Easy, buy a $15,000 dollar bike.

Political parties also legally don’t even have to respect the results of those primaries since they are private organizations.

Boy are you going to have a real egg on your face whenever X becomes a successful blogging/dating/banking/investing app \s

For a 700k salary I would 100% take the risk. Don’t change your lifestyle after you get the job and just pocket the extra cash. If you get fired having Netflix on your resume should allow you to find a new position fast enough to come out on top of the deal provided that you are able to make it a few months at Netflix.

If you are fortunate enough to have 3-6 months of expenses in an emergency fund then there is very little downside as long as you are able to maintain the correct headspace.

This is why I always git push origin +branch_name

I don’t game much, but with the few games I do occasionally play I’ve had really good success at getting them to run on Linux under proton. It’s way better than it was even a few years ago.

That’s valid, but if it’s a dump I would have a hard time describing it as an asset, at least in the financial sense. But I suppose it could be if you’re willing to put in the work to fix it up.

Even if it’s not, houses appreciate 5% a year on average. Assuming average appreciation over 10 years that house is now worth ~163% of its original value. That means that the mortgage was taken out for ~61% of what a comparable house would go for today which assuming the same interest rate would be a fairly significant reduction in the monthly payment. You also have the potential to refinance to further reduce that monthly payment.

Or you could sell it and get that 10 years of equity + appreciation out in cash and that might be enough for a sizable down payment elsewhere.

TL;DR unless your parent’s place is a dump in a low demand area it’s an asset even if it isn’t paid off.

I didn’t go into tech for the money, but after several years of grinding I’m definitely at the point where I’m only still in it for the money. I don’t even want to think about computers outside of work anymore.

Maybe I’m misremembering, but didn’t pip have it’s own security concerns earlier this year?

I’m the US, the EPA was created in the 1970’s. We definitely have less pollution (of certain types) today than we did in the past. Some notable examples of how disgustingly polluted American skies and waterways were in the past:

The skies of Pittsburgh, PA

the Cuyahoga River fire

Coal Production has also been declining

And then of course less visible examples like the Montreal Protocol stopping corporations from depleting the ozone layer.

My point is in terms of greenhouse gas production we are much higher than in the 60’s and 70’s, but we have massively improved in a lot of areas. Of course there is still room to improve.

deleted by creator

I know how pitiful our rail networks are. I take Amtrak regularly. It’s faster to drive. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Obviously I’m not talking about today, but building improved rail infrastructure over the next decade is very realistic and a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately the investment Amtrak has gotten isn’t enough to modernize our rail network, and a lot of that money is being used to improve privately owned rail lines that Amtrak leases for their passenger service.

My point was that the US doesn’t have distances that are insurmountable that can only be traveled via plane. It’s an investment issue.

A lot of those flights could be replaced with high speed rail. Maybe not New York to LA, but a lot of people live in the cities in the northeast and travel between those cities would be very feasible at reasonable travel times with high speed rail.

Not sure if it’s just me adjusting to using it, but I feel like it’s improved over the past several months.

I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.

Capitalist forces absolutely are not inevitable with scarcity. Native Americans lived in societies that have been described as primitive communism. Did they not have scarcity?

Further, mass murder is not a prerequisite for communism.

You really are not as informed on communist thought as you think you are. Nor are you very informed on the very real problems with the IMF or WTO saying that these organizations save countries from “communist policies” is so hysterically wrong that I can’t believe it’s an actual thought that someone had. This discussion clearly isn’t going anywhere because it’s like I’m talking to a brick wall. Have a nice life.

Social democracy does not fix every problem communism claims to because it preserves capitalism. Social democracy, but without capitalism is no longer social democracy. That is socialism. Believe it or not, communists are pro-socialism.

All of the Scandinavian social democracies that are supposedly the gold standard are former colonial powers. Colonial powers extract wealth from their colonies to the detriment of the indigenous inhabitants of the colony. This is referred to as primitive accumulation and is a direct precursor to capitalism. These nations built their wealth through colonialism and continue to maintain wealth through neocolonialism. This is really only unheard of or controversial if you have your head in the ground. Look up the WTO and the IMF and how they fuck over the global south at the benefit of wealthy nations if you’re interested in more information (spoilers: you’re not)

Where are your sources that all communists are fascists? Are the communists in the Philippines fighting their fascist government also fascists? What about in India? The list goes on. You’ll find that neither of these groups of communists are particularly fond of China by the way.

Communists are very aware that social democracy exists. Social democracy very famously split out of socialist thought. Originally social democracy was another term for socialism.

Communists take issue with the very real fact that social democracy preserves capitalism and thus the exploitation that comes with it. Social democracy simply exports that exploitation. Without the subjugation of the global south, social democracy could not exist. Just because you have exported that exploitation doesn’t mean it went away.