stembolts

"The powers that be" doesn't describe anything, nothing permanent anyway. The only constant is change, and that applies to leadership of any sort. A friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs. The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way.. or the unfortunate way.

That said, I didn't understand most of your message but responded to the small part that was communicated clearly.

Finally I'd like to (hopefully constructively) critique of your writing style. In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?

Good addition, I guess I am making a moral argument. I was coming at it from an ethics POV but yeah. Also good sandwich analogy.

"They sell more than they can support"

At that point is where mine and your opinion diverge. In what sustainable business does one sell more of anything than they can maintain responsibility over?

Of course, there are many examples, but why?

Greed is why. Don't sell something you cannot sustain, or you have misled your customer.

I hope the user finds a way around this and burns all of the data they rightfully purchased. Plan says unlimited. Rename the plan if its a lie.

Finally, and not directed at the user to which I am replying, what concerns me the most is that this quote I took from your post would be glossed over by most because it is what we've come to expect from fucky corps. We don't have to take it, change your expectations, question the system.

It is not difficult to infer the intent behind what they mean and answer the question, but that would require some effort.
It is much easier to pedantically critique word choice. That requires no effort.

I will help you. When an object X is "true X", that usually means the same base item X, with greater magnitude, so "true X" would be a X-leaning political philosophy with a greater magnitude. So taking left-wing policies for example, it could be paid maternity and paternity leave, worker's rights, a social safety net, yearly vacation days, and such. In this limited example, the united states has none of these policies enforced on a national level. These are policies that would be included in even center-left politics. So it could be said that the united states has no "true left" because the policies enacted most frequently represent mostly right or far-right ideology. Tax cuts for corporations, slashing of retirement funds, removal of protection for the environment, etc.

The use of this "true left" terms in american politics is especially prescient because the liberal party, if removed from the united states and placed into any other political environment, would be a right-wing party. Basically, the liberal party in the united states isn't left-leaning if we look at global standards. It is a center-right or right-wing neoliberalism at best. Thus folks in the united states often say that there is no "true-left" party.

Hope this helps.

"consider themselves to be China"

"reunification (by force if necessary)"

Your own statement conflicts itself. If Taiwan considers itself part of China, why would force be necessary?

Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a country? Taiwan seems to disagree with that.

This post is full of dumb.

If one were to gather political parties from around the world and sort them as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning, one could do so. However when it came time to compare the left-leaning parties of other developed nations with the left-leaning parties of the united states, it would quickly become apparent that the "most-left" party in the united states aligns with center-right and far-right parties of other developed nations. So, doing such analysis you quickly come to realize that the united states has no true left-wing party. We have conservative and conservative-light. It should also be noted that the conservative party in the united states is much further right than most other developed nations.

Also, remember, right-left is a duopoly, much like Pepsi and Coke. There are so many more dimensions to politics than right-left, there's a thousand different parties for every ideology. For more info on this, check out the podcast linked at the end. Support ranked choice voting if you want to take steps to end this duopoly. What do you have to lose? Entrenched life-long, un-removeable politicians. What do you have to gain? Choice. Variety. More direct democratic representation and politicians that better reflect their voter's interests.

Freakanomics
Episode 356
America’s Hidden Duopoly
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

Yes, immensely so.

But its not the whole puzzle.

I still have to add a routine of meditation as well as social interactions.

For me, the quality of life with-vs-without those things truly is immeasurable.

I'm going to take a leap of faith and say you don't work in aviation..

Step one.. define safety in the context of the airplane.
Step two.. measure it.

So yea. If safety is never defined it cannot be measured. But is the sentiment you are attempting to express is that measurable safety guidelines have not been defined for these massively complicated and long-running commercial aircraft?

Maybe I am misunderstanding because at first glance your comment comes across as nonsensical, please elaborate.

How do you think safety is verified?

Cool, then respond to this post with a video of you masturbating. It would be helpful to the scenario to include your full birth name, address, and employer, since that is the scenario that folks who would be blackmailed would be facing.

Since you really don't care.

It is possible that you mean what you say, but I believe its more likely you lack imagination to what impact the above scenario would actually feel like once you're in it.

That silly proposition aside, I agree with you about the microphone killswitch. Certainly overlooked.

Nah, you aren't dumb. I think the opinion is dumb, but I'm sure you have reasons for believing the way you do. I suspect it comes from a sense of hopelessness and feeling a lack of control which I can empathize with but do not share. I simply don't like to see people roll over and give in to such thought because of the types of awful people who have power in this world. This mindset is submissive to those powers and that irks me to anger. That submission boosts the power they already hold. But no, I hold no negative opinions toward you as a person and I apologize if it came across that way, that's likely my fault.

This is a dumb perspective at best and a fatal perspective at worst.

Ah! Makes sense to me.

There is always a chance I misinterpreted as well, I def have whooshed on many jokes on Lemmy. Can't win them all lol.