I think what they’re implying is that it would not be feasible to seize or remove properties already owned by corporations, and by the time reforms are actually attempted they will own a significant portion of properties, making it extremely difficult to get those already-owned houses in the hands of first time buyers.

UFO, not that that’s a super relevant question if we’re already admitting that our opinions are “just cause.” I think at that point the better question is “if just cause, why is there such a split in opinions?”

I think the reason GIF is so contentious is that if we can there’s a tendency to make acronyms sound like words if possible. FUBAR and SCUBA are pronounced the way they are because we’re trained from words like tuba to see the UBA and use a long U. Something like “oofo” (or “uh-fo” as you would likely argue) for UFO sounds like half a word, hence pronouncing the letters individually. The thing about GIF is that both pronunciations sound like a word, and so both feel valid enough that there can be a split in opinions. Any arguments one way or the other is just trying to justify a gut feeling about which way is “proper.”

What do you call a pirate's finger stuck to the bottom of a sailing ship by a metal rod through the joint? A Barrr-knuckle!

Hmm there's the entrance so if I follow the streets to the other end then.. yep! There's the villa. It's just like fake life!

There would definitely still be people that want the money/authority that comes from a CEO position, they would just be held to a standard. A company is not an organization or the processes that it follows, it is the people that create and carry out those processes. If you separate the responsibility for the company from the people that make up that company you allow mistakes without real consequences for those that had a part in causing it.

Based on what I have heard the last day, the CEO of Crowdstrike created a culture of cutting corners in the organization he is responsible for that led to a reduced focus on QA testing which in turn let this bug slip into the production machines of a significant number of other companies and organizations counting on that not happening. If the responsibility for that mistake lies with something as nebulous as “the company” then the organization may close, but the people that were responsible would be separated from the consequences of their negligence and free to move on to any other company having learned they can do the same things without being harmed personally. That sounds less than ideal.

I think the CEO should have some consequences. Maybe not jail time (although maybe if there were people in medical situations that died because the machines being used to keep them alive were bricked) but a real fine that impacts him personally may prompt a greater drive to organize the company to avoid the issue in the future, or prevent it at future companies.

There is a difference between stating your thoughts/opinions then people being offended vs saying something that you know is offensive (which the headline indicates is the case) then people being offended. The former may challenge beliefs, while the latter likely lacks that line of thought. You may be mischaracterizing all instances of offense as challenging ideas when some may just be hurtful for the sake of being hurtful.

I'm not sure why you think *all *left-wing people don't care about being called names, or why that would be a trait of left-wing people specifically. It just seems like an overly generalized statement about a group based on your personal experience.

For everyone wondering, this is northbound I-35E in Eagan, MN, just east of Moonshine Lake. If you drop a streetview pin in Google Maps you can see the sign.

I’m open to being corrected, but my guess would be the long time gap between the original colonization of the east coast and the spread west of there. In 1776 US borders extended to Pennsylvania, so when settlers started moving to Ohio and beyond I imagine they would have called it “The West” until they realized how much west there really was.

How did you decide on $1,000,000? That seems very low.

That's not what they're suggesting. If it was a tight race and candidate A got 13,000 votes while candidate B got 11,000, both candidates would "win." Their voting power would just be proportional to their votes. In a way, it would be more representative than what you're saying, because how it works now is that the 11,000 people voting for candidate B wouldn't have any representation at all.

If I deciphered their words correctly, I think they said they prefer to write while experiencing brain fog-like effects, so you may not be far off.

No, a therapist will not give you money. What they could do is identify why you don’t have the money you need, then help you plan and execute the steps to accomplish your goal. If your goal is more money, I’d guess they would ask you if you are looking for a higher-paying job, then discuss what steps you can take to improve that process, with a focus on mental hurdles you may not even realize you’re putting in your way.