The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don’t have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.

It’s a double edged sword. If they allow this to happen, democracy crumbles under a new admin. If they do anything to deter authoritarians getting into power is technically anti-democratic too.

Either this admin undermines the belief in democracy by stopping an authoritarian administration to participate in elections or they allow the authoritarians to run and hope the electorate aren’t complete idiots (in a voting system rigged towards the authoritarians via the electoral college).

But we can’t get a database for firearms?

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

What is the easiest way to look that information up?

I think you two are speaking about different steps in this hypothetical transition. You are talking about the long term goal, the other person was talking about the transition from now to the long term scenario. There is very real danger that the power vacuum left by the x-billionaires could be gobbled up by a small group of people. This cannot be dismissed even if we all agree on the end goal.

Secondary critique, set the wealth cap in relation to some other moving metric. I think a multiple of minimum wage would be great, give incentive for the wealthy to increase minimum wage to achieve a higher cap.

Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?

Yay! We get to rename the drink “Irish Car Bomb” to “MAGA Tantrum”. At least something good came out of all this.

Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.

Ooo there’s a great video on Minute Food about vanilla extract vs synthetic vanilla. It basically comes down to: if you cook the vanilla, synthetic will taste the exact same, if you never heat up the vanilla it might be worth getting the real stuff.

I assume the same is probably true of most oils, if you use EVOO for salad dressings it might be worth it, but if you’re using it to saute you might as well use sunflower oil and save some money.

Fair point.

Yes, I’m being nit-picky. All I was trying to say was the original phrasing was “democracy at large says an insurrectionist cannot run for office” which is untrue. It is a US implementation of democracy specific case.

Another country could have no restrictions on candidates and it would be completely democratic for an insurrectionist to run for office.

Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.

All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

Trump: “I have a Jewish friend that gave me Mein Kampf.”

Editor: “Close Mr Trump, but the Friend was not Jewish the book was not Mein Kampf.”

News: “Trump had a friend.”

Me: “Did anybody fact check this? … Well, I’ll be damned…”

I understand your frustration, but unless the voting system is modified to approval or ranked choice you are probably not acting in your best interest voting for a third party. I hate that fact as much as you and I want to see it changed, but that’s the reality of the system we’re in.

Jeff Arcuri - his funniest stuff is his crowd work so he constantly has new stuff to watch.

I agree. Meditation in general - focusing on existence/experience without your mind’s narrative - would probably be good for the OP. The narrative is what is scary, because it is what’s afraid of not existing. Setting that aside can be very liberating.

True! Add do that 13 million the 13 billion years before that too!

Then it gets fun! You can think about whether you didn’t exist before the big bang! Did you not exist, or since the universe didn’t exist and you couldn’t exist can you count that as you not existing?

But then the rule that it involves tarrifs against non-FTA countries means there is a downside to it. Suddenly the utility graph has a big zone that’s below zero.

In what I was suggesting, there are no required tarrifs between the non-FTA and FTA countries. The only requirement would be that within the FTA there are no tariffs. Presumably the trade laws between a non-FTA and FTA country would remain the same, and might have a slight increase to compensate for the internal carbon tax.

I’m sure this small clarification doesn’t actually make much of a difference on your larger point. I’m clearly not a trained economist. I appreciate your response, but there are a few things over my head. Do you have good suggested reading/videos for “Network Effect Problems” or “Utility Graphs”? Or should I just search around?

Constructing economic incentives is generally more effective at driving desired actions than completely disallowing things. It also allows for ‘crowd sourcing’ the decision making process for what is low hanging fruit and what is difficult or ‘expensive’ things to change.