Ok many comments bash OP for the word choice “prudish” to point out this is a bad faith troll. I would also point out the issue with “hate sex”. There are people who are not prudish at all, and love sex, and still don’t want to see lewd things. Famously, arousal reduces thresholds for feeling disgust. I would argue that it is quite normal for humans to see overly revealing images of most bodies off putting, unless in an actual sexual situation. Then, there are people, I would be fine calling them prudish in the lack of a better term, as shyness kind of undersells this, who really don’t want to see, hear, talk about, or even mention sex. Someone like that can still really like sex- doing it, not talking about it. So “hate sex” is not the same as “don’t want to see explicit porn all the time everywhere”.

It’s too late to record a baseline, so any metrics will need to work retrospectively anyway.

Yes, I tried both before going self hosted; and both try very hard to make your life difficult if you don’t subscribe. Actually I got hooked on RSS with Google Reader, which was a perfect, simple, free reader. It got shut down, because I guess it doesn’t make sense to provide that service for free.

I will try rephrasing it: its a nonsensical, fucking stupid proposal that gdp should equal earned income, and that somehow if the two are not equal then the difference amounts to slavery.
Do you care to elaborate, why do you even think these two should be the same, and what the difference has to do with slavery, as it relates to the actual meaning of that expression, not random things you don’t like.

Yes

I go to work for money (in the job I chose), and I get money, i call that a fair deal. If I was owned by someone, was forced to work, and would not get paid in return, I would be a slave. I mean what do you think it should be like? I don’t go to work and I get paid anyways? Who makes the shit I buy with the money then?

Mm, so if a worker creates added value, that makes the worker a slave? Interesting theory.

Would make more sense if post was talking about slavery, not labor. Labor is compensated.

But these are not ideologies, they’re made up derogatory terms. It’s like asking what is the difference between a fuckwit and a dickwad.

The way I understand it, the main thing for incels is that their celibacy is involuntary. They think they’re entitled to sex, and anyone not having sex with them is to blame for their misery. So being a rapist is precisely on brand for them, sadly.

Isn’t the bible god’s perspective? It’s supposed to be his words.

Then why do you equate stress with biopsy?

deleted by creator

So is the problem that they are greedy evil capitalist, or that they are stupid people who don’t even know how to run a business to make profit?

And here we go with the typical thread of “I spent 2.6 seconds vaguely thinking about this so now I know better than any of those so called experts; I should now go online and educate people about the issue. If there is a counterargument, I will double down using only my common sense as source and ignore any input.”

The NYT is a business. Why would you expect them to give you anything for free?

I fixed that for you.

Exactly, and the challenge is to beat the couch, but to tie with it. But as someone else pointed out, the whole premise is somewhat flawed- it is more or less relevant for “technical analysis “; but most traders in the real market try to use information other than the price. That said, I’m a strong believer of passive investing so it’s a fun demonstration.

The question was, how can Americans view the death of their soldiers a tragic event. I think it’s trivial that the attacked enemy views the invading soldiers’ deaths as win.

GI Joe did not join the military to attack a third world country. Members of the armed forces, once signed up, have to go wherever they are deployed. So yes, many service members are brave folks who are willing to risk their lives to defend their country. But likely the majority are completely average people who enlisted because they didn’t see many other career opportunities available to them. Either way, they agreed to follow orders.
And then they are sent to stupid wars where they are traumatized (and they traumatize civilians of the hostile country) for no good reason. That doesn’t mean they are inherently evil or aggressive people, or even that they want to be at war.

It’s not soldiers who start wars. There is some cognitive dissonance, but one can be angry at corrupt politicians sending troops to unnecessary wars, and respect those same troops as heroes risking their lives for the country.