Republicans are also always on about how the government is bad (even when they’re the incumbents) and how deregulating things make everything better. Libertarians are people who drank a full jug of that particular kool-aid. Also like republicans, they tend to only care about gun rights, though they will sometimes pretend to care about other rights to make it feel like an ideological thing.

Yeah I’m pretty sure it’s the same bridge. It’s kinda internet famous. They raised the bridge a little since that video, but it still peels the tops off of trucks.

Yeah, Yoda became a parody of his character in ESB.

In ESB he comes across as someone that’s speaking in a second language. Sometimes he mixes up the grammar, especially when emotional and trying to speak quickly, but when he’s more relaxed and speaking slowly (or saying something simple) he usually gets it right.

In other portrayals it feels more like he’s got brain damage.

What about that pyramid with an eyeball on there? US money is weird as fuck and everyone is just all “yup these are completely normal things to have on our currency.”

It must be quieter than the sound of a leaf hitting the ground!

The point of trademarks is to avoid market confusion.

MTV didn’t instantly eliminate all of it’s programming and created new programming overnight. They had reality TV shows playing alongside music videos in the 90s. There are some people that might like a reality show that was on MTV when they were playing music videos, then suddenly the name of the company changes because they don’t play music and those people can’t find the show they like? Even though it’s still on, still being made by the same company, but under a different name because curmudgeons don’t think it’s appropriate that a company with the letter M in it’s name isn’t focused on music?

Trademarks are about people being able to know which company they’re buying from. The name of the company is relatively arbitrary. You could start a company making computers and give it an arbitrary name like I don’t know “Apple”. then people will associate the quality of the computers with that arbitrary name “Apple”. Well you could if someone didn’t do exactly that already. It’s not so much the name it’s the consistency that matters most.

And many names we just kind of forget their origins because they’re irrelevant to what the company now does. Does Motorolla have to change it’s name because they no longer make record players for cars? Does DC have to rebrand because very few of their comics are about detectives? KFC can’t call themselves that because a vast majority of their restaurants aren’t in Kentucky?

I’d actually go the other way if anything. Make it illegal for a company to change it’s name. Facebook promotes eating disorders to teenagers? Sorry you aren’t changing your name to Meta, you can’t do bad shit and erase that negative brand association by re-branding. You want your brand to be considered good? Then do better.

I like this. It’s stupid that LA has the Lakers… because LA is known for it’s lakes? They also have the Dodgers… yeah because people are always dodging streetcars in LA?

The MTV thing though… I think they’ve already made it so the M doesn’t stand for anything now. They removed the “Music Television” part off of their logo anyway.

I would go with: Remove expiration dates entirely. Because it’s not an expiration date, it’s a “best before” date. Which when you think about it, it’s true that food is “best before” literally any future date you put on the label.

Most of the factors that will cause food to spoil are things not under the control of the companies that package the food. How cold do you keep your fridge at? How long did it take for you to transport the food from the store to your fridge? What was the temperature that day? How long did you have it before you break the seal and start using it? How long was the food outside of your fridge? etc. etc.

Those things are just invented by a marketing department to encourage people to throw out food so they have to buy more. There are no regulations on it, they just put whatever date they think will maximize their profits.

You buy fresh fruit and vegetables (the things that will spoil faster than anything else you buy) there is no expiration date. How do you manage? Look at it, and maybe give it a smell test. The same applies for all food really.

“Best before” dates are a scam that results in food being thrown out prematurely. Grocery prices are too high, we shouldn’t allow these kinds of shenanigans to drive prices higher.

Voting Green has the exact same effect as not voting. Yeah, it shouldn’t be that way, but it’s the way it is. There’s wanting the ideal system where third party votes matter and there’s pretending it already is an ideal system

You don’t get to an ideal system by voting for people that won’t have any power to change things. You make a difference by writing to and calling the people who do have power and ensure the people you call are at least sympathetic to what you want.

It is indeed not that complicated.

Someone who’s not competent enough to install a proper transfer switch (or at least hire a professional to do it) shouldn’t be operating a generator.

But doesn’t the transformer convert the current back up? So it could be way more than 120v on a line that they’re expecting to be shut down. At least that’s my understanding of it.

But either way yeah, they probably check for it, but no you shouldn’t do it because you there’s a possibility that you could kill someone.

A ranked choice type system would mean a third party wouldn’t be just something that screws up elections. In fact it would probably really benefit Democrats as people who might not go to vote otherwise might go vote green as their top pick and then vote Democrat as their second pick. If the Green candidate won, that’s someone they could make some compromises with to get legislation passed. If the green candidate loses, then many of their votes would go to the Dem candidate making it more likely they would win.

Twice in this century a GOP candidate has won the EC without winning the popular vote. So it’s obvious why the Democrats would want to get rid of that.

