I think the first "that" is in error. The structure is "find X to be Y" (i.e. think that X is Y), where in this case X = "a man that doesn't sit like they like" and Y = "a rapist".
Where that first "like" means "how"; "sit how they like". (And "they" is the person passing the judgement, not the person sitting).
Those essential amino acids are plentiful in high-protein plants like legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains. There's no single plant that will provide you will all of them, but it's really easy to pick a combination of two that will, usually a grain and a legume, or a nut and a seed. That's why large swaths of the world, most of whom are too poor to afford meat, live off staples like rice and beans. Be it the rice and pinto beans of Latin America, the rice and soy beans of east Asia, the wheat and garbanzo beans of the middle east, the maize and tepary beans of indigenous North Americans, etc.
About the healthiest (albeit most boring) diet you could eat would be to lightly snack on the widest variety of nuts, seeds, legumes, and grains you can find slowly across the day, maybe supplemented with some fruits and green leafy vegetables (mostly for the vitamins, not the macronutrients or essential amino acids that are all provided by the "trail mix" core of the diet). Which shouldn't be surprising, because that's largely what our pre-agricultural ancestors evolved to eat, wandering around foraging all day. Meat was a rare treat that we could only begin to eat in quantity a significant way into the invention of civilization (look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines, we had to invent tools first to enable us to hunt), and then for a large part it was still reserved for the upper classes only.
less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.
$25k/yr is around the median personal income (double it for the average two-person household to get the median household income of around $50k), so if you're pulling that all by yourself and not splitting it with the statistically probable one other person in your household, that's not statistically very low.
(Compared to cost of living it is, certainly, but that's just because almost everybody is shit poor compared to cost of living).
Because part of the study was measuring the rate of spread among people with the same and opposite political views to the tweeter using the moral-emotional language, so tweets about divisive topics make perfect candidates as there are clearly identifiable sides.
Rent is only an artificially continuing expense, because of the debt that comes from borrowing housing. Rent is service of that debt. The actual things you get and how you use them are radically different between food and borrowed housing. Food is something you actually use up, more of which has to be produced after you've used it. Rented housing is just "buying" the same thing over and over again without actually using it up and requiring more to be produced. Nobody has to many another "apartment-month" for you; you just use the same apartment, for another month.
This idea of (almost) everyone having to pay continually for the privilege of just existing in a place is one of the biggest pieces of wool ever pulled over the eyes of the public at large. It's not natural and it's a terrible injustice. It's a completely artificial arrangement, a byproduct of our socioeconomic structures and nothing more, and it literally (yes, not figurative) sickens me to see so many people not only blindly accepting it but actively defending it.
You're completely misunderstanding the point of my original post. It's not about whether or not you have or need money to pay for various needs over the course of your life or all at once up front. You're arguing against something I'm not even talking about.
I was just responding to the poster who wrote "I don't have any debt because I don't own a house...". Borrowed housing (of which rent is a subset) is a kind of debt. Borrowing anything is a kind of debt; that's pretty much what debt means. Since you can't live nowhere, you either live in a place that you own, or you borrow someone else's place to live (whether or not they charge you rent for it). So not owning a house makes you in debt (to whoever owns wherever else you end up living), making that comment I replied to nonsensical.
In contrast, the alternative to owning a lifelong supply of nonperishable food isn't borrowing food. That very concept is nonsense. You don't borrow food, because you consume it and then don't have it to return. Needing to buy food enough for a lifetime (whether all at once or slowly over that lifetime) isn't a debt, so the comparison is baseless. Conversely, buying "enough housing for a lifetime" is likewise nonsense, because you don't use up housing as you go, which is why you can borrow it, because it's still there to return after you're done with it. It's not like you need a certain amount of housing per time, like with food; you don't need 500sqft per day or some nonsense like that. You just need a certain amount of housing, period, and then you use that same amount of housing over whatever amount of time. The comparison there is completely baseless.
