting clean? S.F.'s system plans to offer them assistance getting clean while they continue to receive the welfare.
Florida spent $200,000 on testing and found 100 people, 2% of the total, to be using drugs. They spent more money on testing than if they’d just given welfare benefits to those 100 people.
Yeah that does sound like a failure. But also different time different place. Was there a Fentanyl epidemic of this scale 10 years ago in Florida? If the treatment options save just one person’s life, is it still a failure? Should we just say “yep nothing works, there’s no solution to daily ODs on the streets of the city.”?
Yeah, not that that’s ideal, but at least the OCs weren’t turning them into permanently mentally and physically crippled zombies, or suddenly killing them like fent does.
I always wonder why the disaster of massive amounts of legally available opiates is brought up as an argument to stop the restrictions on drugs altogether
Because it’s a much more destructive drug, in a completely different state and city, with completely different demographics, political climate, and education level? 15 years into the future?
Oh so you think everyone in CA on benefits in on drugs or something? The base idea remains the same. Don’t hide welfare behind drug testing it isn’t worth it
No I don’t think that and I never said that. Please don’t try and put words in my mouth.
To be blunt, I think that the people in California, today, are much better equipped to take on this issue than the people in Florida were 15 years ago.
Oh man he really showed me, by putting more words in my mouth… lol. I’m not going to wrestle with a pig here, Adolf! Enjoy your internet forum mud slinging battles!
The fact that they passed this law despite the same kind of law literally never working ever anywhere just proves how wrong you are. It’s yet another stupid easy-sounding solution that makes people feel smug but won’t work
Californians are just as dumb as Floridians apparently. So dumb that they can’t even learn from Florida’s big dumb mistakes, and probably were never aware of them in the first place.
Did Florida’s law provision for treatment options? If not, then maybe it really isn’t the same “stupid easy-sounding solution”. I think that if you should take some time to read the article and understand the measure that was voted on, before you call the entire population of California as dumb as that of Florida…
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Not really when we’re just talking about food stamps. They paid $2000 for each of those benefit denials over what mostly amounted to marijuana usage. It was a net loss of $45,780 for the state.
Some of us see drug use as a health issue and not a moral imperative. Money is fungible, so if they’re using welfare dollars to buy drugs instead of smashing car windows to get their fix, that’s probably a net positive even if it isn’t ideal.
And if you’re just trying to get more people into treatment, I’m not sure piss testing the poor is remotely the most cost effective approach.
There were 627 OD deaths in San Francisco in 2022. 806 OD deaths in 2023. I’d call that a failed system that needs a new approach. I don’t know what exactly we need to do, but it seems that giving people free reign to go down the path of a synthetic opiate addiction is mostly giving them a slow painful death. This may not be everyone’s problem now, but if this is allowed to continue destroying people in this country it WILL become everyone’s problem at some point.
Again addiction isn’t a moral failing and pushing people out of the system is not going to solve a surge in fent deaths. Sure there’s a very realistic chance you’ll lower the ODs in SF as you push people into other towns and cities, but you’re not saving lives just leaving the problem on someone else’s doorstep.
There’s not a silver bullet for this addiction issue, but depriving people of any semblance of economic security is going to be counter productive.
So basically keep doing what we’re doing then and hope that things magically change? Many of the people suffering from addiction here actually are from other towns and cities all over the country. They end up staying here because their addiction is supported, and they never escape the cycle.
One of the supervisors that endorsed this measure, Matt Dorsey, is a recovered addict himself. I’d think that he would have a better idea than myself of what works and what doesn’t.
Honestly, I think it should be a Federal Government issue at this point because it is affecting people and destroying lives all over this country.
No… use the resources that you’d waste on testing for actual proven tactics. And not to sound cold hearted, but it’s a lot more effective to prevent addiction than to “cure” it. All of which is ignoring that you’re going to waste a lot of money on lawyers as this has been struck down several time’s now.
I do strongly agree this is a state and federal issue as cities are shouldering the overwhelming majority of the burden. They are being forced to deal with the symptom (drugs/crime), but have virtually no means of addressing the root causes of a problem that usually start somewhere else.
Agree with preventing addiction being a much better option, when available. It really sucks to see these people being given this slow torturous death, or being otherwise irreversibly damaged, all while ruining the city and sense of safety for others.
What would you say the proven tactics are that we could apply here, and where have they been proven?
What would you say the proven tactics are that we could apply here, and where have they been proven?
Based upon the rat city experiments, improve quality of life, reduce stress, and increase social connection. All of which can be addressed by taking on wealth inequality and financial instability as well as reducing the average hours of work needed to afford necessities for living (or better, remove the requirement). Drug addiction is largely caused by the circumstances surrounding poverty and other high-stress situations.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
No, it isn’t. That’s my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.
