Unless your “helpers” keep touching your naked body because they get so turned on by it, then they can stay.

But most of the time you can choose your job… Of course working for the TSA might be more comfortable, but what you do with your life is not usually forced.

If the choice is profits or security for customers…

But there’s probably some more systems that prevent it

So I assume you’re asking where to publish your writing to start earning money with it?

Because to “start writing” like answering the question in your title, you just need a pen and some paper or a keyboard and computer or anything similar and start putting words in them.

And it also seems like you’re already publishing it. Something is missing from your question.

Just to add semi-related, don’t worry about communities having little to no recent activity. I once posted in a community where the last post was 6 months ago and got relevant comments from 5 people anyway, giving me exactly what I wanted.

No one forces you to use let’s encrypt certificates. Can just quickly switch to another one temporarily.

This is actually advice I feel like :D

I also don’t care about Christmas and gifts and if someone doesn’t like it, that’s really their problem not mine. If it’s the same for OP, i.e. it costs (more) energy because it’s something they don’t care about, the solution could be to accept that not caring about it is ok.

It is indeed possible for a person/entity to do a good thing and a bad thing. Who would’ve guessed, it’s actually incredibly likely. I’m sure Luigi was no angel and can be criticized about many things, though he likely didn’t have the power to perform systematic human rights transgressions.

Obviously a short statement like this one will not be a complete representation of the situation.

Often, especially people that compulsively try to not be assholes are very much assholes, since they expect to be ultra nice and be treated ultra nice in return, even if their niceness is situationally not appreciated and the niceness they expect in return for their own niceness is unreasonable.

All times are interesting, just in different ways.

If you’re not an asshole, then you’re not human.

I think they get it very well, it’s economically advantageous for them that you pay more on your shipping.

People who would start co-ops are usually decent and don’t care about profits that much. They wouldn’t exploit their workers or other obvious strategies that would put profit more important than wellbeing.

All the companies that don’t care about this have much less costs. Thus the companies that don’t care about morality can offer lower prices than the co-ops, and since most customers care about that more than anything else, the co-ops are driven out of business much more often.

What is “useful”?

I didn’t think we were talking about the law. I thought we were talking about personal moral considerations, which don’t have much to do with the law or courts.

There is actually no contradiction. I’m pretty sure everyone would be on board with those CEOs going to prison for life instead of them being killed.

The difference is that a convicted murderer is being punished. Healthcare CEOs are instead rewarded with a life of luxury for killing people. The law does not punish them for their transgressions. A citizen can not imprison the CEO for life. What they can do is shoot em.

So what many people are saying is that “rather a bad person gets punished than rewarded”. And if the only realistic punishment possible is killing them, because it’s fast and easy to do, then that’s deemed as acceptable even though killing is bad. Being rewarded for being evil is worse.

The only difference is the immediacy. If exploitative strategies by healthcare companies directly caused harm to you or a loved one, it could very much be interpreted as self-defence to kill their CEO.

I would definitely want to see them prosecuted. However, the sentence should probably be light. I’m not perfectly familiar with the justice system, so I don’t know how much of this is currently the case, but I think vigilante justice should result in smaller punishments than for example if the reason of the murder was personal gain. If it can actually be proven that the murder victim did those terrible things they were killed for, depending how terrible those things are, the sentence should be reduced. If for example someone killed Hitler, there should be no punishments for this murderer.

Of course that allows murderers for personal gain to claim they did it for vigilante justice, but they would have to find something they can actually prove their victim to be guilty of. This will probably be hard. But I think if they actually find something on the victim, as twisted as it sounds, I think it’s actually fine if the sentence gets reduced. Because in the end I think the murder of an unpunished morally bankrupt person is less bad than the murder of a completely innocent person.

From what you played I only played Witcher myself, and recently watched a video on, dunno maybe that can make you understand why people watch gaming videos, it’s essentially about what would happen if you play the game out of order: https://youtu.be/aA0KgaW513g

I have mostly been playing Baldurs Gate 3 and Beyond All Reason

Of course, this is absolutely true right now, but population is growing. What do you think happens with perfectly equal resource distribution but unlimited population growth?