China has enough air pollution that the smog from Los Angeles blows over from there

I think you meant to say:
“China has enough air pollution that the smog from there blows over to Los Angeles”

Anything I could do to make sure my heir continued on with my vision would not be guarunteed, and it would only be temporary. As the saying goes, you’re putting all of your eggs in one basket, from one ruler to the next.

A more permanent solution would be to overhaul the current system and setup checks and balances so that no one person could have too much power.

You could divide up power between an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial Branch. Then you put in place like-minded groups of people in each of those branches and voilà.

Taking a look at the recent modlog, as well as other comments around here, it looks like they’re trying to find the right balance for what’s okay and what has crossed the line.

There are an alarming number of comments that are actively encouraging murder and the amount of upvotes that even the worst of those comments receive is sickening.

I think, at this point, anything the health insurance companies do that actually looks good, will make us jump to that conclusion.

Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?

Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn’t just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.

Depends on where you live. There’s a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what’s going on now.

In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: “Not a single second of silence for these creatures.”

The courts have ruled that even “liking” a comment/post like that could be a crime.

https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html

The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.

I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.

Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.

For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.

I’m speaking in general terms here for any corporation which is why I commented in the way that I did. You’re the one escalating this to an extreme and retroactively applying that to my comment.

Calling for someone else to be killed for any reason is just revenge, it doesn’t solve anything. If any CEO is responsible for the death of a spouse/kid then throw them in prison.

Literal mob mentality? I’m not the one calling for a lynching here.

Someone will always be upset about something.

Stooping so low to kill someone just because you’re dissatisfied with the way they handle business doesn’t fix anything. Continually killing CEOs is not going to “train the system” to be better.

In a world like that, you would just have extremists on different sides killing CEOs for whatever reason they felt like.

Killing someone isn’t going to fix anything. Someone else will just step up and take their place.

Coyote vs Acme

The movie is already completely finished, but some “genius” thinks that they’ll make more money by shelving it and claiming it for a tax-writeoff.

Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.

Well, there is the Budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

In exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal, we’re supposed to help them in the case of a nuclear attack.

Twain.

“He split Robin’s arrow in twain!”

insane

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.

How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?

Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.

I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)

A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller

And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick

I’m not very musically inclined, so I have no idea if this is B-flat minor or not, but what you described kind of sounds like “Jazz in Paris”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLJMTRvyj8

It’s one of the songs that you can select from Google Photos when making a highlight video.

Se calhar, seja melhor a postar isso na comunidade de [email protected]

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.