I probably should have quoted the specific part I was replying to in my original post and avoided this whole confusion.
Yeah, because fee simple (the terms under which most "homeowners" "own" their homes) is actually legally a kind of rent still. Legally speaking, the state owns all land. And that's pretty fucked up. At the root of it, feudalism never went away. It's still landlords all the way up.
Maintenance is paying for something you consume. You always have the choice to just forego maintenance. It's probably a bad choice, but it's still one you have. You can go on living in a place with a leaky roof and broken windows if you want, and not pay anyone for that privilege, if you own the place. But you can't exist nowhere; by virtue of existing, without owning your own place, you owe someone else money, until you own your own place.
Insurance is essentially part of the maintenance budget, preemptively paying in proportion to the likelihood of needing catastrophically much maintenance.
Electricity is also something you pay to consume, and can choose to forgo if you don't want to pay anymore.
Taxes you have a point though. No choice in paying taxes, so that's practically the same as having an infinite debt. Technically the taxes aren't levied as interest on something borrowed though, but as involuntary payment for services you're getting whether you want them or not, so it's not actually "debt" per se, but yeah in practice it's basically paying rent to the government.
You could theoretically have to pay for the time you were in possession of some food before having to return it unconsumed (besides the time that you "consumed" just being in possession of it). That would be analogous. Buying food that you eat is not. That would be analogous to if you had to constantly buy more land because it becomes unusable after a time.
If that commute time is in a self-driving car with internet access, that doesn't sound so bad. Hell, move a little further away, make it a four hour commute, sleep one cycle in the car each way (split-shift sleep cycles are not historically uncommon), and spend all your waking time at home doing fun stuff now that work and sleep are out of the way.
You don't borrow one bit of food, sit there using it while paying interest on the borrowed value, then give the food back in the end. You buy food, pay for it once, and then it's yours to do with as you please. That you later need more of it doesn't change that.
Food is consumable. You constantly need more and more food. You're not continually paying interest on the same borrowed food that you still have to give back in the end. You're paying for more and more food over time, but each bit of paid for once and then yours to do with as you please.
Having to pay for things you use up is not a debt. Having to borrow something that's not yours and you have to return is.
If you don't own a house, you have an infinite debt. Anywhere you go, it will be someone else's space, and they will charge you continuously and indefinitely for the use of it. If you're still in that situation when you're too old to work, you will die in the street when you can no longer bribe others to let you stay at their place. The only possible way to be actually debt-free is to own your own land, free and clear.
This would only be true if ownership of the automatons is widely distributed. Whoever owns the robots will get more for less work. If that's all of us, then we all get this wonderful utopia. If it's a tiny fraction of us, then they get this utopia and everyone else is disposable.
N, P, and K are more like "plant vitamins" than "plant food". The bulk of a plant's mass is made of carbon, which it gets from atmospheric CO2. Still, just plain CO2 is not nearly enough for most plants to survive, just like humans couldn't survive on a diet of simple syrup even though the sugars in the syrup are what the bulk of our body mass is eventually made from (what most of our food gets reduced to on the way to becoming the energy and materials needed to operate and reproduce our cells); all the other trace substances, vitamins and minerals and essential amino acids found only through a variety of dietary proteins, are important too, and likewise plants need N, P, and K to survive. But CO2 most definitely is the main "food" source, and not just something they need "to respirate and metabolize their food".
Slashdot Mirror
I think the first "that" is in error. The structure is "find X to be Y" (i.e. think that X is Y), where in this case X = "a man that doesn't sit like they like" and Y = "a rapist".
Where that first "like" means "how"; "sit how they like". (And "they" is the person passing the judgement, not the person sitting).
If you're going to be snarky, at least be accurate. The Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) was second-wave.
Those essential amino acids are plentiful in high-protein plants like legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains. There's no single plant that will provide you will all of them, but it's really easy to pick a combination of two that will, usually a grain and a legume, or a nut and a seed. That's why large swaths of the world, most of whom are too poor to afford meat, live off staples like rice and beans. Be it the rice and pinto beans of Latin America, the rice and soy beans of east Asia, the wheat and garbanzo beans of the middle east, the maize and tepary beans of indigenous North Americans, etc.
