imustbeevil

That's because people are recommending them for long term use, and treating them like some miracle cure, when the only affect is appetite suppression. If you are malnourished for years, you're just going to die. These things are useful for a few months if you really, really have no willpower and don't want to develop any. For anyone else (most people), it's much healthier to learn how to do difficult things.

Yes, there absolutely is a sense of "it was hard for me, but I did it anyway, you should do the hard thing too". But that's not out of nowhere. Willpower is a muscle. If someone never exercises it, it's going to atrophy. It doesn't need to be shameful, but people who promote these things need to seriously consider the reality that most people's hunger is caused by something real, and just not being hungry does not solve any of those underlying problems.

My mother is a little bit overweight, which is a problem of calories OUT being too low. She doesn't exercise enough. She doesn't have energy to exercise. That's a problem of calories IN being too low. She's taking a GLP-1 now to lose weight. It very exactly does not solve either of those issues. She has less energy. Most of the weight being lost is muscle mass. I think it's despicable that these things were rushed through the medical system. I don't think it's the layman's fault for being manipulated into thinking it's medicine.

That's completely arbitrary though. They could also increase prices without any interchange fee. If people are willing to pay, the price goes up.

Cost (of which the interchange fee is but one) only affects the lowest possible price. No one ever gets that price.

I don't know about other companies, but I don't really interact with my manager outside of 1 on 1s like once a quarter. Also, it's never his choice to fire someone, it's always from above. I'm sure if he was forced to lay someone off he'd be just as happy as they are to have them back.

It's a living thing. It can be understood and lived with harmoniously. That's the job of the stronger, smarter thing to identify. If your bar for ethics is sentience, then fuck trees right? Well no, because you would identify trees as beneficial members of nature.

Flies have a role in nature, as decomposers and food/water sources for many other animals. They are a valued participant in Earths ecosystem. Houseflies only exist because we built houses around the decomposing waste that they are biologically wired to seek and consume.

Killing something because it mistakenly wandered into your periphery isn't exactly what I'd call pragmatic.

If our solar system drifts too close to another civilization I don't want to get squashed. That's the maxim. We are the fly. If you don't want something bigger than you to be entirely justified in killing you for no reason, you cannot believe yourself to be entirely justified doing the same.

The golden rule is really hard to beat.

I can appreciate that the direction for this commercial was "just play the game and we'll find a good 2 second cut". I'm just worried that I'm seeing people compliment an advertisement. It's the kind of overt emotional marketing I would hope we'd all scroll past looking for the technical specifications.

I'm not sure I understand, I'm just seeing a very clearly staged 2 second clip of product usage and reaction like you'd see in any commercial.

Weather accounts for 75% of all airline delays (in the US). That disclaimer is kind of surprising to gloss over.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/22/weather/why-flights-get-c....

I might be misreading you, but Chrome has worked on iPhones for 10+ years. I've never used Safari.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/28/first_look_google...

The people that he bought the company from already got the money, which was more money than they could get on the open market. They don't give a fuck what he does with his company now. If you think he's tanking his own company to get back at the people who have all the money he gave them...yeah he's that stupid.

The reason why he keeps doing all these comically dumb things is exactly because people like you think he's cooking something. He has no one around him questioning the decisions he's making, so they keep getting worse, because that's literally what happens to every human in history who goes unchallenged for too long.

As someone who wants all of the other things he's supposed to be building, I can't imagine how you would not see Twitter as an objective step back.

Every single change he has made to Twitter is exclusively to claw back income from users because he made all of the advertisers leave. Anyone competent would have just added the features they wanted without burning 80% of the company's income and staff.

> Some SVB customers told the Journal they have asked First Citizens if their loans can be set off with the deposits that the funds had in their Cayman bank accounts.

> In response to a query from the Journal, a First Citizens spokeswoman said a setoff “isn’t legally possible in this situation,” because First Citizens owns the capital-call lines while the Cayman deposits were with SVB Financial Group, the former holding company of Silicon Valley Bank.

https://archive.is/1d4uw#selection-353.0-357.287 (paywall passthrough for original article)

Presumably these loans were offloaded before the insolvency hit.

Anyone using the bank signed a contract that defined how a failure affects them. There is absolutely a moral, philosophical, and biblical truth behind honoring that contract.

Galatians 3:15: "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified."

Proverbs 17:18: "One who has no sense shakes hands in pledge and puts up security for a neighbor."

Outside of that fact, the reason that the system is designed this way is to protect normal people from Rich people destroying these banks. If it were the way you're proposing, only the Rich people taking on the most risk and debt would get paid out, and every normal person using the bank would lose everything. We know this, because that's exactly what happened before the FDIC, which is the entire reason it exists.

