Ok I guess

But ChatGPT is way too polite for such a comment

Just because you disagree doesn’t mean I am a bot

But you are welcome to explain your logic (if any) if you are interested in actually having a civilized discussion

His audience is mostly kids yes but not all of them.

His content can and is too annoying for a lot of people and that’s fine but it’s also entertaining to a lot of other people. I’m sure that you’ve had the situation where the most famous band, sport, food etc isn’t something you like. And that’s totally ok. It turns out we kind like different things. I’d argue it’s a good thing.

Also people severely underestimate him just because they don’t like his content or for some other reason. Pretty much every big YouTuber will agree that he is extremely good and optimizing the algorithm and that’s not an easy thing. If it were everyone would be doing it and the truth is that not a lot of people get close to his success.

Some of his videos are just for shits and giggles but a lot of them in does give a ton of money to people in need. Some people dislike that he does this for his channel and don’t like him for it. However the truth is that in the end he gave more money to people in need than everyone in this comment section combined.

I mean yes but isn’t that being extremely pedantic?

Take Mr Beast or an hypothetical example. Give 1M to strangers in need, record it, upload it to YouTube make 4M on ads and other sponsors (content is still free). Pocket 2M, make second video where he gives 2M to other strangers in need. Record it, upload it to YouTube etc etc

Now I agree with you, philosophically it’s best to give without expecting or earning anything in return. But is that really the best outcome? Isn’t it actually arguably better to publicize it and with it reach and help way more people?

For me the answer is clear. I’d rather have someone record and even make money of this type of content (as long as there’s no exploitation or slimy shit) than have that same someone not do that and instead only help a fraction of the people. I’ll argue that the people being helped don’t give a crap about it, so it feels a bit patronizing to say that they shouldn’t be helped because of X or Y

This isn’t specific to Mr Beast, I don’t even know the details of the recent scandal. I just see this argument everywhere and I feel it’s very naive

Can you name the chapter specifically? I guess it will spoil a lot of the first book no?

Not to defend the democrats too much but even if they do it, the SCOTUS is heavily biased against them which means that they would get heavily punished.

Also at the least the liberal wing of the SCOTUS voted against this, unlike the republican appointed judges.

So there’s clearly one side pushing for this and one trying to prevent it.

You wrote all of that and left out the one in the picture

It’s a zip up hoodie

Other than the fact that it’s an octopus that managed to survive and thrive in outer space, yes.

Really? I’m reading Red Mars and while it’s interesting af it’s kinda hard to get through it.

I like that it’s very clearly well thought out, and he goes into detail on so many things that I wouldn’t even consider, but sometimes it feels like I’m reading Wikipedia and not an actual novel. If that makes any sense.

If you liked the Martian you will love that one. I 100% recommend it

I mean… do you trust that they won’t?

They probably will as soon as they can without significant losses.

Same with Portugal.

But the ditador also had to basically become physically incapable before that happened but it was a different time than before. That being said idk if being a different time is better or not in that sense.

Switzerland doesn’t really have a high speed rail network. In fact they design against it. Indeed the country is very small so it’s not a huge deal but then again there are flights between Geneva and Zürich so it’s large enough for that.

Their rail system is by far the best in Europe though and one of the best in the world only surpassed by the likes of Japan. They just aren’t really know for high speed rail.

The USA is also a good example how the markets can get in the way of the regulation and of free markets. The players in the free market don’t really benefit from being in a free market. They have every incentive to change that.

Yes but you really didn’t answer my question. It’s also debatable if we’re anywhere near that point at this stage

Yea I wasn’t doubting you, I just wanted for your to add some small explanation/context as to what these texts had

Because in those countries it was regulated enough?

The question you need to answer is why countries like the US don’t and if you disagree that capitalism didn’t have anything to do with it

Is that capitalism destroying itself tho? I mean in a purist way, what you describe is capitalism changing so it does do something but what it ends up in is called late stage capitalism so did it really destroy itself or merely “evolved”? Yes in that stage it is worse for 99.99% of people compared to before but maybe that’s somewhat intended? And most importantly is that stage (more) stable or not.

I mean not really? Because currently capitalism as an economic engine is actively preventing these outcomes. And basically by design. How do you explain that?

Care to explain why?