!mediashare@lemmy.world

By your logic, if you’re a good person but you spend your disposable income on a form of recreation that inefficiently brings positivity to the world, you deserve to be ridiculed and your suffering is justly celebrated.

“Bro, do you know what really sucks? Not having best-in-class third-party audited end-to-end encryption so nobody ever finds out about all the shit we’re about to get up to. Like, do you even wanna do drugs, bro?”

If that 3% is made up of an outsized share of power users they might be ok. I’m more worried about the power structure shenanigans that have been going on the past few years.

I uh… typed it in and it was available?

You could scan it and that would easily be the fastest way to actually deal with they problem, minified or not.

“Sarcasm”

Because the points only relate to the post, not you. You can’t see your aggregate total from all posts combined, which would otherwise incentivize you to post things that will add to your total “high score”.

You still have a minor incentive to post a high scoring comment, but it’s only per-comment. If you feel like pleasing the masses, go ahead and play to their wants and needs. You might get a lot of points for it, and it’ll feel nice.

But if you wanna tell em how you really feel and put them in their place, you can just not care about your points for that post. It’s whatever. There’s no danger that your -478 points is going to drag down your total, discouraging you from ever posting something that upsets the status quo.

Late to reply, but generally Lemmy users are advanced/veteran Reddit users, and advanced Reddit users more or less share a pool of common knowledge based on topics that often come up or were significant, etc. Aspartame is up there with things like fluoride in the water supply in terms of notoriety. Not saying people agree one way or the other, but it should at least be well known that it’s controversial.

Even if the value of money goes up, it’s by a paltry 1-2% and it still wouldn’t seem to make sense to hoard rather than invest, unless I’m missing something. In what scenario would any rich person just sit on their money? Likewise, the impact of 2% deflation on a bank loan is well within the variance in rates we see today, and I imagine in such an economy the rates would be adjusted somewhat to compensate.

Simply put, the difference between an inflating vs deflating currency doesn’t seem enough to drastically alter people’s behavior. In the short to medium term it seems almost a non-issue, at least for regular people, and in the long term people won’t get fucked out of their life savings. I imagine the vast majority of the population doesn’t invest their money. Which policy would they prefer?

I think he was just explaining what the other person meant. You’re inferring or assuming a subtext of disagreement or antagonism that I’m just not seeing.

I would add to the extant conversation by saying that many food ingredients in powdered/granular form are prone to clumping (usually with no ill effect other than inconvenience), and are prevented from doing so by the addition of various anti-caking agents. I can’t speak to the food safety of those agents, but personally, I’d rather deal with the clumps.

Bernie fucking Sanders.

America may have given up on him…

But he hasn’t given up on America.

“Comfortable Dragon”

Please join both political parties.

You’re knowledgeable and capable enough to sign up for Lemmy, but you don’t know aspartame is bad?