a polite remark, usually made by people when they first meet to show they are friendly

Aside from friendly intent I’d say it’s close enough

That, at present, is where the wealth is coming from.

I would argue that increasingly it is not. The relative value of labor is and has been declining due to automation.

Money is their only real leverage.

It isn’t - there is also legal ownership, of natural resources and other types of property, and there is the force backing that ownership, which is also subject to automation.

If you are skeptical about the idea that wealth can exist at all independently from labor, consider the distinction between a dictatorship with an economy based on oil or mining and a more democratic country with an economy based on a diverse array of skilled professionals. Yes, in both cases laborers are involved in what the country produces, but in the latter, circumstances give them more leverage, because their active engagement and relative consent is more of a prerequisite to achieving that product. That leverage equates to a higher market value of their labor. I can imagine a future where everyone is effectively reduced first to slaves in a mine and then to skeletons next to mining robots.

wealth that can be extracted from the working class

This is my point though; they aren’t going to need to do that.

most of the lower class won’t be able to purchase anything other than essentials like food. No new cars, no tech gadgets, no fancy dinners, no vacations, no disposable income.

Bold of you to assume the rock bottom of wealth inequality includes the ability to purchase food and is survivable.

When we get there the economy collapses because there’s no money going into it. The profits stop rolling in, unnecessary goods stop being produced, and the luxury goods producer’s shut down. At this point the money they worked so hard to hoard becomes worthless because they can’t buy anything with it.

Money doesn’t come from people, it comes from the fed issuing debt. The economic “value” backing that money also doesn’t necessarily come from people, it comes from control over things that are valued, which may include human labor, but that labor can be automated. The actual value of human life is not represented by money or other financial instruments.

Economic constraints aren’t preventing the world from decaying into an enormous desolate golf course.

I keep bash scripts on my desktop to do common things

I mean they deter comments from the people leaving the downvotes. Anyone wanting not to be deterred by downvotes can adjust settings to not see them.

But what I’m saying is, they are good because they likely deter toxic thoughtless comments.

I’m fine with seeing things I don’t like or agree with if it is a fully formed thought, but I still think downvotes are a nice trap for lazy inarticulate people to feel like they are doing the equivalent of dropping a low effort flame comment while actually doing basically nothing. I have display of vote scores disabled and don’t have to know or think about the approval of people who are only voting, which is nice. If they had something to say that isn’t already fully communicated by the downvote button, maybe they would say it instead despite downvoting being an option.

upvotes with hostile intent

It’s not great, but at least downvotes barely affect anything other than visibility of top level comments on popular posts, and are easy to hide. Better that than people disagreeing using lazy insults and tired truisms.

I remember the lore already being convoluted 20 years ago lol

I keep my ereader by my bed and my phone in the other room, so procrastinating getting out of bed is my reading time.

couldn’t agree what restaurant to call. My solution would be to order what I want, telling my partner to order what she wants. Why must we order from the same restaurant?

Otherwise you’d have to pay double the delivery fee or drive to two different places to pick up the orders, which might not be ready at the same time. There are advantages to cooperating on things.

She wanted to have lunch with another couple (double date), he said no, because he wanted a quiet weekend and suggested she goes alone with the couple. She started yelling about not doing things together.

But why must couples do everything together? Why is doing things separately not a good idea? He gets his peace and she gets to socialize.

If you aren’t doing things together, that’s a different sort of relationship than if you are. It’s valid to want one or the other, but should probably be on the same page about it with your partner.

To me most of the draw of a relationship, romantic or otherwise, is the opportunity to work together to make both of your lives better, to have someone you trust to care how you feel and who has your back, and who you can do the same for them. Playing a role in someones life can be a satisfying responsibility to fulfill and worthwhile, but it should ideally be something you actively choose to be responsible for. It sounds like what you’re struggling with is that because of your upbringing you have a hard time seeing that sort of responsibility as anything other than something that you get roped into due to circumstances, tradition, guilt and manipulation, but it doesn’t have to be like that. Sometimes someone asking you for help is because they trust you and know you want to help, rather than trying to take advantage and control you.

That said, you don’t have to want to work towards that either, it’s also fine if you want a sort of relationship where you keep a lot of distance from each other, just find someone who also wants that instead of someone hoping for something else.

I just don’t think that’s something that’s reasonable to by default expect people to be lying about, even if they are known not to be credible, and it definitely isn’t a detail that’s ever appropriate to omit entirely from coverage of someones death. If that’s the attitude towards it then getting away with “suiciding” someone in terms of public opinion has a pretty low barrier for success.

I’m arguing that saying you won’t kill yourself and are likely to be assassinated is not a foolproof method, not defending Mcafee

directly and firmly state that, for the record, you are not suicidal and that if you should die, it was absolutely not suicide.

He did exactly what was suggested here. It was ignored and dismissed in all mainstream coverage of his death, and you are also dismissing it as a lie, with no specific evidence other than his apparently otherwise questionable character. It’s naive to think that such a narrative wouldn’t also be applied to anyone else trying to defend themselves in this way, of course it would be.

Does it really matter that much? I figure either way they’re going to get you if they want and the media will treat it like a suicide regardless of how much you publicly telegraph what’s going to happen ahead of time.

Didn’t work for McAfee

Just drink it

It’s nice to fantasize about but realistically we’re never getting back to a world without a working global internet of computers.