Not_mikey

joined 8 months ago
[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

You got a better explanation? People are leaving Massachusetts and the cost of living is high . The most likely reason is that poorer people who can't afford to live there any more are leaving. Otherwise why would you leave a state with such a high quality of life?

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

With all the fucking TV ads and mailers the campaign spent billions on. If the average voters is just covering there ears then why spend so much on advertising or why even campaign at all? Yeah some people are like that but they're deep in the maga cult, there's still a large amount of people open to both sides if the messaging is right that decided this election. Harris' messaging didn't work though.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Not the worst but top 10 in inequality

Also with the high cost of living most of the poor move out so that would make it seem lower then if you look at the inequality to the neighboring states where people may move to or the u.s. as a whole. Probably harder to find but it would be interesting to see inequality among people born in Massachusetts, including those who left. Would be interesting to see if there system is actually creating successful people, or if they're just kicking out unsuccessful people and attracting already successful people from other states.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't, but a large chunk of america does. I think that speaks a lot to the democrats messaging.

The world's richest man is helping a billionaire get elected and that's not one of your main points to voters? No but Harris can't attack billionaires because that'll anger all the ones on her side.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 106 points 1 day ago (36 children)

Another way to view this is that the poor are voting republican now. Trump won those making less than $100,000 handedly while Harris won those making above. Probably because he's offering them a solution to there problems, deport the immigrants and bring manufacturing back. His plan is dumb and won't work but at least he's putting something forward unlike Harris who says everything will stay the same.

The democrats are slowly becoming the party of the out of touch elite, and memes like this don't help. The democrats need to be putting forward solutions to those problems, and trump has shown it doesn't matter if they're viable or will actually help. If these "dumb poor people are rubes who will fall for anything" give them something to fall for. Say your going to tax the billionaires at 50% and use that money to pay for Healthcare and child care, don't cozy up to them so you can raise another billion dollars to lose another election .

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Pretty easy to have high quality of life and low poverty if all the poor people leave because there priced out.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 24 points 2 days ago (4 children)

What restrictions?, the article doesnt mention any, Bidens ultimatum came and went with no action.

Both sides were for unconditional aid to Israel, kamala may have added some laments about loss of life but she repeatedly said restrictions on military were off the table. Until someone can point to me a concrete policy that kamala had in her platform that was different from trump then yeah both sides are equally bad on this issue. Trump is worse on a lot of others but to a Palestinian they are both bad.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

But they're hosting it in a different petro-atate this year. They might actually agree cutting emissions is a thing that may need to be done , possibly, in the foreseeable or distant future.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago

While this is good it is politically motivated as the new prime minister, who is just as authoritarian as duterte, is trying to get rid of his political rival.

Also not a good sign for stability as dutertes threatened and his daughter is currently vice president, so an assassination/coup attempt may be coming.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It could just be for reducing churn and keeping the status quo. It's a prisoners dilemma, if geico spends a million on advertising then they might gain some customers from say progressive. Progressive would then also also have to advertise to attract customers back so they will spend a million on advertising too, now both are spending a million to keep the status quo. If you take a step back and look at the big picture it's basically everyday people paying higher premiums that go to the advertising company, celebrity etc.

The car insurance market is pretty static, there's no opportunity to expand the market outside general population growth since everyone already has a car and has car insurance, so expansion is difficult especially since there arent many differentiating factors, so companies tend to advertise to just keep there current market share. Charity on the other hand has plenty of room for expansion, it can be as much as the disposable income of the country, if you watch an aspca ad and donate your likely to keep donating to the other causes you support, assuming you have the disposable income.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My company just did the same thing. Just layed off 15% of staff because of some bad quarters but is now looking into mergers and acquisitions because they think/know the senile microphone abuser will let tech consolidation run wild.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 10 points 5 days ago (3 children)

zippo lighters

I've never had any luck with zippos, whenever I tried to use it it wouldn't work and I had to refill it. I hear you have to use them often but I'm not a smoker or arsonist so will only use a lighter maybe once a month. Any tips or recommendations for lighters that you don't have to use often but will last longer than a cheap disposable one?

 
 
 
39
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Not_mikey@slrpnk.net to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

First of all this isn't an anti-weed post, I use weed regularly and enjoy it. What I'm arguing against is occasional use, once a month or less, at that level your tolerance usually resets between uses. The thing they don't tell you in health class is tolerance goes both ways, you become tolerant to both the positives and negatives of use. For weed the negative im referring to is anxiety, though short term memory loss also goes down with more regular use. Whenever I take a break and then start doing weed again I get way too in my head and anxious which usually goes away after a couple sessions. This has also become worse with modern legal strains that have become way too concentrated. Dispensary edibles are a bit better since you can dose them easier but even then the longer the time in between uses the more likely you'll forget what's a good dosage. I see this a lot with friends who don't regularly do weed and they smoke with me, get way too high, have a bad time and then won't do it again for a while and repeat the cycle. So for those type of people I'd recommend not doing weed at all or doing it more regularly so you can keep your tolerance up. No shame in picking either but the middle ground kinda sucks.

EDIT: a lot of people are saying get lower percentage strains or higher CBD ones, to that I'd say I wish I could. I always try and get the lowest percentage stuff I can find at the dispensary and that stuffs still usually in the high teens percent THC with less then a percent CBD here in SF. So I guess part of this is just a rant on how stupidly concentrated modern weed is and how it leaves little margin for error.

view more: next ›