About the healthiest (albeit most boring) diet you could eat would be to lightly snack on the widest variety of nuts, seeds, legumes, and grains you can find slowly across the day, maybe supplemented with some fruits and green leafy vegetables (mostly for the vitamins, not the macronutrients or essential amino acids that are all provided by the "trail mix" core of the diet). Which shouldn't be surprising, because that's largely what our pre-agricultural ancestors evolved to eat, wandering around foraging all day. Meat was a rare treat that we could only begin to eat in quantity a significant way into the invention of civilization (look at our bodies, we are not natural-born hunting machines, we had to invent tools first to enable us to hunt), and then for a large part it was still reserved for the upper classes only.
The "A" stands for "anthropogenic" (man-made), not "anthropomorphic" (man-shaped). So the analogous word you want is "bovogenic" (cow-made).
less than $25,000/yr income. I'm disabled if you want to know the reason for the low income.
$25k/yr is around the median personal income (double it for the average two-person household to get the median household income of around $50k), so if you're pulling that all by yourself and not splitting it with the statistically probable one other person in your household, that's not statistically very low.
(Compared to cost of living it is, certainly, but that's just because almost everybody is shit poor compared to cost of living).
You must be new around here.
In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.
So you're saying the most viral possible right-wing tweet would be:
SJWs :-( Sad!
Because part of the study was measuring the rate of spread among people with the same and opposite political views to the tweeter using the moral-emotional language, so tweets about divisive topics make perfect candidates as there are clearly identifiable sides.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" - CmdrTrumpo
Rent is only an artificially continuing expense, because of the debt that comes from borrowing housing. Rent is service of that debt. The actual things you get and how you use them are radically different between food and borrowed housing. Food is something you actually use up, more of which has to be produced after you've used it. Rented housing is just "buying" the same thing over and over again without actually using it up and requiring more to be produced. Nobody has to many another "apartment-month" for you; you just use the same apartment, for another month.
This idea of (almost) everyone having to pay continually for the privilege of just existing in a place is one of the biggest pieces of wool ever pulled over the eyes of the public at large. It's not natural and it's a terrible injustice. It's a completely artificial arrangement, a byproduct of our socioeconomic structures and nothing more, and it literally (yes, not figurative) sickens me to see so many people not only blindly accepting it but actively defending it.
You're completely misunderstanding the point of my original post. It's not about whether or not you have or need money to pay for various needs over the course of your life or all at once up front. You're arguing against something I'm not even talking about.
I was just responding to the poster who wrote "I don't have any debt because I don't own a house...". Borrowed housing (of which rent is a subset) is a kind of debt. Borrowing anything is a kind of debt; that's pretty much what debt means. Since you can't live nowhere, you either live in a place that you own, or you borrow someone else's place to live (whether or not they charge you rent for it). So not owning a house makes you in debt (to whoever owns wherever else you end up living), making that comment I replied to nonsensical.
In contrast, the alternative to owning a lifelong supply of nonperishable food isn't borrowing food. That very concept is nonsense. You don't borrow food, because you consume it and then don't have it to return. Needing to buy food enough for a lifetime (whether all at once or slowly over that lifetime) isn't a debt, so the comparison is baseless. Conversely, buying "enough housing for a lifetime" is likewise nonsense, because you don't use up housing as you go, which is why you can borrow it, because it's still there to return after you're done with it. It's not like you need a certain amount of housing per time, like with food; you don't need 500sqft per day or some nonsense like that. You just need a certain amount of housing, period, and then you use that same amount of housing over whatever amount of time. The comparison there is completely baseless.
I probably should have quoted the specific part I was replying to in my original post and avoided this whole confusion.
She's the one who always draws undue attention to negative publicity about herself right? What was she originally famous for in the first place?