But as it stands voting third party (or not voting) is just letting everyone else decide how things should be. The way it works now is you vote for the candidate most likely to care about your concerns (and who could feasibly win) and write to them and tell them what you want. Yeah it’s a pain in the ass to write to a representative, but it’s more likely to have an effect than anything you write on the internet. Be polite, tell them the things you want that can be reasonably be implemented. Also you’re probably going to have to vote in many elections to get what you want. But if it’s something you really care about you’re willing to vote in as many elections and write to your rep as many times as needed to get it done.

It takes time, but it’s more effective than doing nothing.

If you actually want a potential President Kamala Harris to have some good legislation to sign, you might want to consider voting for congressional candidates that will write the kind of legislation you want. And if you want to end the Electorial College bullshit, you might consider voting for state reps. And while you’re there, you may as well vote for Harris if for no other reason than you might someday say to your grandkids that you voted for the first woman President. That’s a better story to tell than explaining about how you were too angsty about “the system” to bother going out to vote.

The politcal system means that voting for a third party means you’re not actually opposing fascism. It has the exact same effect as not voting at all. While it’s not supporting fascism, it’s also not opposing fascism. So it’s just being fascism neutral.

It would be nice if you had a system where a third party vote wasn’t the same as not voting but that kind of system will never happen if you continue to waste your vote.

Ah, so since you’re currently discussing this with me indicating an interest in a subject and you’re not able lower your interest in the subject (couldn’t care less). Your literal statements, indicates you want to continue discussing this further, because you don’t want to care less about this subject that you care enough to have a conversation about.

Unless of course there’s an implies “because I don’t care at all” which isn’t in the literal statement? Additional meaning to a statement beyond the literal words makes it an idiom.

But personally, I could care less about this conversation. Meaning that I would prefer to end the conversation, which would have the effect of lowering my level of caring which is my preference.

Good night!

Yeah but the “I couldn’t care less” is missing the sentence “because I don’t care at all”. It’s kinda how idioms work, they require you to know the meaning of the phrase before someone hears it.

Someone doesn’t just say these phrases on their own. There’s always a context in which they get used. If someone ends a conversation with “whatever, I could care less” it makes more sense to someone not familiar with these idioms. Having a conversation about anything indicates some level of caring about the subject. “I could care less” inidicates you don’t want to care about it anymore, ie. you don’t care enough to discuss it further. “I couldn’t care less” might indicate to someone not familiar with the idiom that you want to continue caring about the subject at the same level, ie. you with to continue discussing it further.

So “I couldn’t care less” is an idiom on the level of “it’s raining cats and dogs” something that only makes sense if you’re familiar with it. It really doesn’t make sense without the familiarity with the idiom to understand it really means “I couldn’t care less because I don’t care about it at all”. You drop the “because I don’t care about it at all” (which is how is it’s common usages) it doesn’t actually make any sense.

Most fascist movements die out before they can hold onto power long enough to transform society.

We tend to focus on the fascist movements that have obtained power on held onto it long enough to transform a country into a fascist state. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler etc.

But the danger is there so it’s important to be vigilant.

That being said… yeah, on lemmy.ml, anyone that fails the leftist purity test is a liberal and all liberals are fascists. Everyone is a fascist that isn’t an authoritarian with a red and yellow flag.

I literally posted the exact opposite thing, here it is:

The phrase “I could care less” makes more sense than “I couldn’t care less.” They’re both idioms and therefore are both considered correct linguistically speaking.

But “I could care less” indicates you would prefer to not have to care about a subject so is expressing that you’d prefer to stop talking about it.

“I couldn’t care less” doesn’t indicate the current level of caring so you might say “there isn’t anything in the world that will make me stop caring about my children; I couldn’t care less about my children.” Without the idiom those aren’t contradictory. It’s only because of the idiom there’s an assumption the reason the person can’t care less is because they don’t care at all. But nothing about the phrase indicates this.

The level of concern for something with the phrase “I could care less” is indicated by context and the phrase indicates whatever someone may have assumed about one’s concern from the context is actually more than the person actual concern for it.

But people will often say “I couldn’t care less” is better than “I could care less”. They’re wrong and I could care less about their wrong opinions on idioms.

The phrase “I could care less” makes more sense than “I couldn’t care less.” They’re both idioms and therefore are both considered correct linguistically speaking.

But “I could care less” indicates you would prefer to not have to care about a subject so is expressing that you’d prefer to stop talking about it.

“I couldn’t care less” doesn’t indicate the current level of caring so you might say “there isn’t anything in the world that will make me stop caring about my children; I couldn’t care less about my children.” Without the idiom those aren’t contradictory. It’s only because of the idiom there’s an assumption the reason the person can’t care less is because they don’t care at all. But nothing about the phrase indicates this.

The level of concern for something with the phrase “I could care less” is indicated by context and the phrase indicates whatever someone may have assumed about one’s concern from the context is actually more than the person actual concern for it.

But people will often say “I couldn’t care less” is better than “I could care less”. They’re wrong and I could care less about their wrong opinions on idioms.

So no, you don’t understand what revenue is.