In the US, the fed’s stated strategy is to keep wages down.
It’s not their stated strategy but it’s probably safe to assume they subscribe to the baseless “wage price spiral.” The bottom line is that there is still a LOT of stimulus money circulating, keeping inflation high. Ideally this would be targeted with a tax on the wealthy, but in the absence of that, the Fed has to use their very blunt tools. I don’t see inflation improving until there’s a recession.
There are no ad blocking YouTube apps on iOS so I suspect Apple blocks them. The DMA will soon let us in the EU install whatever we like, but fuck Apple.
The country needs more people.
No it doesn’t. It certainly didn’t need 1.2 million people last year. The only reason to support this insanity is a desire to increase homelessness and impoverish the middle and lower classes.
I don’t think having enough homes for people is an awful policy. Where do you want the migrants to live? Tents?
I think a LOT of voters wanted to slow down migration. Leaders lied to them, and claimed the only way to do that was to leave the EU, so they did. Now they’re realising the reason migration is high is because both major parties are neoliberals who want high migration to pump house prices and keep wages low. It won’t change until they elect a party which cares about the working class, and campaigns on reducing migration to no more than the number of homes built in the previous year. This is such common sense policy that the only reason it’s not already in effect is because leaders in all major parties don’t care about the middle class.
Removed by mod
Kicking the habit Efforts by authorities to curb smoking and its health hazards, not least by prohibiting puffing in restaurants and cafes and banning ads for cigarettes, have prompted sharp reductions in cigarette sales in recent years.
While I support bans in restaurants and cafes, I don’t support prohibition, which is what a lot of Western nations are aiming at. We learned our lesson during the alcohol prohibition years in America, and for the last 70 years around the world with marijuana prohibition. The social effects are far worse when forcing recreational drugs underground. Educate support addiction programs, but don’t ban.
Wikipedia is a good example but they actually employ designers and developers. I think the secret sauce is paying people to build great software. So a non-profit with donations could absolutely work.
Open license software will never beat paid software in the consumer space. I know that’s a controversial opinion, but it’s been proven a thousand times. There’s no way to beat the user experience of Reddit when they have a hundred experienced UX designers doing nothing but optimising for engagement. We think the overall experience is worse, which is why we’re here, but we are the minority. Lemmy still hasn’t figured out basic problems like what happens to the user experience when an instance defederates from another. The user had no control over that, but suddenly their subscribed communities have disappeared without notice or explanation. Now they have to find another instance to subscribe to, and they lose their entire Lemmy identity.
I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.
That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.
After a lot of research I’ve come to the conclusion the only viable solution is bike lanes with a curb separating them and roads. As a mode of transport, bikes are as different from cars as they are from pedestrians. All three need their own lanes. Bikes make city traversal much more viable without a car.
Of course there are some caveats here. Not every city is well planned for cycling. Cities in the Netherlands have much higher density than places like Austin. If it takes 10km to get from your home to the grocery store, bicycle lanes are just less useful. Geography also matters. Holland is flat as a pancake. Many other places are not, and like it or not, hills suck for cycling unless you have an e-bike. Most people do not. Finally, weather matters. People in cold climates can dress warmer. People in hot climates cannot dress any cooler than shorts and t-shirt. If the temperature is hot for much of the year, or months at a time, people cannot rely on it for their commutes or errands. This makes cycling unviable for some hot cities.
Car free zones are great, but only when the public transport infrastructure can support it. If most people who come to the city live far away because of low density, public transport becomes very expensive to implement and maintain. People don’t want to jack up their taxes 10-20% to pay for that. Longer term planning should permit and encourage higher density, but there is a cultural component here. Some people really like having a house with a backyard. Apartments don’t offer this.
I agree with him. If you want tax payers to pay for your higher education, in whole or part, they should expect some kind of measurable benefit to the state. Data shows poor benefits for the courses listed. You can still study those degrees. Just pay for it yourself. My taxes aren’t there for you to go on a personal journey of self exploration.
Driver training and awareness campaigns and reduced speed limits are all tinkering around the edges. They don’t make any meaningful change. The Netherlands and Denmark proved this is a solved problem: build dedicated cycleways with a curb separating them. Yes it’s expensive, but it works. Anything else is virtue signalling. Cars and bicycles are wildly different modes of transport. Asking them to share the same space is dangerous. Much more dangerous than asking pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space.
I don’t use Spotify, but no one forces artists to list their music on Spotify. They can choose list on any platform they like. FYI Spotify does in fact pay artists. Just less than Bandcamp. Streaming is why I don’t pirate anymore. If I had to go back to paying $30 for an album I’d be a pirate again. So artists can take some of my money, or none of it.
I don’t pirate music or games because there are reasonable platforms and pricing models which make pirating more hassle than it’s worth. Shows and movies, on the other hand, are an absolute shitshow to purchase legally.
Outrageous pricing.
Declining quality. Especially writing. See Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, and Foundation.
Content is often unavailable to purchase. See Disney vault.
Competing streaming services. I’d have to subscribe to six services to access the shows I like.
Content disappears from services with little notice.
Studios and platforms have been removing and modifying older content for political reasons.
It’s like they’re trying to make the experience as bad as possible. So fuck ‘em. Thank you Sonarr and Radarr.
Parents have a right to decide which materials are taught to their kids. I know parental rights make some of you uncomfortable, but you’ll just have to find a way to get over it. I won’t allow my young kids to be given literal child porn.
If you only go after the people with money, then yes. Then it’s not about justice or morality at all. It’s about money.
Yes they made a financial commitment to various states, companies, and individuals to compensate slave owners for their financial loss when Britain ended the slave trade. I think that was pragmatic and commendable. I don’t see how that addresses me comment.
it’s about paying people for the work they did.
Okay, so pay slaves for the work they did. But we can’t, because they’re long dead. So that’s not what you’re asking at all. You’re asking for people who never owned slaves to pay people who were never slaves. Not all British white people are wealthy as a result of historical slavery. In fact, most British were dirt poor and never owned any slaves at all. Today, their ancestors remain dirt poor. You’d ask them to pay recompense for something for which neither they nor their ancestors are guilty.
I’m white and of Irish descent. My ancestors were subject to genocide under the Irish Potato Famine. Am I morally owed restitution? Further back, my ancestors were subject to slavery along the North African coast and Middle East for hundreds of years in the Barbary slave trade. Am I owed reparations from the numerous countries involved in that? To me it quickly becomes apparent that any feigned moral outrage begins and stops at white people. Everyone’s ancestors are guilty of atrocities if we go back far enough. Everyone’s ancestors were subject to atrocities as well.
Thanks. Yeah he definitely subscribes to the Wall Street belief that wages are driving inflation.