Yeah, ridiculous. It’s not like the court didn’t recognize the putrescence of the acts in general, since others got over 20 years.
Even the fucking camera guy, who apparently wasn’t involved in the actual trafficking at all, got 4 years. Is any sane person going to argue that his offense is twice as bad as hers?
the difference in monetary wealth is greater now, unless I have been mislead.
That is true, but in the end, it’s largely irrelevant. The incidence of poverty matters infinitely more than how large the gap is between the wealthiest and everyone else.
If hypothetically, not one person in the US was pulling down a penny less than $75k/year, that’d mean no one’s broke, right? And yet the size of the wealth gap would basically be identical, because the difference between $0 and $75,000 is nothing compared to the difference between $0 or $75,000, and hundreds of billions.
Over the past 100 years, the number of (inflation-adjusted, of course) billionaires per capita in the US increased by a whopping 7x. And yet, poverty was MUCH worse in 1925 than it is in 2025. Also, iirc, there is a positive correlation between average standard of living, and billionaires per capita, in a given country.
Eradicating poverty is the thing to aim for, but directly. And, despite the very common misconception, reducing the wealth of the wealthiest people (especially considering that the majority of that wealth is newly-created valuation, not actual money) will not move the needle toward that goal, at all. Too many people think wealth is a zero-sum thing, and assume the gap being wider than ever must mean that those not at the top have less than ever—that’s simply not true.
That would most likely be because you are ignorant of when it has already literally happened in the past, in other nations.
On multiple occasions in multiple countries, wealth taxes primarily aimed at the wealthiest demographic have been tried, and then repealed because overall tax revenue literally decreased as a result. There is a reason the vast majority of countries that have implemented such taxes have either since repealed them, or ‘loosened’ them such that they’re no longer primarily aimed at said demographic, and have become a much more ‘typical’ tax that the middle class pays.
no reason to discard the idea of putting a ceiling on the rich.
There is a very good reason to discard the idea of assigning an arbitrary ‘maximum wealth’, two actually:
It would be tremendously expensive resource-wise, logistically, to even reliably determine if one has reached that ceiling (net worth figures for individuals that you see in the media are guesses, not the result of actual auditing), much less calculate with any degree of certainty how far over the ceiling someone is, and that ‘research/enforcement cost’ is practically certain to completely cancel out (and then some) any potential added revenue, especially because it’s also trivially easy to circumvent by creating debt, etc.
After 10 million networth in wealth, all your income should go to taxes 100% until you’re below that limit…
This would be trivially easy to circumvent if it was put into place, just so you know.
Recently I’ve been seeing signs on them that kids can call Santa
That’s adorable :)
This is a very good way for a lot of terrible people to fly completely under the radar. There isn’t a(n accurate) ‘child molester’ stereotype—you do victims no favor by making assumptions like these.
how many women have been inappropriately approached by adult men.
This isn’t actually a useful metric for drawing any conclusions about men, objectively speaking.
The typical woman has met thousands upon thousands of men in her life; if she was inappropriately approached by as few as a single one of them, on a single occasion, she now falls in the ‘women that have been inappropriately approached by adult men’ category. It’s very easily possible for the percentage of such women to be as high as literally 100%, while simultaneously, the percentage of men making those inappropriate approaches is far, far below 1%.
Also, it merits mentioning that the number of victims should not be assumed to equal the number of perpetrators. The kind of man to do this sort of thing is certain to be several different women’s ‘man who inappropriately approached me’. This also widens the gap between the actual percentage of men doing this, and what may be assumed based on individual personal experiences.
One thing you could take as a data point is what searches are most common on Pornhub.
Neither ‘barely legal’ nor anything adjacent to it even made the top search list in 2024. On the other hand, there are several entries in that list that imply older women (e.g. milf, step mom, teacher).
As an aside, I was also intrigued to see that “wife” made the list.
So we had sex one more time
…
After all, for all the doc knows, you could be a trans guy.
Not after the first physical, lol.
Force of habit is likely to play a role at that point, lol.
she has experience in the field so documentation of symptoms is something she understands
This jumped out to me as a possible contributor to the distrust. Speaking with that level of familiarity is probably something they see much more often from people experienced in lying/exaggerating to get meds, than from people in the industry, simply because the former group has a lot more people in it overall.
If you aren’t going to believe me anyway just give me the damn test and don’t bother me with the question.
It’s not about not believing you, it’s about the fact that it’s possible for people to be pregnant without realizing it, and the doctors obviously don’t know you personally.
The reason they ask at all is because if you say yes, then they don’t bother giving you the test. They were always planning to give you the test if you say anything but “yes”, to cover all their asses against lawsuits bases.
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
Criminal charges isn’t a fucking conviction.
Nobody said it was, straw man builder. But the headline is deliberately misleading, and that’s what I was pointing out.
There is literally zero reason to cherry-pick specific cities when assessing ICE’s actions as a department.
What point are you trying to make about it being higher than the general population?
…that that demographic contains more than double the incidence of violent criminals than the general population. What else?
That they are doing ever so slightly better than arresting people at random?
The crime ICE is arresting people for is not a violent one, so this is a complete non-sequitur.
This is precisely what would change:
Meh, not nearly as big a deal as the headline suggests. And from the looks of this thread, not many people actually got this far into the article, and just made assumptions based on the headline, so sensationalism wins again, I guess…