891–900 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, for people that want to pay 5$ more for every transaction. Probably a good number of people don't.
Where I’ve been, they round up to the nearest multiple of 5, and the extra you pay is kept as credit on your account towards future purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet that CBD will be covered very quickly, because it really does work very well for so many things, so it shouldn't take long to have enough studies clearly in support of it.
Magnesium supplements work very well for many things, too, but are there American insurance plans that pay for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magnesium supplements work very well for many things, too, but are there American insurance plans that pay for it?
Honestly, yes you can but from what I’ve seen it’s the most useless form because it’s the cheapest: magnesium oxide. Good for laxative effects, bad for uptake. I prefer glycinate personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
‘I don’t even think it was my fault!’ Well the static, bright yellow pole didn’t waltz into the side of your car now, did it? People are so ignorant it’s actually unbelievable. https://x.com/WorldBollard/status/1781394728899993984 Edit: reminds me of my neighbour who dropped his motorbike because a car pulled out on him from a fuel station. I asked how fast he was going, he said with absolute conviction he was doing…
Oh my god. As someone who can't see well enough to get a license, but somehow can see bollards just fine as a passenger: If you can't see them, you shouldn't be fucking driving.
As someone who hits the road most days, whether in a car or on a motorbike it’s absolutely crazy to witness the state of affairs going on on the roads.
My uncle, who isn’t far off 80, but very fit and healthy has given his licence up this year after some pressure from family - I’ve been in the car with him driving and he isn’t safe, he can drive for sure, but he isn’t fast enough to respond to a bad move by others, nor if there is an accident ahead.
I’ll be personally removing my mother’s car when she is unfit to use it too. I don’t care what it costs in taxis or public transport, I don’t want her risking someone else’s life, nor her own, over the ability to get up and go immediately, rather than wait 10 minutes for a driver.
I’m grateful that they are willing to accept this and agree, I’d like to think my mother has another 10 years or so in her at this stage, but the moment it’s clear she’s not fit, that vehicle is gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything I've seen suggests that weed mimics or even exacerbates ADHD symptoms, where are you getting that it improves them?
There are studies. I think it's simply that ADHD tends to have anxiety at its root or at least it's a major component. Cannabis is also procognitive in appropriate dosages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marijuana use has massively increased in the US as states have legalized it. Users have doubled: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264862/cannabis-consumpt... Use among users has also increased 20%: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/962353
I have had my first legal weed experiences in the past year in New York and even the lowest THC % at the legal weed store is stronger than anything I use to get on the black market when weed was illegal. Then there are these incredible 10mg THC infused lemonades that are amazing. On the other hand, the novelty of legal weed only lasted about 4 months for me. Because the store was there and there was this selection I…
Now that it’s “legal” I wonder if that was what was holding it back before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're arguing that judging people is ok, I think you could do a better job than tu quoque.
"You judged someone on a separate occasion, so you can't object to judging people now" would be tu quoque. What I actually did was point out the internal contradiction in your stated position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You judged someone on a separate occasion, so you can't object to judging people now" would be tu quoque. What I actually did was point out the internal contradiction in your stated position.
Sorry, I just don't think that arguing that it's ok to judge people is viable. It seems to be very important to you, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that author argues for "the market" to be more in charge than governments, which baffles me because the market is also people. I'd be surprised if people pretend the market is still rational: see nfts. Or the modern stock market. Not to mention the market irrationally rewards short term good (or even bad) and long term bad behavior, but it does it consistently, so no long term good behavior can ever win out. S…
> I'd be surprised if people pretend the market is still rational: see nfts. Or the modern stock market. NFTs are an entertainment / art product. Them having non-zero value is the same as the original Mona Lisa selling for more than a perfect replica. What about the stock market are you darkly hinting at? > Not to mention the market irrationally rewards short term good (or even bad) and long term bad behavior, but it…
Well, sort of, except that "added ownership value" is a scam - links to an image are encoded on-chain, not the image or even a hash of an image. People think they're buying art when instead they're buying a URL.
> What about the stock market are you darkly hinting at?
> I'm not sure what you are talking about. Could you be more explicit, please?
Sure thing. The current organization of capitalist society rewards actions that increase profit short-term, such as stock buybacks at the expense of layoffs, and not actions that increase profit long-term, such as sustaining a labor force that maintains and builds upon institutional knowledge. Institutions "get away with this" by leveraging the coercive nature of capitalist society (work, often in bad conditions, or die), but because the coercive short term actions are the ones that are rewarded, this will probably lead to total systemic collapse, like when the British pushed the American colonies too far and completely lost control and their entire colonial investment... and again in India, some Caribbean islands, etc. Not to mention all the slave revolts throughout history. Extractive, compulsory, coercive capitalism is only ever a short-term gains focused mechanism.
The greater example for our era though is climate change. There simply aren't "market forces" that can punish extractive behavior and reward sustainable behavior. Because it's cheaper to mine and burn coal in the short term than it is to do material science research and build good solar panels, the coal burning companies win out. Under capitalism, where political power correlates to capital, this means they can leverage the State to give them even greater incentives, and throttle the last remaining channel for long-term good-for-humanity projects that might not necessarily be profitable anytime soon: government sponsored research. See: exxon promoting climate misinformation despite being totally aware of climate change in the 70s: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
Under capitalism, long term gain requires high short term capital investment, which of course comes with risk, and the risk is too great to invest in sustainable technologies when you can keep burning oil. The collapse will come with environmental collapse, or, even if we invent incredible carbon-sequestering technologies, when the oil and coal simply run out. That won't matter though, because the political power of coal-burners will have become so great that they can just leverage the State and its monopoly on violence to continue to serve their needs as they see fit.
So TLDR capitalism rewards things that are bad for the earth and the people trying to live on it.
> Sounds like a straw man? Who is waving people out of the equation and how?
George W. Bush https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/environment/stefanik-mar...
The greatest thing about tight, upcoming elections is that governments actually start to do a tiny bit of what people want. Great result.
What would be the solution? More frequent elections are welcome to me, every 2 years or I'll take 3. That should hopefully lower the delaying strategy and easily sniff bribes since they don't have much time.
The same could be done for basically all political offices. Essentially, any person with any political power would need to be able to justify them holding that power for every second they hold it, and the moment they can't, or the people decide they can't, that office should be abolished.
Many early human societies organized this way.