majormoron
Luckily I'm pretty sure we are at least on an up trend when it comes to the ozone layer so even when eventually it kicks the can you don't need to worry too much about that anymore. Now we just gotta fix carbon emissions.
I'm mostly with you on this one, but you have to admit, "an animate bowl of tapioca" has got to be one of the funniest ways I have heard of President Biden described as. But yeah, I think he does care and is trying pretty hard to effect some level of significant change. I feel like he's trying to softly get the ball rolling for a second term where he really shows what he's made of.
I hope for and look forward to great change and progress in the coming years.
"However, the proposed settlement against Razer includes a $100,000 civil penalty, plus $1,071,254.33, which the FTC said is equal to the amount of revenue Razer made from the Zephyr and will go toward refunding "defrauded consumers."
Fucking. Yes. The money goes back to the customers. Hopefully, every last cent.
110% seems like it could be a middle ground between actually nuking the company into the ground vs. impose to little of a fine.
They're forced to give every cent back (hopefully that can find its way into actual customers hands instead of the government pissing it away) plus lose an additional 10% of whatever they made that is now a loss on the company financials. Shareholders wouldn't like a loss on their spreadsheets and quickly fire whoever was in charge or sell. It's bad for the business, the stock market, and the economy.
It would quickly train the stock market to deter that kind of behaviour. But we need politicians who are not bought by these companies to be able to pose these strong fines across the board.
10% loss on something on the scale of the likes of what someone like Apple or cough Tesla cough brings in on products would add up very, very quickly. More money back into people's products going back into the economy in the form of more spending anyway, which is good, and more tax revenue that the government might one day learn how to spend efficiently and dilligantly, since the government would keep the 10% loss, I'm sure getting that 110% out of the company takes work, time, and spending anyway.
Capitalism only works with extremely tight regulation. And humans can corrupt that regulation very quickly.
It's 110%, not 10%.
Still hot (the chick is cute too)
I miss them. I know they're good now and happy, but god I miss cowchop. I guess that's the best way for it to be too. Leave them wanting more.
To your last point, I think it's a natural progression of our species. We realize that we were stupid animals like them at one point, and look at us now? Technically they are just earlier in their evolutionary chain (some of them, some species due to the way evolution played out will never be a fully intelligent species like humans, but we know some of them are already well on their way) so are we really just eating what would just be babies in terms of intelligence?
Where does the line get drawn, how intelligent does something have to be before it seems like just as much of a crime as eating a human child? We already know there are species, that we currently eat, that have the intellgence and capacity to learn similar to that of Human toddlers! Is that not something that gives you at least pause? Do you not at least have the thought that: "This animal I'm about to eat scientifically seems like they are just as capable of cognitive thinking and complex emotions and attachments as a toddler, am I okay with this?" What's your answer to that question? For me, it's not black and white, it's not a simple yes or no answer, and I feel like most people who believe what they say about the intelligence of these creatures must be similar.
Then to top it off, through animal and plant husbandry, factory farming, and automation of food production we are rapidly approaching a point where we might not need to eat these intelligent species to survive, due to our ability to grow our own food, even meat now! One day in the future, we realistically can envision a world where everything we eat is grown in some capacity. When we reach that point, shouldn't we ask that question again? When the needs of our species can be met through technology, what is our responsibility to the lives of these creatures at this point? When does it become pointless killing of living beings? It's a genuine question.
Me personally, I don't think we are quite at the evolutionary point where we can sustain our society without the products of agriculture as they currently stand, so I think it's unrealistic to try to force everyone to stop eating animal meat in the short term. I think it's a great philosophical question we should keep asking and keep revisiting, because I think one day in the future the answer will eventually change to a world where we might change the way we view animals. And in the meantime, I'm all for legislation to try to make the process of cultivating animal products as ethical and harmless to them as possible, I feel like that's the least I can do for the species while we use them as a battery to fuel human evolution.
If not, that sounds like a good plotline. But honestly that sounds like something they would've done already
