Honestly, I am shocked the president, along with his foreign counterparts hasnt used the DPA to limit the NAND and DRAM chips available to AI companies to stabilize the market for consumer electronics until such a time as the market can expand. But then again, this is for the billionaire class, so anything goes.

This is such a non-story

We KNOW that McDonald's charge different prices at different restaurants - for example, in downtown Manhattan a Big Mac has one price, at the airport another price, and at the highway rest stop another... The same food item having different prices is nothing new, no one ever believed that McDonalds had identical pricing around the country.

This tool doesn't set prices, it doesn't update the POS system in the store, it simply tells the owner/franchisee that they could probably raise the price on some items without hurting sales, and that lowering prices might increase sales.

WTF is the problem with that? Seriously?

This is a much, much smaller issue than you seem to think it is.

If looking at the "night sky as it actually shines above us" than maybe it's time to move out of the city - remote jobs are a thing, and housing is cheaper outside major metropolitan areas, win-win!

What color is your asphalt?

Not so sure I'd like black concrete highways...

That's the one that will bring in the profitss.

You really should have re-checked that link before using it. You'd have seen the update where it turned out the account had been flagged for phishing, instead of just the rampant speculation that turned out to be false.

I mentioned the wealth of Communist revolutionaries. The people who claimed that money was bad and property was theft but somehow ended up starting wealthy and ended up wealthy and powerful (and soaked in blood).

Cold Socialism be achieved without authoritarianism? No. It is necessary because the system demands that private property be seized, and people tend to resist that. It is necessary because controlling the means of production means controlling labor, which is you. A centrally planned economy means the planners must decide who does what work and where. If the People have any say in that, then it is no longer centrally planned.

I also think you're making a mistake, and that sadly it is one caused by my side. The GOP went too far for too long calling everything Socialist. Socialism is state control of the means of production, not a government-backed pension program. That may be a thing Socialist governments do (or say they do), but they also have standing armies and we don't call that Socialist. Free market economics does not preclude the existence of something like Social Security.

And I'm going to take a tangent for a minute to point out that market economics could improve social security. Remember when Bush put forward a plan to partially invest the SS funds in the stock market? Democrats and the AARP lost their minds and pulled out all the stops to fight it, and they won. Had they not, then today Social Security would be solvent, healthy, and most people would get considerably more back. Who isn't in that "most"? The top 2 wage tiers. https://www.aei.org/wp-content...

There is no rule that says a free market economy (Capitalist, if using Marx' terms) has to draw the line between public and private goods/services in a particular place. Consider - there are no Socialist nations in West Europe. There are Capitalist nations with many public services. That said, there is a mathematical tipping point where the public sector becomes so large that it chokes out the private sector, leading to collapse. Not Socialism, but an economic collapse. That hasn't happened anywhere that I'm aware of, but I doubt the solution would be more government control.

Note that right now, the US is not addressing the debt. That's a problem that's only going to get worse. The only tax inequity I see is that not everyone pays income taxes, and that could lead to a problem - "no representation without taxation". Though I do think it's worth reconsidering the difference between the capital gains and income tax rates.

I see you're trying very hard to avoid answering. And threw in another insult.

You do realize what that means, correct? You're saying, "Oh crap, I've been caught saying something stupid and indefensible again. How can I change the subject before I'm forced to face my failure?"

There are better ways to deal with that. The best being to think before hitting submit. The next best is to drink a little less.

I only give you a hard time because I like you and know you can do better.

Well, maybe. Shouldn't that be trackable on the blockchain?

Did the author insert their personal beliefs/opinions?

Yup - "I believe we also all have a right to darkness as well." And that's just one example.

Therefore, it is an opinion piece. Q.E.D.

I'm waiting to hear you mock Islam next. I'm unaware of any Christian nations where homosexuality is a capital offence.

But I didn't ask about religion, did I? I asked about phobias and other disorders, and you have yet to tell me which ones you think it's okay to mock. Is this because you realized you walked into a trap of your own making? That you had lashed out with emotion and said something reason couldn't support?

Then why not talk about it in the same way? Why treat upgrades to one OS as something people were just forced to do and didn't really want, but for another it's just a matter of course?

So, you assume that anyone who is uncomfortable with homosexuality must be a homosexual? Is there a good reason to believe that?

And what about someone with strong violent impulses (aka, a bad temper) that they work hard to control? What if such a person becomes a DA and prosecutes murderers (people who failed to control their bad tempers)? By your logic, that is a bad person who is going to cause problems in the long run, not someone who works to protect the public.

Okay, so epistemophobia is funny. Which other psychiatric disorders are okay to laugh at? Is it all anxiety disorders, or just some? What about mood and personality disorders?

I think you've misunderstood. "The Big Lie" is accusing someone else of telling a lie so big people that can't believe it's a lie. People turn a quote from Goebbels about it but drop the part where he says that was what Jews were doing. "The Big Lie" is not telling a lie so big that nobody questions it. That's a really iffy claim anyhow. I don't think it's a real thing. People are happy to believe lies that support what they already believe, but without that predisposition it won't work.

What I am not doing is calling you a liar. I am saying that you have fallen prey to a common misconception. That isn't an insult. It isn't your fault that a popular misconception exists.