You’re both in luck! Someone else linked to an article that breaks down how it could work in reality: https://startrek.website/comment/9430643

I know y’all are quoting System of a Down, so I want to share a country song about exactly this…because the difference in the musical styles is neat. One of my favorites by Steve Earle: Rich Man’s War.

It’s a song I’ve always loved for the direct message of rich people using poor folks as soldiers in wars…but also the way it weaves in a larger economic picture about the decisions by the rich that put people in the very desperate positions that they later exploit.

To try to answer, succinctly (which I’m bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn’t get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have a problem with 3 and 4, since it’s harder to see what the series could have been…as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I’m not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It’s what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That’s my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there’s folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it’s good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I’m confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there’d definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they’re willing to take a chance.

Alyx was incredible though! Way more than a tech demo (though I get the argument that it was a test to see if folks would pick up a VR Half-life 3). I played it on a cheap, used WMR headset and an old PC that could barely keep up, and it still stays in my top five videogaming experiences.

It’s a great example to bring up though, because I’d bet it wouldn’t have been made if the studio was only chasing money instead of trying to innovate.

Never used one myself, but apparently lightly spinning them helps the honey not drip because it’s so viscous. Stop spinning it and it can be drizzled.

Had to search online because I never understood why one would not just use a spoon either, but if it means there’s not as many little honey trails on the edge of the container, I can see the point. Learned something new today!

Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.

From the article:

“All the satellites which re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere burn and create tiny alumina particles, which will float in the upper atmosphere for many years,” Takao Doi, a Japanese astronaut and aerospace engineer with Kyoto University, warned recently. “Eventually, it will affect the environment of the Earth.”

I wonder if there will be a couple Putin-approved “vaguely possibly anti-Putin” talking points allowed, for the sole purpose of avoiding that (obviously true) accusation. So the Fox News heads can say “Tucker has the balls to stand up to Putin, it’s not propaganda!”, and Putin still wins.

It’s a slow start, but it’s worth the investment IMHO. Have a good one!

Reminds me of a conversation in the Wire between Carcetti and Bunny, about “Old Man Stryker”: https://youtu.be/MTrvAnP5U18?si=UvjiXno_gbefGCuG

Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn’t cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it’s a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.

Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.

Can they murder people on their property? Or is there some limit to their ability to make rules?

Compromise time: he’s a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?

I had an enormous reply essentially “yes-and’ing” your reply (I agree with it, but wanted to add a “but” in a few places), but…into the ether it went. I’ll listen to that podcast mini series.

One thing I wanted to add is that I grew up in Atlanta, so I agree that plenty of folks should leave NYC and LA. However, there’s plenty of folks there necessary for the city to function, and I think that legislation is probably the only viable way that things will change for them, since lower-income folks are just being squeezed from all directions, given how much of a commodity real estate has gotten since the last big housing bubble burst.

Again though, I’m not an economist, so my ideas are certainly not immediately viable, and I agree there’s little chance of “solving” most of this under the best of circumstances. I just think there’s too much greed, especially related to housing, that can be improved. We’re a rich enough nation that we can do better. Also I just wanted to be sure to give your nice comment a thoughtful reply, because the internet is too toxic in general, and we need to try to make it otherwise. Have a nice end of the year

Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn’t so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It’s not the only reason folks don’t have the economic resources at hand, but it’s usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?

Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I’ve rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.

As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I’m not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can’t exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.

You’re entitled to feel the way you do too, but it doesn’t change what I’ve seen in my years, either.

I think I’m being perfectly level headed, I’m just being a little snarky. At least equally snarky to your comment.

I just wanted to point out that nuance is possible with just a few additional words, but only if we choose to use nuance.

Well it’s a good thing you did the work and spoke with every Jewish person in north America to be able to paint with such a broad brush. I guess all the people I’ve spoken with we’re lying about their ethnicity.

In seriousness though, simply adding “many” or “a plurality of” is enough to add nuance to the discussion. Starting with the blanket “the Jews” isn’t a good look.

I appreciate you taking the time to say that! Thank you. My favorite song by him is probably Desperados Under the Eaves, if you’d ever like to hear the best of his music.

Reminds me of what Warren Zevon had to say about rich people problems, off Preludes. It came out a few years after his death, and the back half of the album has snippets from some radio interview(s?) he did. Neat musings by a complex dude: he was creative genius in a lot of ways, and a titanic asshole in a lot of other ways (he asked his ex-wife to write his biography, and to not go easy on him - alcoholism, violence, absentee parenting…it’s all there).

Anyway, that’s a preface for the folks who don’t know about him: he probably could have been a bigger financial success had he not been a disaster of a human, but maybe his dirty life and times gave him enough material to feed his creativity…who knows.

WZ: I was real lucky, because I always had some kind of work that came along - at the last minute, anyway.

I was always able to make some kind of living as a musician

I also never really got rich, and that might have been lucky too, ya know?

Interviewer: in what way?

WZ: Well, because the less time you spend with the issues of being rich

they’re like the issues of being famous

they’re not real issues

so they’re not real life.

Interviewer: And it leaves more time to be creative?

WZ: There’s more of an exchange - a human exchange of ideas and feelings to be had on the bus stop than over the phone with your accountant, and if you’re rich you spend a lot of time on the phone with your accountant. it’s necessary, I believe.

I know I’m happy and that means I must be lucky. That I know.

EDIT: this is not to say I wouldn’t be grateful for more money, myself, but I chose the life of a biologist - in ecology and evolution, no less. I’m happy to make a living, and it’s always a little shocking to see folks make double/triple what I do and say it’s “not much these days”. Those of us scraping by have a wildly different perspective, and I’d love to give folks a tour of what it looks like long-term.