The first person to be the 28th President

Depending on the details, either “holy fuck that’sbadman” or “holy fuck rich”.

Copacetic

Relevant song

Best October surprise ever.

lmaooooo 🤣🤣

Using heavier weights for my workouts. It makes me feel great and so powerful to help my body fight stored trauma.

Yooooo!!! Me too!! I make sure to piss myself off real good before going to the gym. I’ll be pacing like a madman before I get in the car. I know I’m ready when I don’t even want to go outside because even sunlight is offensive. One time, I pushed it too hard and had to ground myself in the car at the gym parking lot for 15 mins. Between sets, I’m pacing and stimming with my earbuds in. Prolly look like I think I’m in a rap video.

I catch people side-eyeing me often. But, I could tell who gets it because I catch them doing similar and are friendly to me when we’re near each other.

I don’t know if this will work for the trauma eventually or just a mandatory habit now, but it’s made adjusting my weighted blanket a lot easier.

Keep it up!

Congrats!! I loved the little bit I learned. It’s a lot more intertwined with others subjects than I had thought, like physics and math. Feel free to share if you learned anything interesting 🙂

🤣🤣🤣

I gotchu, boo 😉👌

Dear @HilaryRClinton@clinton.dynasty,

Anyone that can be funded endlessly by a corporate and capitalist elite can become president.

If billionaires and corporate leaders decided tomorrow that you should be president, they could dump millions of dollars and a few years worth of hired professional help and they’d make you president.

It’s not the will of an individual person or a personality that makes a president … it’s whichever group of wealthy backers who decide to fund the campaign … after that it is j just a matter of how much money they are willing to spend to make it happen.

I think the point of the post is merely to point out that in four decades, at least one of three families has been in each election. Statistically, if candidates were freely chosen at random from the top 0.01% of Americans, that would be insanely improbable. It’s pointing out that presidential elections aren’t the American people picking the best person in the country for the job. There are influential factors other than who-would-be-best at face value. In other words, the people aren’t given a list of American citizens with their characteristics and asked to chose the one they would prefer. The people are told to pick one from a very select few that have already been approved. Whether those candidates have climbed a ladder or been given a silver spoon is irrelevant to that point. The matter is that elections aren’t entirely free in spirit.

It also serves as an argument against social mobility and merit in the USA. Dynasties are government systems in which the ultimate power stays within a family. We’re told that it’s because of whatever bs reason with the family being divine or superior, but the reality is that when the ultimate power rests within the same family, the people that benefit from that also stay in power. It’s a system that maintains those on top on top. Having presidential dynasties shows that social mobility in the USA isn’t as fluid as commonly thought.

I gotchu, boo 😘

This is what I was looking for. Thank you very much!

No, I don’t think that, mostly because I don’t know what that is.

Can you explain your logic?

Interesting! What are some other examples of common American English terms inconspicuously being used to dehumanize people?

marih-jeh-wanna

Thanks! Is there a point during which any of these cells makes a decision that is not 100% mere chemical or mechanical reaction to their immediate environment? Perhaps when they need to differentiate into a new cell?

Some classical symphonic music greatest pieces album that’s at least 2 CDs worth, but hopefully more. Being on a desert island, I’m sure I will go through all sorts of moods and emotions, so I’ll need something for everything.

omg 🙏 can you 🫵 imagine 🧠?? that would bee 🐝 crazyyy 👉🤪

Assuming that demand for car insurance is artificially inflated because people are mandated to purchase it, wouldn’t an open market still drive down prices due to competition? Another market that has even more demand is food. People aren’t even legally mandated to buy food. They either buy it or die. There may be a few people that can grow enough of their own food to sustain themselves without ever purchasing it, but I would guess that there are more people that make enough money to live without insurance than people that grow all of their own food. Despite that, food seems to be relatively affordable. If one food vendor is charging too much or I don’t like their product, I can easily go to a competing food vendor and purchase there. Adam’s invisible hand then ensures that the market provides an efficient quality-to-price ratio. I’m not arguing it’s perfect, but we don’t hear about how food stores are ripping us off as much as we do about insurance companies. My argument is that despite there being inflated demand, the insurance companies still have to compete with each other for those customers, which would have a considerable impact on price. Let’s say we all buy cars that are valued at $20k. If one company is providing insurance for $100/month and the other company is charging $150/month, everything else being equal, the former would earn more customers.

Also, since demand is high, I think it would LOWER rates. Here’s why. If insurance was not mandated, then the people that would get it would include everyone that thinks they may need it. The ones that think they will not use it will avoid wasting their money since they’re not receiving anything in return. That means that there will be less contributions and more expenditures from the pooled money, making insurance more expensive. Mandate insurance makes it so that even the people that will not use it contribute to the pool, so everyone’s costs are lower than otherwise. Of course, this would only happen in a market that allows for competition. Otherwise, if there were only one insurance provider, they would be in a position to price gouge everyone since the only other option would be to break the law.

I ran a test script below switching everyone’s names to the pet name Muffin to get a feel for it and have provided an analysis after.

I think you’re right. The thing that sticks out to me is that it becomes difficult to recognize to whom a person is speaking. For instance, let’s consider the following line:

Jane: Attention in the mess hall including Muffin and Muffin! I have decided to terminate my participation in the currently proceeding intercourse attempt. Please robe and vacate within 53 second per the terms of services. I love you, Muffin, Muffin, and Muffin.

Jane tries to get the attention of everyone present with emphasis on two specific people. Since she used the pet name Muffin for both, it is hard to discern specifically who, so we need to conduct a logic analysis. Reviewing the history of the script until that line, we notice that only three characters have been introduced. We could temporarily assume that she is not trying to get her own attention (this assumption is discussed further below), so that leaves John and Jack left. Be that as it may, she does say everyone, which can imply that there are other people. She also explicitly calls two people by name, which could suggest that there are other people present since she would not have to have mentioned them by name otherwise. Still and all, she could be an inefficient speaker, so we cannot be certain either way. For the sake of deduction, we have to conduct a run through by holding these assumptions as true for the time being. Precipitously, it gets even crazier because there are three characters to whom she refers to by pet name at the end. Holding our assumption that she is not referring to herself, our previous deductions would be proven invalid. That would clear things up for us as we would now know that she is referring to the first two Muffins in particular, just not who those two would be by discernible name. It also leaves us a bit charmed as to who is the possible new Muffin. Per contra, that would be holding our assumption that Jane is not referring to herself. I have heard people call themselves by name, so we cannot be certain. I conjecturize that if we had enough data, would could analyze how often someone refers to themselves by name, then use statistical methods to analyze and conclude confidence percentages.

In any case, I agree with you. Using pet names does not measurably make this interaction less weird. But something still feels uncomfortable. I wonder what it is then. Any ideas?