Please see my comment here.

Maybe I can illustrate better. Imagine your boss goes to pay you your paycheck and gives you and your coworkers 75% of what you’re supposed to be paid instead of 100%. You say, “Hey, where’s my other 25%” and they respond, “I don’t have any more, we ran out of money to pay you. We had to adjust to stay sustainable. You’ll only get 75% until our finances change.” Would you say, “well, since there’s still savings maybe, and there’s gonna be a bunch of new money the next time you go to pay out, just not enough, you technically didn’t run out. That’s technically something else?” I don’t know, maybe you would. I’d call that running out, though.

For most of Lemmy, yes, that makes you a fascist.

Social Security is being slowly strangled.

The demographics are probably a bigger part of it. The ratio of people collecting to people paying in is much larger now and the length of time people collect on it is longer since people live longer now.

“I only robbed you of 25% of your income, what are you complaining about?”

What people mean when they say “run out” is that it won’t be able to keep up with its obligations. That is objectively bad. People will get reduced payments. There will be pain.

The information is out there if you wanna find it. The truth is most people don’t care, though. That’s on us.

He can decide, and his middle managers can decide, and you can also decide by choosing to shop from somewhere else.

On the other hand, if everyone in the world had your lifestyle the world would be much more wealthy and could make a lot of positive changes.

I think the answer is yes.

Amazon is very much not a monopoly. There are thousands of online retailers. There are also a lot of delivery services, no idea if there are thousands, but there’s a lot.

You certainly should do your best to not shoot through human shields, agreed. But can it still sometimes be better to shoot through human shields if that’s what it takes to get very dangerous people vs letting them escape and threaten again later? I don’t know, it’s a hard question.

For conflicts like this leadership that is planning attacks or otherwise leading forces that are doing attacking, simply existing anywhere outside a prison cell is threatening. Hamas leadership knows that, they’re the ones putting hostpitals at risk by being there.

Except Hamas is the government in Gaza and can setup pretty much whatever situation it wants to there, while it is hated in Israel outside of Gaza and would be prevented from taking an Israeli hospital and constructing elaborate tunnels under it. That’s kind of like saying “If Russia wants Ukraine so bad, why doesn’t it just take Kyiv?” Because it can’t. There’s a bunch of obstacles stopping it, otherwise it obviously would.

Correct, the vast majority of people don’t care.

Got a link to a good project of that type? I’ve been thinking about this recently.

Israel does appear to value its civilians a lot more than Hamas. There have been prisoner swaps where Hamas will hold out swapping one Israeli until Israel agrees to literally hundreds of Palestinians.

US sends money to Palestine, too. So does much of Europe.

One of my favorite facts (factoids?) is that if everyone in the world stood shoulder to shoulder we’d all fit inside the single city of Paris.

The incentive is already there, it’s just prohibited because of zoning and building codes many places. All the government has to do to fix this is stop getting in the way.

To be clear, the TRUST Act was bipartisan. Sizeable majority Democrat, for sure, but it’s not like it was all Ds for, all Rs against or anything.