I haven’t heard of hiring life coaches for poor people but I agree that would be an example of inefficient spending. I meant things like healthcare. The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, and so when a government program like Medicare or Medicaid covers a bill that means a very large subsidy. College is likewise exceptionally expensive, so need-based scholarships become a big expense.

If there was more of a focus on making these affordable in the first place, the cost for each covered individual would go down for taxpayers. This would free up the budget to expand coverage and offer more quality assistance in other places. Instead, it’s just a reactive policy of paying whatever the bill is when someone does qualify. This creates pressure to restrict who qualifies and what’s covered to keep prices down, while hospitals and colleges get away with charging absurd amounts since the beneficiary doesn’t feel the cost individually.

About 6 in 10 Americans say personal choices are a “major factor” in why people remain in poverty, while just under half say unfair systems are a major factor and about 4 in 10 blame lack of government support.

I think a lot of people in the comments are acting as if there is only one cause, and individual choices cannot be it because it doesn’t account for everything. Admittedly, the headline does frame it as if people believe it is the sole cause, rather than just the most popular. Personally, I would say both personal choices and unfair systems are major factors.

For lack of Government support, I am not sure how I would answer. The government actually does spend a lot on assistance for the poor relative to other countries, but I believe it is not done so efficiently to lift people out of poverty. It is very reactive and focuses on treating symptoms of core issues, so you end up with a lot of people in a constant state of being just barely able to keep their head above the water. It’s largely half measures that end up with worse outcomes and being more expensive in the long run than proper investment into making things better would be.

I am returning to Hollow Knight thanks to the Silksong hype. I had dropped it before because I was unsure where I needed to go to progress and was getting sick of running around the map trying to figure out which paths were actually available to me and which needed some equipment I didn’t have. Well, I did figure it out and basically have everything important unlocked so now I am enjoying it again.

If you do pick it up again, I have some advice. First, there’s a relic in an area called the Hive that will give you passive health regen if there’s a long enough gap between instances of damage. This means you can keep messing up a platforming section and as long as you don’t rush it you can heal back after messing up without needing new sources of soul. Second, there are some sections that are traversable with minimal equipment but become trivial with more. Deepnest was really annoying to me when I went through it and I frankly would have probably enjoyed it if I had one really helpful item unlocked (or even just a bit more health). Third, don’t worry too much about money. Normal enemies don’t give you much from farming and I think I’ve run out of stuff to spend it on mostly from other sources. So don’t be afraid to let it go. If you’ve unlocked the fast travel thing, just head back to vendors when you’ve noticed you accumulated a decent amount.

Like I said, I’m enjoying the game again after years away, but I really wish they had a better way of letting you know where you should go next and what isn’t available to you. Needing to go through zones again to check if something is now unlocked or not is tiresome. The pins help but they are not enough, and I didn’t think to reserve certain colors for certain types of obstacles the first time.

I’m glad someone mentioned the 2008 financial crisis. Banks need to be fairly confident the person they are giving the mortgage to can afford the payment now and for the next thirty years. There are plenty of unfair reasons why someone may not be able to buy a home today, but not being able to afford a down payment is not one of them.

It depends on what you mean by current spending. I’m putting almost a third of my pre-tax income into savings already. If you mean I can live off of 65% of my default post-tax salary, sure. That probably wouldn’t change too much from my current expenses, and I would love the free time. If you mean 65% of what’s left over after my normal contributions, then that would be pretty tough. I consider my current lifestyle to be relatively frugal, so that would be very hard.

I’m actually trying to achieve the FIRE lifestyle, so the goal is getting to the point where average post-tax returns on investments is at least annual expenses. But I can’t do it by thirty.

It implicitly praises Silksong for being popular, but it is also just relevant news for people interested in gaming. Someone who doesn’t know or care about Silksong might still like to know that various store platforms were down recently and why.

You’re getting downvoted, but this is literally the positive use case for it. I don’t buy new games much, but when I do I “pre-order” the day before so I can download it early and get whatever other incentives there are. Reviewers getting early copies means you can have everything you reasonably need to know to make an informed decision about whether a game is worth buying.

It’s of course true that they can change the game between the early copies and release, but then having it downloaded early also means you can refund it sooner if necessary and get on with your life. Some games rely more on multiplayer or live service, but those are the sorts of games it’s worth waiting for community feedback after release anyway.

I think this is the right explanation, assuming the story is true. Dry noodles expand when put in hot water, and I would think that includes gastric acids in the human body. The boy started having symptoms in half an hour and died soon after. That’s too fast for something like food poisoning, and they didn’t find anything wrong with the noodles being sold. So it sounds like pressure buildup from them expanding inside him caused damage.

OP, I would be careful not to eat too much at once, and eat slowly. The boy ate three packets at once. Maybe eat some other stuff with it so the noodles can’t build up a large mass of just noodles.

I think the undo button was Android-only

How can you think it’s proven as the only reason for their objection? And why do you think I’m a threat to women? Just because we’ve both been saying it’s bad that men have this unfortunate stereotype?

