We don’t know.

The US came back from a US president hiring private goons to spy on his political opponents.

The US came back from a US president illegally selling weapons to Iran to fund right wing militias in South America.

The US came back from a US cabinet member taking literal bribes from oil companies to give them oil drilling rights on federal land.

The US came back from a US president illegally firing a cabinet member and installing his own lackey.

But it didn’t HAVE to.

I don’t think there’s really such a thing as a ‘point of no return’ for a Democracy. But it is possible to get to a point after which you don’t return.

Real answer, Elon made it more friendly to the far right (the racists and Nazis) and unbanned a bunch of them who had previously been banned for being too racist and Nazi. Then he introduced a subscription service where you pay to have Twitter spread your content.

So that started a doom loop: The far right bought the additional views, people who didn’t appreciate the extra racism and Nazi views on their timeline left Twitter, but the view boost was paid for so it kept pushing those views to the fewer people who remained, then THAT volume of hate pushed more people away, etc.

It probably got to the point that they couldn’t keep paid views high enough with just people who care about politics and they had to just push at all costs, eventually to you.

It’s all a hypothetical, feel free to just decide you are that type of person. No harm in it.

In real life though, if money is no object, the difference between a 2017 normal car and a 2025 luxury car is literally just “do you want extra features and a bigger screen on a car that will last longer?” It just doesn’t make sense to get the cheaper version, unless you are giving up something else because you only have a limited amount of money.

It was always short sighted tax policy. We’re just living with the blowback.

But in 1954, apparently intending to stimulate capital investment in manufacturing in order to counter a mild recession, Congress replaced the straight-line approach with “accelerated depreciation,” which enabled owners to take huge deductions in the early years of a project’s life. This, Hanchett says, “transformed real-estate development into a lucrative ‘tax shelter.’ An investor making a profit from rental of a new building usually avoided all taxes on that income, since the ‘loss’ from depreciation canceled it out. And when the depreciation exceeded profits from the building itself—as it virtually always did in early years—the investor could use the excess ‘loss’ to cut other income taxes.” With realestate values going up during the 1950s and ’60s, savvy investors “could build a structure, claim ‘losses’ for several years while enjoying tax-free income, then sell the project for more than they had originally invested.”

Since the “accelerated depreciation” rule did not apply to renovation of existing buildings, investors “now looked away from established downtowns, where vacant land was scarce and new construction difficult,” Hanchett says. "Instead, they rushed to put their money into projects at the suburban fringe—especially into shopping centers.

http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/why-america-got-malled

The one example I’m familiar with is a name brand ice cream company that produces the store brand ice cream too…in that case the recipe is different, cheaper ingredients to cut costs to the bare minimum. But using the machines for a higher volume saves money.

I’m sure ‘same exact item’ does happen too but just ‘same manufacturer’ doesn’t mean exactly the same item.

Can’t believe Harriet Tubman got all that infrastructure up.

Not for House or Senate. Age just isn’t a close enough metric for what you’re trying to fix.

If you’re concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.

If you’re concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn’t grant too high of an incumbent advantage.

SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.

Catholics and Protestants are two different tribes. They’re all Christians.

But if Eastern Orthodox counts as “Christian” while Catholicism doesn’t, that destroys the reasoning. If Eastern Orthodox doesn’t count, then you’re just referring to Protestants.

I don’t think there’s any explanation other than anti-Catholic bias, Protestants just want to claim their way of doing Christianity is the only way.

I’m definitely a city person. I love walking to things (for which I need sidewalks) and hate cars. I like being able to walk to a bar, personally I find more sense of community with close neighbors instead of being a mile from anybody. I have a rural friend who once asked if I got freaked out that my neighbors could see what I do in my yard and…no. Doesn’t bother me. Honestly I feel safer when I leave for vacation that my neighbors would text me if something was wrong at my house. I’m not scared of violent crime because it’s vanishingly small odds in most residential areas that aren’t poverty stricken.

Any outdoor activity I don’t do frequently enough that it’s worth having a huge plot of land for it and I don’t want to have to mow an acre or more. I wouldn’t be able to survive on satellite internet.

The thing I’ve heard is, think of how when you’re a mile away from each neighbor, it’s your tax dollars paying for the road, sewer, sidewalks, water, electric, gas lines, for a half mile in each direction. Initially and for maintenance and replacements. That’s why a lot of rural areas just don’t have sidewalks or fiber internet or sometimes they’re using well water.

In a city duplex, you’re paying half the utilities for like 20 feet in front of your house.

It just is more efficient to live closer together, the reason cost of living goes up is because everyone wants to live in the city and employers want that supply of workers so they try to get in or close to the city too and it’s a virtuous cycle of concentration. But housing supply being what it is, and all the jobs being nearby, means housing prices go up. Still worth it to most people hence why there’s still demand, but higher than living in a place with fewer jobs and amenities.

The US tried to ban it and it just led to gangs becoming super powerful because they sold people illegal alcohol.

So it’s not really a policy choice like “this is safe enough, this is not safe enough” it’s legal because making it illegal doesn’t work.

But like, you and I didn’t buy those TVs. If people who needed TVs used the checks for that, great. Everyone else used it for car payments or food or whatever they needed.

That only works if literally every landlord is conspiring together. If they’re not, then people will flock to the landlords that don’t increase the price, or only increase a little. Meanwhile, you think car salesmen will see an extra $1000/mo and not try to take advantage? Why do you think landlords will successfully take all $1000 and nobody else will get a penny?

Everyone will try to get that $1000/mo, but they will have to compete with each other and the people with the money are rational actors who will pick the best use for their funds.

Meanwhile, the question of whether it’s inflationary will depend on where the money comes from. If it’s matched by a tax that pulls money out of the system at the same time the UBI puts money in, then it won’t be inflationary it will just redistribute wealth from the taxed (in every plan I’ve seen, the wealthy) to everyone else.

I was a huge “1000 Blank White Cards” fan in college and I maintained a drinking deck and a sober deck and we played all the time. Everything got lost when I moved home so I never played again and I’ve never even heard of anyone else playing.

If “Cat’s In The Cradle” doesn’t get you, you are not a father.

I always thought the Ottoman Empire’s millet system was interesting. Basically since it was a Muslim country that allowed other religions to exist, how do you rule them? Doesn’t seem quite fair to make them follow your religious rules, but also you are a religious empire protecting everybody and what’s in it for you to protect these non believers?

So they just had different legal systems set up for each religious community, and non-Muslims just had to pay a tax (the jizya).

With enough approval, the US could do anything. It’s either Constitutional or it would be Constitutional after an amendment is passed and approved.

It’s important to realize that this isn’t a game, it’s 20 seconds of animation that looks like a game. There would be a lot more work designing levels or an algorithm to send enemies etc.

The actual game is designed to be as addictive as possible so you become a whale spending money on it. The advertising is designed to get you to download the game. Two different jobs.

Also, easier A/B testing and targeting if you can just advertise different games to different people but funnel them all to the same end game.

If the math worked out that people who saw the real game downloaded it and ended up paying more money, they would advertise the real game. Guess the math doesn’t work.

Daily unless I don’t have any clean in which case…until I do a load of laundry.