rwtwm

All that, and you may have left out the most damaging of all.. Trump will likely pull the US out of Copenhagen, leaving no chance of limiting temps below 2C let alone getting anywhere near 1.5C. The excess deaths from this will likely dwarf COVID.

I've only watched the first of these, but having done so, I'm not sure I want to bother with the second. The guy in the first video repeated the (likely true) claim that WFH impacts commercial real estate value and then dunked on a couple of articles about return to work policies. But the question was, why does that sway Amazon's thinking?

Still my favourite game of all time, so it didn't really spring to mind for 'underrated' games. Pleasing to see it mentioned all the same.

My concern with this line of argument is that it bundles consequences from a system of government up with the consequences of trade embargoes and other hostile actions from capitalist economies. That doesn't make the actions of the dictators in those countries justifiable in any way, but might have precipitated conditions that made them more likely.

How would communist nations have fared if the US had taken a 'live and let live' approach to them? The approach during the cold war was that they couldn't be allowed to succeed. That led to the sort of standards of living where dictatorship tends to thrive. Note this isn't unique to communist countries. Look at the Republican party in the US, now that Neoliberalism is failing.

I was certain this link would already be here! https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/2/24117976/best-printer-2024-home-use-office-use-labels-school-homework

It's up to you. You could add context to those concerns, you could tweak the phrasing, you could undertake a heroic quest to reclaim the phrase if you want.

I'm just adding some context as to why some people react to the phrase.

Using the phrase 'valid concerns about immigration' today is a little bit like waving a St. George's cross in the 80's though. I mean, it can be done with the purest of intentions, but you're using a symbol that people (taking you at your read) you'd rather not be associated with use to identify each other.

Does nobody else find the framing of this article a little weird? I thought the argument for boosting the economy, was because it correlated well with people's well being. (Not that I personally but that, but I understand the line of thought). Now instead we're suggesting that human outcomes are important because it boosts an arbitrary measure? I feel like the cart is now dragging the horse along the ground.