Time to change that last name either way. It should perish.

I don’t have one in mind. That’s the issue. If I could think it, someone surely would have made it.

Yeah, but it still shows on the bill. My wife wouldn’t like the idea of “paying” for porn. Free is fine though. She is also a bit paranoid, so having my own card would make her uncomfortable.

I’d pay if there was a more discrete way of doing it. Overall, you should pay for the things you want. Or they will go away (well probably not porn). But like local businesses and such.

Conserve thier god given right to exploit everyone and everything for thier short term benefit.

Doh, I thought it was Liechtenstein. I rember three small things from my kids geography quizes… Monaco, Vatican city, and Liechtenstein. So in my mind it had to be one of them. Lol.

Yeah, I don’t consider any moral stance to be “litterally right”. They seem like opposites to me. And clearly philosophy is by definition is a personal view point. Thanks for the history and such. Your comment adds a lot of value to the discussion, which is great to see.

I will agree with you on B and C. Not so much on A. Not saying A isn’t true, just that it isn’t as simple as most people think. And probably is impossible to prove due to all the unknown side effects. An example of a side effect not related to veganism is the effect monocrop farming has on bees. Noone saw that coming until it happened. So changes to what is planted and such to support veganism could turn out to be less sustainable for reasons we can’t fathom. Similar on the “better for the planet”. We can’t really know that. So I wouldn’t put that under “litterally” right. Just probably right. In general I think diversity is better than one thing or the other. In the US the balance is way over toward the animal side. Shifting toward less of that would for sure be good. But going all the way to no animal products will probably have it’s own issues on things.

I just want to ask for more details on the “they’re litterally right” part. Mostly cause I didn’t think the had an official organized statement to be right about. But I don’t really follow them, so maybe I’m missing something.

Yeah I never understood why ads make so much money. Seems like some kind of gift is going on.

Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

Or… do both. Buy premium because you are actually getting something for your money… a platform. And support ad blockers to stop the ads where the product is just a webpage.

But Microsoft designed the system such that they needed a level of access that allowed them to crash it. Microsoft could make changes that allowed the software to do what it needed with protections against letting that software crash the system. Basically a wrapper. Or, it could track updates to software that has such special access, and roll back updates after crashing more than once or something. It chooses not to. So it shares the blame because of that decision.

Insurance is why. They can sell insulin at the prices they currently do, and still sell it to millions. Insurance companies can in turn charge more overall as well, pointing at the cost of insulin and the millions who need it as one of the reasons. So it is win win for both the buyer (Insurance) and the seller.

Yes, but they want money. So why deny us teeth when they can let us have teeth for money. They can make more selling it to millions of people then a few rich people.

Distinction without a difference to the point. The demand was always there. It was never induced.

But the demand was always there. They wanted to move, they just didn’t. So the lane didn’t induce it. The choice of that word was intentional. It was to argue against more lanes. It is really unserved demand that they just ignored originally.

Yeah, the interactions suck. But if dealt with earlier, they could have been mitigated. Same way mass transit does. Express trains. Have a highway over a highway that goes to a specific place. If you stack enough of those, people get on the one they need and go straight to where they need to get. Not realistic though unless planned in advance.

My last paragraph agrees with you.

See you are missing the point. The demand isn’t induced, it was always there. They wanted to move and use thier car, but traffic was too bad. My complaint is with the BS argument that the extra lane caused demand to materialize out of no where. It was always there, just unserved.