pachrist

Nah, the people who don't want it are hourly workers who are living paycheck to paycheck, which is tens of millions of workers.

The sad truth is he's right, but the reason is that for these people, missing out on $80 could be the difference between paying the water bill or not this month.

It's not that people love to work so much that they hate missing a day, it's that they can't afford to not work a day.

It's a tricky situation.

I think a lot of men, particularly rural men, want someone in their corner. I think a lot of people are underestimating how angry and hopeless many of these men feel. The study a couple years ago from NPR about how many families are living paycheck to paycheck, have less than like $400 in savings, and have nobody to call in during a financial emergency was astounding.

Most Americans are in a desperate situation. And they aren't used to it. And they feel they don't deserve it. And because of that, they're going to vote for whoever promises to fix it, whether they fix it or not.

The issue is that neither party is willing to fix the wealth desparity and class oriented labor practices that cause it. They're only interested in playing the same game we are now that keeps them paid, and grinds everyone else into the dirt.

I don't understand.

If I post the George Carlin clip of how it's a big club and you're not in it, we might as well be in some backwoods country church, just drowning in people screaming "Amen!"

If I say that both parties don't have your interests in mind and will throw you under the bus to keep hoarding wealth, I'm a tankie Russian bot who's probably a Republican collaborator.

What's the difference?

My wife's family loves The Princess Bride, but I love telling them that Stardust is better. It might not be correct, but it's a pretty fun hill to die on.

Bring back this and the throne room decorations.

The scary thing is that she is only 31 years old, but she now has the face of a 60 year old who's desperately trying to look 45.

I don't know who her surgeon was, but she should sue.

I think this is a case where the imagination is much, much better than the reality.

For the mobilization of technology, miniaturization has had a lot of benefits, not just in the technology, but in the accessibility. Having a desktop computer instead of a mainframe was huge. It brought the computer to the home. Laptops becoming viable was huge again. It untethered the computer from the wall. For most of the planet, we're still in the midst of the massive leap that is smart phones. It put a computer in the pocket of billions of people.

Beating that is hard. Smart phones are the most accessible, most powerful devices most end users have ever used. We take that for granted, and we take the time it took to get there for granted. It took 25 years of desktops to get real, decent laptops (personally, I'd say mid 90s). It took 25 of laptops to get real, decent smartphones (again personally, I'd say ~2010ish).

Like it or not, we have another decade to go probably before the technology is there for the next evolution in personal computing. But the problem we have really is that there's not another leap as far as accessibility is concerned. Smart phones work places where laptops can't. Laptops work places where desktops can't. Desktops work places where mainframes can't. Smart phones can work anywhere. Taking the computer from the datacenter, to the home, to your backpack, to your pocket is huge. Is the next step from the pocket to your wrist? To your face? Is it worth it? Is it really that much better?

Otherwise this reads as if ~~some LLM~~ 4chan came up with the idea

Remember kids, updating to iOS 7 enables your phone to charge wirelessly in the microwave.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

"Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’

Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I have always loved how simply Jesus spells it out.

As a kid, I always felt it was so implausible that the Jews would kill Jesus. Yes he claims to be God, which is a no-no, but how can a message of peace and love be so divisive? As an adult, I've come to realize that it's divisive to people who are angry and filled with hate, to people who hate peace and love. The Pharisees of 30CE are the exact same as most Christians today. If you walked in to some Trump country Baptist church today and flipped over the collection plates and told everyone there they were going to hell because the want to deport immigrants instead of help them, you'd be shot for sure.

They're right though. This was the plan. Hard to do market manipulation without manipulating the market.