Yeah and sure, its a fair point. Honestly curious though, do you think we should just cut out the middle man drug lords then and just provide the addicted with the fent directly? Like just consider it part of the welfare if that’s what they want? Why force them to deal with with stuff that can be cut, adulterated, or what have you?
Considering the drug war has been a total failure, maybe we shouldn’t worry about so-called drug lords. And weaning people off of an addictive substance slowly can be quite effective, so yes, giving them a specific amount of fentanyl under the care of a doctor could certainly be a treatment option. And, again, they have legitimate pain issues which they will not be able to afford to deal with because they’re the poorest of the poor and those people don’t get care for chronic issues they can’t pay to deal with… so they’ll probably just go back to using anyway.
We’ve been focusing on the drug war and not on the nation’s healthcare issues for decades. What has it gotten us?
I only mentioned drug lords because, well, theyre just another obstacle between the addicted and the thing they’re addicted to. May as well remove it, and give them a guaranteed quality product. I’d be 100% on board for treating their chronic pain issues. Nobody should have to live with that and I agree, it’s a factor that could lead to them returning to using again.
I just wonder though, what happens if they want more than you can give them? How do you wean them off? Is the goal to even wean them off? What stops them from just going somewhere else and buying more than what you give them?
If they want to buy more, shouldn’t that be their choice? Currently, we just imprison them for doing that. It’s like arresting someone for attempting suicide. That’s not going to make them less suicidal.
It’s very unlikely that you will be able to get someone to quit long-term if they don’t want to. So why punish them for it?
Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.
And no, it doesn’t apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
But it makes sense that usage rates would be lower if they had to stop taking to keep their presumably much-needed benefits.
Cost of rent is such a con. It continues to rise and been proven to be manipulated by software (RealPage). Then shrinkflation… and inflation… cost of energy. Cost of insurance. Literally everything. EXCEPT the one thing which SHOULD go up: wages.
But hey, corporations can just bake bread and be exempt from minimum wage increases; California and Panera, though they got in so much hot water it was backtracked… but holy fuck that’s the shitty weasel way of corps.
Don’t you just love rent/housing? Oh, sorry you don’t make enough money to qualify for a mortgage. But hey you can pay $1,500/month+ to pay your landlord’s mortgage!
I will short the ever-loving shit out of that stock. This is a no brainer.
It’s a TERRIBLE investment. The business model is completely flawed and dependent upon assumptions that there will be only positive growth in the user base.
Google is going to use Reddit to train its AI. That software is going to immediately become a smug, whiny, racist, pedophile femboy.
I look forward to capitalizing on this completely predictable sunbaked diaper.
Better than a true “short” is to buy a put option on the stock for 100 shares. You buy a contract that lets you buy someone else shares at a lower price. If youre sure the stock is going to decrease, you pay a minor amount to make more money when it does.
You can then opt to exercise this and get cheap shares, or more likely, sell the put contract directly for profit.
You can also sell a call option that says you will provide 100 shares at a higher price. If you think the stock is going down, you will never have to actually fulfill this, so the money you made from selling the call is pure profit.
The positive with options is that they limit your losses if youre wrong, unlike shorting where technically your losses can be unlimited. Options are also easier to get into than shorts, which generally require specific brokers that have minimum account size.
The negative is that options are time limited. They last only a certain amount of time you specify when you buy. You can be 100% right about how the market will move, but if you get the timing wrong, you still lose money
It’s also pretty common in the short term for a stock to ipo and be trading below the ipo price for a few months, so there’s lots of demand for shorts.
On top of what others have said keep in mind shorting isn’t just you saying the stock will go down, it’s you saying the stock will go down more than others think it will. Tbh I wouldn’t even touch anything to do with shorting or options if I were you. It’s incredibly risky and should only be done by people with more experience than you and I.
Absolutely correct. I played around with options several times during the height of the pandemic and lost over 99% of my investment. I think it was about 99.3%. It’s straight up gambling.
Shorting a stock can result in you owing more than you’ve already spent. That’s back alley gambling.
Keep in mind there are literally thousands of Redditors who have the same idea.
While you found my intention to be pretty clear, I can also understand the responder’s concern.
I’ve never had to live my life being called a pedo because of my sexual or gender identity. It must be exhausting to have to constantly defend yourself against those awful accusations.
I can empathize with someone seeing those two words together and getting upset.
You’re not wrong, and maybe they should have initially responded to the person who called them out. But this whole conversation could’ve turned into a dumpster fire in a number of different ways.
I believe the response given was absolutely worth commending. It showed compassion and maturity - things that are all too often lacking in internet discourse.
Except the stock market (and all the cultists who worship it) don’t inhabit the same reality as the rest of us.
