Unless you are forced to life in that area you are making a choice. And you are not forced to life there. It comes with trade offs. The trade offs are traded in the housing market. People fled the cities in the 80s to move into suburbs. Now people want to life in the city again.

And cost of living of course includes the coffee and toast. You see that in areas that are gentrified, forcing people who dont make the 100k a year to move away. Where before the coffee was 3$ it now is 15$. And someone is paying for that, otherwise the business would not work. So again people are making that choice. And the people with 100k make the choice actually forcing the hand of people who only make 30k and are literally forced out of their neighbourhood.

Of course then there is all the more compulsion to claim, that they had no choice but to gentrify and had no choice but to drive people out of their neighbourhoods. Because if the people with 100k weren’t forced to do so, then they would need to take responsibility for their role in that market. Of course the main responsibility remains with the landlords who are happy to drive rents up and people out. But then again i doubt there to be many six figure engineers who are devout to left parties (in case of the US, the Democrats are not a left party by any outside standard.)

But then why is it an acceptable choice for the commuting grocery store worker, but not for the engineer? There is a quality of living involved here that the engineer chooses to pay for, which the grocery store worker doesn’t have.

Thats what i mean with unrealised luxuries. They claim to live paycheck to paycheck because their understanding of what a “normal” standard of living ist, is very different, from what “normal” people actually have as a standard of living.

This is not to say, that theses conditions are a good society or dont need changing. But who can get such an engineering job definetely chooses to have a quality of life that he pays all his paycheck for. If it wouldn’t be a choice the grocery store workers wouldn’t exist.

So where is that place, where the cost of living fully eat up a 250k salary, or even a 100k salary? And by eating up i mean actually living paycheck to paycheck, not as given in the examples enjoying many small luxuries that add up, but are not realised as such.

I get the concept. But realistically that would mean three things:

In a region where people make 250k a year for them to live paycheck to paycheck the cost of living would need to be somewhere around 4-5x higher than in an area where people would make 50k a year.

That would further mean that in the areas where people make 250k a year noone would exist that could afford anything less than that. So the grocery store cashier and the gas station clerk and the postman would all need to make the same money as google software engineers. That is clearly not the case.

And thirdly that means that either the people who make that much money living paycheck to paycheck are economically illiterate and dont grasp such simple concepts… Or which is far more likely, the quality of life in high cost of living areas is in fact so much better, that it is worth paying the extra.

Either way someone who can make 250k a year is choosing to life paycheck to paycheck by choosing to pay such expenses. They definetely have the means to work somewhere where the difference between cost of living and paycheck allows for saving signficant amounts of money over time. Claiming those people would be victims of the system who were forced to live paycheck to paycheck is simply not true. It is still very much their own choice.

Excuse me what? Someone earning that much money is only living paycheck to paycheck because their lifestyle is that expensive. And then it actually is their own fault for buying the 15$ Latte with a 30$ Avocado toast every morning, driving to work in their leased 100k $ car, while their wive drives her own 100k $ car.

You develop your own database application or use a professional file system with customizeable attributes.

Then you end up cursing yourself because half the time you didn’t fill in any of the entries that would actually help you find it again and you named it “funny comic cheetos”

The difference being that this is about protecting sensitive data like trade secrets, in a complex ecosystem that is impossible to fully oversee. Many western governments have banned Huawei from 5g network components for the same reason and that is solid reasoning.

But with TikTok it is a very different story. Nobody needs to use it. People are using it voluntarily. In regards to steering people to bad content through its algorithm, it is no different from Facebook or Instagram. The argument @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world made is valid.

It is not about preventing foreign or private influence that his harmful to the citizens. It is about controling that influence.

Well, Columbus, Galilei, Kepler & co. challenged what was considered “established fact” about the shape and place of the earth in their times.

It is not wrong to challenge what is considered “established facts”. Problem is when you discard results that are going against your preoposition. I wouldn’t consider flat earthers to be particular religious as a crowd though. At least in my country they mostl come from the esoteric scene, where you get a mixed bowl of esoteric nonsene, conspiracy theories, and fascist ideology.

This is obviously absurd. If choosing from the legal options in an election is being part of a “conspiracy” then the whole system is already failed and you yourself are a conspirator for not doing anything about it.

And no, voting one of the same two parties that have brought all this mess in the first place is not doing something. The Reps and Dems are equally responsible for the desolate state of the US democracy. So by your definition of “conspirator” you have conspirated to bring about the conditions in which Trump not only was elected, but has a chance to be reelected.

I would argue that there is many ways to preserve wider appeal w.o. it having to be boring.

Heck even in this kitchen if all that was wrong was the paint job, you can fix that in a weekend.

But it is the floor and working top, the shape of the cabinets, the poor tiling and walls, the mismatch of the cabinets and stove, the lack of appliance space, the lack of windows…

A train wagon easily weights 20 tonnes and more. If it goes just at 50 kph, it has an impulse of 278.000 kg*m/s. Respectively 278.000 Ns. According to some googling human bones tend to break at around a force of 4.000 N.

Realistically the train is just going to flatten whatever flesh and bones are between the wheel and tracks.

To make it even crazier, you could have a roof that is transparent and you could open. Tada you get as much outdoor as you want, without being soaked wet by the thunderstorm.

In the “capitalism did better than communism/socialism” debate i still feel a great lack of historical context. Eastern Europe has been largely destroyed by the Nazis. China has lived through brutal Japanese occupation and a genocide of 10 Million people. Korea has been subject to a war emplyoing terrible new weapons such as Napalm to bring great destruction.

Meanwhile the US homeland has been faring without any destruction, France surrendered quick enough to avoid most damage and the UK sucessfully fended off the Nazi attacks so the damage was limited.

Purely economically speaking the Western allies were off to a much better start than the Eastern countries. So i would argue that for the economical question, it remains impossible to claim capitalism to be superior to socialism. Otherwise authoritarianism is always to the detriment of the people.

weed helps surviving customer interactions on the phone, mushrooms dont really make works possible at all, because you know this cloud over there looks really fascinating. it reminds me of that time, when i was at that lake and woah did you just see that ray of light?