Block the community. Block all Linux communities. Seriously. If it bothers you that much, save yourself the aggravation and just block anything Linux related. It’s pretty easy. I have several communities on my block list.

but I think he will be incredible for the country in many ways.

In what ways? I have a feeling his idea of what would be incredible for this country, and mine, are very, very different.

It’s the paradox of tolerance again.

I don’t think it’s paradoxical for a democratic society to be intolerant of people who are actively, overtly, aggressively hostile to democracy.

Despite all these limitations, however, the study paints a compelling picture. Radical-right populist parties have uniquely weaponized misinformation as a political strategy. Unlike other groups, these actors rely heavily on falsehoods to exploit cultural fears, undermine democratic norms, and galvanize their base, making them the dominant drivers of today’s misinformation crisis.

Understanding this imbalance is crucial for addressing the root causes of the problem and restoring trust in democratic processes.

I see no way of restoring trust in the democratic process so long as far-right parties, or any party representing an ideology that is aggressively hostile to democracy, are allowed to participate in it.

Yes nothing to do with price gouging, nothing to with with inefficiency in distribution.

These are probably factors as well.

Also, it is not like US is self sufficient in food production with a solid chunk of worlds most productive farm land.

The food market is global. Food produced in the US is sold all over the world. Population is growing in the US and it’s growing globally.

This theory smells of peak oil that was shilled price gouge hydrocarbon.

Peak oil production is also a real phenomenon, and peak oil production is inevitable because oil is a finite resource, just like agricultural land. I don’t know when peak oil production would be reached, but there’s reason to believe peak agricultural land has been reached, as evidenced by the graph I linked to.

Because we’ve passed peak agricultural land. The land committed to growing crops and pasture used for grazing livestock has peaked. The global population, however, continues to increase. There are methods for maximizing yields from farm land, and we haven’t exhausted those, but there’s only so much food that can be produced on a hectare of land. We also have to deal with top soil depletion, the risks of monoculture, the effects climate change could have on crop yields, and many other problems.

Edit: I think I need to clarify a few things…

I want to be clear: I am not saying we have reached peak food production. I don’t believe that has happened yet, though I think that could happen soon. I’m saying, we’ve reached peak agricultural land.

There are ways that we can increase the amount of food produced on the same amount of land, which would allow food production to increase even if the total amount of land committed to agriculture stays the same. However, increasing crop yields might require things like using expensive fertilizers, which increase production costs that get passed on to the consumer.

There are other ways to increase food production using the same amount of land, like converting animal pasture land to crop land. But, this would make meat, especially beef, much more expensive (since we would be producing a lot less of it). This could be a good thing, however, since a plant based diet is healthier and much better for the environment. Still, people are probably going to be upset about the price of meat going up.

Capitalism, naturally, also plays a huge role. Many producers are motivated to produce food that will yield the highest possible profits. This, however, does not necessarily maximize efficiency. Land used for raising cattle for instance, produces less calories per hectare than crop land. But people like beef, and they’re willing to pay for it, so it’s profitable for the beef producers, even so much that some might convert crop land to pasture land, thus further reducing efficiency (in calories produced per hectare).

If we had a different system, we could prioritize efficiency, which would help manage costs. However, even under a different system, we would still have to deal with the fact that land is a finite resource. Even under a maximally efficient food production and distribution system, there would be a limit to how much food we could produce. That being said, it is unequivocally true that such a system would be able to feed many more people than the current one.

women are untrustworthy sluts!

Some are, especially many of the wives and girlfriends of military servicemen.

Why is this being downvoted? This is a great example of a shitpost.

Is the alien carbon-based or silicon-based? Uh, the second one. “Zilliphone.”

Without realizing it, Mike Beasley makes a great argument for why private, for-profit health insurance shouldn’t exist.

Pfft, Linux users don’t date. We’re all virginal, paranoid shut-ins.

There’s am awful lot of medium size companies staffed by regular every day people for every fat cat evil corporate overlord.

The only reason that medium sized company exists is because it hasn’t yet had the opportunity to grow into a behemoth, or it hasn’t yet been taken over by one. But that’s the goal of every firm, small, medium, or large: ever increasing profits, over all else, even over human well being. Some firms are just better at achieving that goal, often because they were first into an industry. These massive corporations didn’t start out massive, they grew from much smaller firms. The executives at giant corporations aren’t exceptionally evil, they’ve just demonstrated enough acumen for increasing profits to catch the eye of some giant corporation’s board chair (that and maybe they both went to the same business school and play golf together). And since ever increasing profits is the goal of every firm, every firm has to try and capture as many markets as possible, and that means the small and medium sized firms will be captured eventually, unless they are able to grow into a massive corporation themselves.

Probably because she liked him.

I didn’t draw these borders, Atlas Pro did, and he drew these borders because they better account for geography, rather than just arbitrary straight lines. This isn’t necessarily meant to be a final proposal, additions and refinements would be needed.

I like this one better:

Credit Atlas Pro

Only, these shouldn’t be united states, they should be independent nations.

The sun is billions of years old, unimaginably powerful, and it makes life on Earth possible. Sounds pretty godlike to me.

We are a profoundly stupid country. Even the intelligent, educated people are stupid, because they didn’t think this could happen, and they have no idea how to fix it.

CEOs are hired by owners/investors for the explicit purpose of maximizing profits. If the CEO were instead, for instance, elected by the workers, or hired by a community cooperative, I think opinions of CEOs would be much higher.

In other words: it’s not the CEO, it’s the system.

I guess that leaves only one option, then.

I’ll see you on the dark side of the Moon.