At best, you would still only have correlation implying causation. But seriously, nothing in these comments shows your accusations as reasonable, let alone true.

This analogy is specifically from the perspective of crewmates. It is wrong for crewmates to die, actually, because this brings your team closer to defeat. I think you might also think that I view the crewmates as women?

No, I didn’t think you were making the crewmates just women. My point was, it’s not morally wrong for the imposters to kill in the game, because unlike real life, the sides are diametrically opposed and all players want their opponents to earnestly try to win. Crewmates don’t want imposters to just let them do tasks because then there would be no game. In that sense, killing crewmates is cooperating by making it a fun challenge for everyone. By the same token, it’s not morally wrong for crewmates to make accusations against people in meetings or otherwise treat them suspiciously, it’s how everyone wants others to play. But the moral weight to accusations in real life means it’s not ok to make them casually. There is a burden of proof to overcome.

If the game were programmed such that red crewmates were exclusively the ones chosen to be imposters, regardless of how this might damage the video game’s fun, don’t you think that being near a red crew member would set off some alarm bells? Wouldn’t you think of green crew members as more safe?

I don’t know where you are going with this. I guess my level of caution would depend on frequency of imposters. If half of red crewmates were imposters, sure. If it’s 1 in 1000, I wouldn’t be alarmed. But that’s not representative of real life either. Neither predators nor victims of sexual crimes are exclusive to any group. We could talk about statistics but this is about perception of threat and fear. They’re only very loosely tied to reality, especially when it comes to small samples like individual encounters with strangers.

Again, you cannot assume that they chose to call it unfair simply as a self-defense mechanism. Imagine someone accused your family of being murderers, then said the only reason you would be upset by that is if you really did have murderous proclivities and felt self-conscious about it.

And frankly, even if that was their entire motivation for calling it unfair in the first place, it does not mean they are wrong.

What makes you think that?

Well yeah, but presumably if you have a partner already, you aren’t going on too many dates with strangers.

You risk life and limb crossing the street. It is reasonable to take some precautions like looking both ways or waiting on a walk signal. It is not reasonable to assume every driver will swerve into you when they see an opportunity.

Take care to prepare for the worst for your own safety, but don’t assume the worst in others.

Your analogy doesn’t include some important details for the subject. In the game, crewmates and imposters are on different teams and only one of them can win. It’s not “wrong” for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that’s how they play. All players support imposters killing crewmates because it’s what they signed up for. But in real life, we are on the same team. We are all crewmates doing our tasks, although I guess we have the option to kill each other. Acting as if someone doing their tasks near you wants to kill you is then a more meaningful personal judgement rather than just the impersonal scrutiny expected in a social deduction game.

More importantly, it’s relevant that this is one group of people making a judgement about another group of people based on group membership. So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red, not any suspicious activity they have noticed. If crewmates had equal innate suspicion towards each other regardless of color (as should happen in the game) then there is no issue.

If someone is judged as threatening based on their gender, they have been wronged. And what do you mean “stop making it about yourself”? Did they ask to be judged in the first place?

“This harmful generalization is bad for society”

“Clearly you only feel that way because it actually describes you personally”

Not only is that an unfair assumption, it’s also irrelevant to their claim.

Thank you for the link and context. I’m not familiar with most of what you brought up, but I’ll check it out.

Hasan Piker is a socialist as far as I can tell so I guess they would be to the right of him. I hadn’t heard of Francesca Fiorentini.

I think I remember them talking briefly about a “birth giving person” label but they didn’t seem to treat it like a big issue at the time. They may have focussed on it more some other time and I just didn’t see.

One thing I do remember is when Cenk caused a stir as a guest at a TPUSA conference a few years back and focussed on common ground ideas like oppression from elites and disdain for legacy media and certain politicians, some on the left but also a lot for Mitch McConnell. If that’s what friendship means then I don’t have a problem with it I guess. He seemed consistent then with what he’s been saying now.

I guess another thing recently was praising Marjorie Taylor Greene for proposing cutting back on funding for Israeli missiles. Regardless of the background of the person launching it, the bill was a step in the right direction for them so they gave credit. Again, I would say it’s consistent with their values rather than it being a partisan thing. They are definitely not fans of hers.

A big part of avoiding echo chambers is holding people on your side accountable and examining perspectives from people who disagree with you. The criticism I’ve seen so far focuses on the actions that violate their stances and acknowledges counterarguments so I consider it generally fair.

I must be missing something. I have been watching TYT recently after being impressed with Cenk’s arguments in his appearance on Jubilee. Regarding American politics, he is certainly left. Maybe people on Lemmy think otherwise because we have so many literal Communists, but in their videos they take every opportunity to rant against the “donor class” while criticising Republicans for obvious reasons and Democrats for being pro-Israel, their election shenanigans, or for generally not being radical enough.

The only politicians I’ve seen get much praise when I watch are Bernie and Zohran Mamdani, so that’s about where I would put them. If you don’t consider Social Democrats / Democratic Socialists to be left, I am curious where you think the centrist “origin point” of the political compass should be. I would think their policies would be left of the governments of almost any country on Earth.