It doesn’t matter if Reddit is a good investment or not- what matters is if Reddit feels like a good investment to those assholes. The market can remain irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent.
There are indeed many forms of money laundering which are considered illegal in America, and it is absolutely illegal if someone is accepting funds derived from illicit activity or sanctioned entities (like Russia). The government and most financial institutions generally take the stance that there are very few good reasons to obscure the ultimate source of funds, and so tend to be very risk-averse with such activity.
The trick is in confirming anything illicit is going on when there are potentially dozens of steps and borders in between the source and the recipient.
And also that the Hulkster actually had a case. Gawker repeatedly refused to comply with court orders to take Hulk’s tuna can video down.
This is just a wanna-be martyr who got fired because she couldn’t keep her goddamn mouth shut about her stupid conspiracy theories and ride the Mouse’s cash train. But hey, watching Muskie burn even more money is always entertaining, so fucking let it rip.
I get that Hulk had a case, but he couldn’t have afforded to bring it himself. So Peter Thiel, who has endless money and an axe to grind with Gawker for outing him, funded it.
Which is sort of similar here, except that Musk’s axe to grind is because Disney stopped giving Twitter money and is “woke,” so it’s even more petty.
It was more about who is funding the case than whether the case has merit.
This is not the same at all. Disney did not out anything private about her or Musk. They also did not publish revenge porn of her. She is a public transphobe and a Holocaust denier.
Her lawyers must be crazy to think they can get anything done that elon couldn’t. Taylor should be mad at her PR for not stopping her if she asked for this personally.
As for private jets. People with wealth, use that wealth to find an alternative. God knows you haven’t found anything else to do with it.
They could invest in whole new rail lines with their own private cars and fill the other cars with low cost seats. Tons of people on it and no way reasonable way of tracking them because so many people boarding it each time.
Dude dirigibles are STUPID EFFICIENT because they don’t have to fly. They just float so you only need some tiny little fans to move them in the direction you like. I really do wish they’d come back
Afaik, mostly for not being too efficient in a suboptimal environment. Also for having a limit on minimal size, but there has been an article somewhere, I’ll update if I find it
Edit: haven’t found the article, but what I found is this. They fly relatively low (under 2 km), have a hard time going against wind, old ones also had trouble landing. Also contemporary ones are more of a hybrid of dirigible, plane, and helicopter, that probably makes them expensive, too. Existing airship infrastructure is also not suitable for them
Edit2: oh, and some claim that dirigibles don’t work for commerce because commerce is too conservative, but it’s not too likely because there were news of dirigibles almost taking over the cargo transportation since like 1960s and it didn’t yet, so likely there are things to be solved
Well, that’s a big one. Hydrogen is a much more available element to pump up an airship, and with hydrogen effectively off the table, then helium which if used at scale would be a problem, and it’s already a bit of a problem as it is.
Aside from that, it forever shaped public perception, so airships have an uphill battle.
But it’s still a thing, the butt-looking Airlander wants to bring back the airship. Their ‘10’ model however has half the cargo payload of a 737. Their more hypothetical ‘50’ would compete with an A300 on Cargo, which is respectable. However the top speed is 85mph, so 6 times slower than a typical cargo aircraft. However it may be able to tout versatility closer to a tractor trailer, they do still need a landing area, but not so much a runway. Tractor trailers are often used for long haul despite not being able to go 85mph, and definitely not ‘as the crow flies’.
When elected officials need to be segregated from the people they serve, they should be removed from their post. You are here to represent the people, not rule over us.
That’s an interesting thought when you considers that these psychos only think this way because of what the lawmakers across the isle are telling them + fox news
The cause of it doesn’t change the the fact that it’s happening. People have a lack of respect for democracy and are willing to do crazy things that no one would’ve considered before.
Idk if I would agree with that, murder has existed as long as people have. I mean, two of the most significant events in American history were the murders of political figures
Even worse, they’re not even domestic extremists necessarily. Republicans are endorsing Canadian extremists given the recent attack on Paul Pelosi. A Canadian terrorist was the perpetrator there.
This has already been posted, but I have to share the part of this article that made me laugh the hardest, which would be at the end of this paragraph:
Almost immediately, one of the vehicles in the convoy got lost, according to messages posted in the Zello walkie-talkie app that the group is using to communicate while on the road. Later, when the convoy linked up to discuss evening plans, the meeting quickly descended into an argument about where they were going to be staying. Even trying to meet up at a gas station was difficult: Due to the size of a Buc-ee’s in South Carolina, convoy members couldn’t locate each other.
Considering it started with a prayer for guidance and they immediately got lost, I supposed the idea that they angered a vengeful god wouldn’t be too out there…
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.