The writer here, rereporting another interview seems fairly Musk tolerant.

RDJ probably is too. But at least he’s calling him on a few things.

Fair enough.
Be the change you want to see and all that.

I personally love the mad spelling, but I can understand that other folks don’t.

They’re old English letters used for writing the two different “th” sounds English has, which are fairly rare phonemes.

It’s certainly simpler, I’ll give you that.
It takes too much mental energy to read that document.

May I ask why at all?

There is a baseline of quality that is hard for a plucky individual to match outside of mono-medium media.

While it is possible for good video games to be produced by a single indivudal or very small team, it is a lot of work on their part and hard to do if worried about paying for food, rent, etc.

Filmic media (is there a good noun that joins movies and fiction TV shows as a unified object?), a solid level of difficulty above that.

Or maybe in a post-modern world we use (mostly empty) signifiers to give ourselves meaning and show allegiance to a subculture.

Its why we pepper our speech with allusions and cultural in-jokes - but where in the past they were tied to more concrete ideology, now they are simply signs that one has consumed the same media as someone. And the existing signifiers have more cultural clout than new ones, except to signify an interest in non-mainstream cultural products.
For the self has become simply a vessel for consumption. There is nothing beyond the consumption of product.
Especially as public allegiance to a non-neoliberal ideology is seen as uncivil. Unsurprisingly more peaceful Left-wing ideologies less civil and more incorrect that violent far Right ones, because the Left will always be more critical of consumption as the purpose of life.

Despite being wrong, Fukuyama’s inflammatory title has polluted the mind of the Anglophone and European cultural zone.

Do you plan to do all digraphs, or just th?

Will you split out the different vowel phonemes to their IPA?

I’m just intrigued by the thought process behind your choice of typed characters.

Danger Mouse - I think the consistent 4th wall breaking, kidnapping narrators, and sense of humour as a whole had an effect on my from a formative age.

Monkey Dust - the cartoon that made it clear to me that cartoons weren’t not at all nesseccarily safe for kids. I was too young to appreciate it at the time, it was too disturbing for tween me.

Sealab 2021 and Excel Saga both crazy animations that I found easier to digest about that time, too.

Watership Down, other folks have already mentioned.

My family monopoly games ended up with written contracts signed by both players with things such as “in return for Player B gaining ownership of Park Lane, Player A does not pay rent on purple properties, and in addition 10% of payments made to Player B for non-player A players landing on Park Lane.”

Now we just play Scythe, Ticket to Ride, or the like.

I blame the gay panic of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Webadict’s statement:

you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers.

Clinicallydepressedpoochie’s response:

We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you’re equipment keeps igniting?

As an aside: what profit do workers make when they’re employees? They didn’t invest in the business. They are selling their time/energy (or labour) to the company at a certain rate. You’d have to compare that rate to the value of any other potential salary, as well as minus health and stress costs, plus take into account the value of non-economic activity that could also use those resources.

I agree, but add the proviso that since under capitalism capital is power, those with the most capital will slowly find ways to use their capital to deregulate their income streams again.

Supporting friendly politicians, editorial control of the media, or even just the good old Starbucks/Wallmart practice of squashing independent competitors by leveraging economies of scale to outcompete on price - which at the end of the day, the poor customer has to pay attention to. These are all examples of how capital will find ways to get ahead.

Even if companies can’t donate, the CEO or every member of the board still can.

That’s the thing, merit can be defined however we want be any value system.

One could define it as any of the things you said. I can define it as bringing happiness or health as easily as boosting profit, and if I wanted to facetiously make a point I could define it as strength or even “being closely related to previous leaders”.

What is deemed as merit is itself a statement of what has highest value under that system.

Under Capitalism the merit that’s rewarded, in my eyes, is the ability to make money.

I personally, would rather a system that places ability to support peace and raise quality of life as the merit that is rewarded.

And it’s quite valid for someone to level that same comment at you.

Only in its adverts.

What truly drives capitalism is the need to get more capital to reinvest to get more capital.

The system doesn’t, can’t, intrinsically care about how it is done.

It’s also telling that all your “merits” are of the commodity, not humans.

Why do you think Capitalism has meritocracy as a core component?

Capitalism is a system where capital needs to be converted into more capital via economic action (reinvestment) rather than just sat upon.

Capital will always find ways to grow, if there are laws - they will be lobbied against. Or those with main market share will work together to stabilise the market and squash competition.

Have seen a lot of stolen bikes in my town, and my brother’s front wheel was nicked last week, and he sent me a forks down photo.

I also noted that as a detail for the police report part. But missed out on checking for cctv or the like. Which is odd as I usually clock them, amongst other things in physical spaces in day to day life.

1. White/colourless ball. And honestly, more of a circle viewed from a perfect side on angle.
2. I didn’t visualise a person only the effect of their push on the ball. And like another poster corrected the slide to a roll.
3. See above.
4. Ball was of uncertain size. It was viewed side on, and no other objects to give a sense of scale. Maybe tennis ball sized, but I think that’s retroactive.
5. Table was rectangular and wooden. But no legs. Unsure of the thickness.

Included the timely-ness of the details in my answers above.

Interesting point and I’m glad you made it, with a thought (?) experiment to check.

I think I am somewhat aphantastic, but not officially diagnosed.

嗯，嗯。还谢谢你的话。老师说简单的说人才能懂我的意思。说英语的时候我太爱用复杂的句子。

民族主义不是第一种的原因。但是我还是觉得攻击者的背景会有相同的。 我认为他们跟美国的乱开枪者类似。18-50岁男的，生活不愉快，感觉没得到应该得到的东西（钱，女人，房子，工作）。

还有我记得看到外交部说那个孩子还有那个女交通司机被杀了和他们的话没关系不仅不对，而且丢脸和尊重。 其实我还觉得那些幼儿园攻击的受害者家人更难过因为他们的丧亲是不能公之于众。那样太难过。