And we're saying that's not how that works. The failing bank sells all of its assets and then distributes those funds in the one possible legal way to do so. What many people don't know is that the bank still has to cover insured deposits before FDIC kicks in. So they're selling your loan and paying insured depositors with that money, until they run out of money. Then the government covers the rest of the insured depositors, and no one else gets anything.

https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/priority.html

If your bank sells your mortgage to another bank, the second bank now owns that debt. If the first bank goes out of business, you very obviously (separately from the previous transaction) lose any money that isn't insured. I'm not sure what else you would expect to happen.

Not sure how you think I "made this political" if you read the first post. I was just balancing the perspective. I'd rather have a president get sucked off than openly commit acts of treason, if that's the equivalency you would like to draw. If by "OP's argument" you mean the incorrect idea that the topless trans person was "celebrated": (1) the white house literally denounced their actions, (2) I already acknowledged that I believe it to be disrespectful and not particularly immoral, and (3) I consider those to be two different things.

You misunderstood. People historically viewed themselves to be good, and justified their actions that way. People are now giving up the ability to justify their actions as good, and openly admitting to doing bad things on purpose. Go ahead and check your history books for that ever happening before. You can laugh, but normal people aren't particularly enthused by this turn of events.

I would love to use Google's cloud, but I just can't risk my email, map, and browser services being cut off because some AI determined that my application looks suspicious, with no human customer support to contact, as has been reported multiple times.

Could say the same thing about a former President publicly admitting to committing crimes, and half of the country not caring. Never before in history have so many people been so openly evil. Maybe the takeaway is that they've actually been that evil this whole time, they just weren't doing it so visibly. I personally would also clearly perceive a difference between being disrespectful and being evil; to whatever degree both could be considered immoral, I'd sure rather the former than the latter.

> customers have trained ourselves to sort by lowest-price-first-then-choose-that-one.

I have not found this remotely true. My entire life, from poor college student, to software developer, not one of my friends has made a restaurant decision based on the price of the food, outside of the generic "fast food is cheap, fancy restaurants are expensive". Between a $10 hamburger and a $12 hamburger, everyone I've ever known is picking whichever tastes better.

I actually tried explaining to someone that I generally aim for a heuristic of $1 per 100 calories, because $20/day is a high but understandable amount of money to spend assuming around 2K calories, and he said he's literally never thought about comparing price against calories.

Lack of education seems like a way more significant factor than reproductive self selection. If education levels increase, secularism and liberalism increase. Ideology isn't genetic.

They're unregistered securities. Putting them on the internet doesn't change that. We have laws for securities.

If you carve a dollar sign into a Banana, commit fraud and embezzle billions of dollars, the problem wasn't the lack of Banana law.

A more productive way to engage in conversation is to provide your own evidence or reasoning.

Otherwise you're just asking someone else to Google it for you (to which you'll just complain about the source anyway):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/17/shortfall-o...

> Extra money is precisely what Yellen is proposing.

That's certainly not what any of the articles quoting her are saying.

> Money to depositors for amounts greater than $250K is a bail out. They have no right to that money from the Feds.

No. The feds aren't giving anyone fed money, they're selling SVB's assets and giving the people they owe their own money back. There isn't enough money to give everyone 100% back, so they won't be getting 100% back. There's no extra government money making anyone "whole". They're just winding down the assets so they don't all get stolen like FTX.

> Thats a fancy way of saying it gets you stoned. You can intellectualize it all you want, but its just words.

This is a forum everything is just words. The reality is that not doing things is X and doing things is X+1, and all of you X people are -1.

> I can think of any number of ways to "suspend my disbelief":

Obviously drugs are better than all of those things. What is the argument there? You can jerk off with a knife too, it doesn't feel as good.

That's a use case of the existing legal framework around Bitcoin, that has nothing to do with the technology itself. If the global economy actually used Bitcoin, all of the same rules would apply. Countries don't have anti-money laundering laws just to inconvenience Banks. It's to track/control people moving money. People are now moving money through Bitcoin.

> I really don't understand what the allure of cannabis is.

Everything that exists in reality, from the observable beginning to the projected end, follows a pattern of abstraction that is exact and single. Drugs give you access to "suspension of disbelief" in experiencing fiction that is larger than reality.

> Like not being able to hold a thought for more than 5 seconds.

Not really an effect of cannabis. Heuristically it's more like the opposite, focusing on one thing for hours. The same way people with ADHD take Adderall.

This [1] was a multiple choice poll in 2015 that had: Computer Speakers (55%), Headphones (41%), with mostly other speaker related options.

[1] https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/news/st...

> I don't get how they are different from ensure outside of the marketing

Oh that's easy, Ensure doesn't taste like powder sitting on the ground in a warehouse.