(/s in case it's not obvious)
Yeah, because fee simple (the terms under which most "homeowners" "own" their homes) is actually legally a kind of rent still. Legally speaking, the state owns all land. And that's pretty fucked up. At the root of it, feudalism never went away. It's still landlords all the way up.
"Necessary" is not "sufficient". Just because it's not possible without it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed with it.
Maintenance is paying for something you consume. You always have the choice to just forego maintenance. It's probably a bad choice, but it's still one you have. You can go on living in a place with a leaky roof and broken windows if you want, and not pay anyone for that privilege, if you own the place. But you can't exist nowhere; by virtue of existing, without owning your own place, you owe someone else money, until you own your own place.
Insurance is essentially part of the maintenance budget, preemptively paying in proportion to the likelihood of needing catastrophically much maintenance.
Electricity is also something you pay to consume, and can choose to forgo if you don't want to pay anymore.
Taxes you have a point though. No choice in paying taxes, so that's practically the same as having an infinite debt. Technically the taxes aren't levied as interest on something borrowed though, but as involuntary payment for services you're getting whether you want them or not, so it's not actually "debt" per se, but yeah in practice it's basically paying rent to the government.
You could theoretically have to pay for the time you were in possession of some food before having to return it unconsumed (besides the time that you "consumed" just being in possession of it). That would be analogous. Buying food that you eat is not. That would be analogous to if you had to constantly buy more land because it becomes unusable after a time.
If that commute time is in a self-driving car with internet access, that doesn't sound so bad. Hell, move a little further away, make it a four hour commute, sleep one cycle in the car each way (split-shift sleep cycles are not historically uncommon), and spend all your waking time at home doing fun stuff now that work and sleep are out of the way.
if we all wanted the kind of lifestyle from 1930s tech, we'd likely to be able to survive on a lot less money.
Limiting my technology usage to 1930s levels would not make housing 1930s-affordable, and housing is the overwhelmingly largest cost of living.
It'd be easy to live luxuriously at modern tech levels on a minimum wage income if not for housing costs.
What public land, where, can someone live without being kicked off by the government or charged for the use of it?
You don't borrow one bit of food, sit there using it while paying interest on the borrowed value, then give the food back in the end. You buy food, pay for it once, and then it's yours to do with as you please. That you later need more of it doesn't change that.
Food is consumable. You constantly need more and more food. You're not continually paying interest on the same borrowed food that you still have to give back in the end. You're paying for more and more food over time, but each bit of paid for once and then yours to do with as you please.
Having to pay for things you use up is not a debt. Having to borrow something that's not yours and you have to return is.
If you don't own a house, you have an infinite debt. Anywhere you go, it will be someone else's space, and they will charge you continuously and indefinitely for the use of it. If you're still in that situation when you're too old to work, you will die in the street when you can no longer bribe others to let you stay at their place. The only possible way to be actually debt-free is to own your own land, free and clear.
This would only be true if ownership of the automatons is widely distributed. Whoever owns the robots will get more for less work. If that's all of us, then we all get this wonderful utopia. If it's a tiny fraction of us, then they get this utopia and everyone else is disposable.
N, P, and K are more like "plant vitamins" than "plant food". The bulk of a plant's mass is made of carbon, which it gets from atmospheric CO2. Still, just plain CO2 is not nearly enough for most plants to survive, just like humans couldn't survive on a diet of simple syrup even though the sugars in the syrup are what the bulk of our body mass is eventually made from (what most of our food gets reduced to on the way to becoming the energy and materials needed to operate and reproduce our cells); all the other trace substances, vitamins and minerals and essential amino acids found only through a variety of dietary proteins, are important too, and likewise plants need N, P, and K to survive. But CO2 most definitely is the main "food" source, and not just something they need "to respirate and metabolize their food".
As someone who's struggled with that myself, I'd still say that it's some kind of unhealthy, likely an anxiety condition of one sort or another.