So instead of addressing the misogyny, let’s sweep it under the rug by not allowing women to compete in the top tournaments? By your logic, shouldn’t we just make a third transgender category to solve the transphobia?

Who said it would be entirely men? Chess had this format forever and any woman that had the ability to compete in the top level open tournaments was competing in them.

Doesn’t it? I am pretty sure they have authority over everyone. US and other non signatories just do not have to hand them over. But if they ever visit a signatory state, they should be arrested.

What do you mean it’s false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.

If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it’s own to be considered evidence.

Court would consider admissable as “evidence”,

What does that have to do with how a newspaper should write a headline? Since there is no evidence for the wife’s claim (and at least some small evidence against), the news correctly reports it as just her claim.

The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence

Didn’t I just write that in less detail? I guess I should have added “weak” evidence? I thought the word “some” already made it clear it was far from enough evidence.

Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife’s claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn’t have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.

🤣

I want a lot of things that I can’t have. They can want it, but the system doesn’t have to allow it or can discourage it.

I don’t know in what context this parable is used in the book, but this does not explain the need for growth in reality. It does not even show why you would need growth in the parable. No matter how many chickens or how much wheat the village produces, there still wouldn’t be more tokens.

Well, partially maybe. In the past, investors were happy with dividends instead of growth. There are extra factors making growth be preferable over dividends nowdays.

I think your are confusing company growth and prices growing, mixing them together.

no. You can pay interest out of your profits without growing. And many businesses don’t have significant loans.

There are many answers to this.

First, this is not a general capitalism thing. It is more the specific flavor we have. Second, it is not an absolute rule, there are companies that don’t focus on growth, but it is rare amongst massive companies.

The original idea of capital investment is that when you need investment for your company (e.g. to buy better machines, expand production, etc.) you let people invest (by buying shares) and then give them a portion of the profits gained from that investment (in the form of dividends).

However, most companies have figured out that if they don’t pay dividends but re-invest the money, shareholders are still happy because their shares get more valuable as the company grows and they get to grow the company, which is good for CEO paychecks and lot of other things.

There are things like economies of scale (if you produce million units of something per year, it is almost always cheaper per unit than if you produce ten per year). So if you don’t grow, your competitor that does grow could sell cheaper than you and put you out of business.

And a lot more.

Care to elaborate?

It is reportedly around 130 million. I suspect the reason why Disney is freaked out about the loss is that it’s costs are almost entirely fixed. It takes the same amount of money to produce a movie or a show regardless of how many people end up watching it. Unlike producing physical goods where less customers also means less materials and work needed. So losing subscribers decreases their revenue but unlike other businesses, it does not decrease their expenses, putting their budget in trouble much faster.

Well, they can probably get the one month pay they lost out on. They just can’t get their jobs back.

That being said, I both agree and disagree with this ruling. I disagree that there is no irreparable harm by Trump not providing a reason. The law requires it to create transparency and accountability. However, I agree that technically, the inspectors general are not the people harmed by this. So it shouldn’t have been them suing Trump, it should have been democrat congressmen and congresswomen who are owed an explanation.

Ok, but please don’t let AOC be based on congresswoman Neuman, fooling everyone. That thought is way too bleak.

Well, now let’s see what Jimmy Kimmel does. Will he come back toning down his rhetoric or will he start by thoroughly criticizing Kirk and Disney right as he gets back. I don’t think there really is a third option. If he decide to not address this, he will always weigh the consequences of saying something before saying it (even subconsciously). And in that case, he is not worth watching.

I would love to know as well, so I am slowly reading the UNCLOS treaty as I have time. We have no obligation towards US to not sink their ships, but we may have given promises to other parties of UNCLOS not to attack any ships, even those that did not sign.

It’s like if your promise your wife you will be nice to your mother in law. You did not promise anything to your mother in law and she promised nothing to you, but you are still obligated to be nice to her unless your wife agrees to cancel the promise.

So I don’t know if UNCLOS only deals with not sinking member ships or all ships.

Also, touching US ships is historically very dumb thing to do.

It technically may not even be a breach of international law, since the US is one of the few countries that did not ratify UNCLOS, the law that would apply in international waters. The US was evil for a long time and refused to sign anything that would hold them even symbolically accountable. This did not start with Trump. He just went mask off.