Omg, the Evermore one was so bad because it was so good but actually 4 hours long. I lost one whole day of free time to that video. Lol

Please see my comment here.

Maybe I can illustrate better. Imagine your boss goes to pay you your paycheck and gives you and your coworkers 75% of what you’re supposed to be paid instead of 100%. You say, “Hey, where’s my other 25%” and they respond, “I don’t have any more, we ran out of money to pay you. We had to adjust to stay sustainable. You’ll only get 75% until our finances change.” Would you say, “well, since there’s still savings maybe, and there’s gonna be a bunch of new money the next time you go to pay out, just not enough, you technically didn’t run out. That’s technically something else?” I don’t know, maybe you would. I’d call that running out, though.

It’s a bigger problem that barely has to do with the specific shows or movies. Marvel Studios has mostly been coasting since Endgame. It also didn’t prioritize female led properties, so they’re all coming out in this coasting period. This means they might be on average not as good. It’s not directly because they’re female led, but it is sort of indirectly because of that.

For most of Lemmy, yes, that makes you a fascist.

Social Security is being slowly strangled.

The demographics are probably a bigger part of it. The ratio of people collecting to people paying in is much larger now and the length of time people collect on it is longer since people live longer now.

“I only robbed you of 25% of your income, what are you complaining about?”

What people mean when they say “run out” is that it won’t be able to keep up with its obligations. That is objectively bad. People will get reduced payments. There will be pain.

You certainly should do your best to not shoot through human shields, agreed. But can it still sometimes be better to shoot through human shields if that’s what it takes to get very dangerous people vs letting them escape and threaten again later? I don’t know, it’s a hard question.

For conflicts like this leadership that is planning attacks or otherwise leading forces that are doing attacking, simply existing anywhere outside a prison cell is threatening. Hamas leadership knows that, they’re the ones putting hostpitals at risk by being there.

Except Hamas is the government in Gaza and can setup pretty much whatever situation it wants to there, while it is hated in Israel outside of Gaza and would be prevented from taking an Israeli hospital and constructing elaborate tunnels under it. That’s kind of like saying “If Russia wants Ukraine so bad, why doesn’t it just take Kyiv?” Because it can’t. There’s a bunch of obstacles stopping it, otherwise it obviously would.

Israel does appear to value its civilians a lot more than Hamas. There have been prisoner swaps where Hamas will hold out swapping one Israeli until Israel agrees to literally hundreds of Palestinians.

US sends money to Palestine, too. So does much of Europe.

One of my favorite facts (factoids?) is that if everyone in the world stood shoulder to shoulder we’d all fit inside the single city of Paris.

To be clear, the TRUST Act was bipartisan. Sizeable majority Democrat, for sure, but it’s not like it was all Ds for, all Rs against or anything.

They just don’t want to govern.

Yes. They want paychecks without work, responsibility, or blame.

They don’t want there to be a government.

No. I see no evidence of that. Every chance people get to raise military or police spending or make up new laws to restrict people’s choices, they take it.

Some do, some don’t. Some just interpret the phrase differently. Some would say guns are already one of the most regulated products so they’re already “well-regulated.” Also the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that despite it saying “militia” the phrase really means individual people, meaning individual people have the fundamental right to possess firearms, etc. So, I think most of these people are not disregarding it, they’re interpreting it a different way. It’s the SCOTUS official interpretation, so it’s not like it’s a crackpot idea even if it’s ultimately wrong. I know I disagree with SCOTUS on a ton of stuff.

I’d really prefer we stay hung up on the Constitution. Lotta good stuff in there about not trampling your citizens and such…

They also want to be able to support their families by making money through the Obsidian application, which could be more difficult in an open source environment.

This is the only one that seems really legit to me. That and the other commenter that said open source is more work, which is probably true, and if you’re not getting benefit it could be a net loss.

I don’t remember exactly, but it was probably not far off 20k saved with more like 50k income. House price was quite a bit lower than that, no equity from any previous homes owned.

I think you mean 1 year. Lol