A marriage is supposed to be a partnership, a joined life. Failing to support your partner is an issue.

But then we get squeamish about this specific example, but that’s where the logic should lead to no-fault divorce.

It’s not our business to say she must have sex with her husband nor to know why, but at the same time she’s not supporting their shared life. The easy, ethical way out of this is to agree with both sides: your sex life is no one else’s business and it looks like your marriage is not working

So is “no fault” a thing in France? Shouldn’t it be?

There’s bad guys all around but this is not “both sides the same”. Adding a new evil does nothing to resolve the situation. How about finding a way that respects human rights and doesn’t disrupt the economy? How about looking at actual facts on undocumented immigrants and act on the the most common or most egregious rather than the most brown skin? How about supporting those who are avoiding persecution in their home country?

Instead of ICE raids directed against sanctuary cities, very likely to be racist, with the intent of political revenge and instilling fear, how about:

• reform migrant worker laws to address the actual needs, prevent exploitation, and enforce against the employers who violate
• speed up processing and protection for those fleeing violence
• enforce student and other visa types who over-stay their status

This would be more comprehensive, respect human rights, avoid racism, and improve compliance with the laws. It focuses on results rather than partisanship or instilling fear

But I don’t remember our government wasting time and official action on that. It was just a “popular” movement supported by propaganda

It doesn’t matter who their customers are, Google is a us based company.

However, hopefully they are able to depose, delay, deny this ridiculousness

The military has rules limiting what they can do, especially against acting within the US, and every service member is supposed to disobey illegal orders.

When I give out my email, I always get spam, regardless of how many boxes I uncheck.

When I give out my phone number, sometimes I don’t

Of course that no longer makes sense since I have one phone number I can’t easily change, but give out uniquely generated emails that I can individually turn off

And yet this is a place where centrism is the goal.

• We know that trying to tightly control economies does not work. At all. We shouldnt even try.
• We also know that corporate-anarchy serves only robber barons. That’s not acceptable.

So yes, the best answer is to give the market freedom but not complete freedom. To let it do its ups and downs … within limits. To combine the strengths of capitalism with the guardrails of a guided market. Where the capitalist driven market does not serve society, it’s a failure to guide the market so capitalism fulfills desirable goals

Just like he has one executive order for energy production and another to pause offshore wind farm leases

None of them have come close to the severity of the Great Depression. We’ll never control all instabilities, the important part is limiting their severity

Yes, I’ve been affected by several of these. I’ve gotten laid off during downturns. I’ve been affected by high interest rates. I’ve been affected by unattainable housing. But at least it wasn’t worse

Maybe, but hopefully the existing controls will prevent that from happening again …. Unless overzealous attempts at “reducing regulations” break those. There were quite a few factors around the Great Depression but consider controls like:

• “circuit breakers”, automatically halt trading when a stock or the overall market drops too quickly
• “qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss
• bank requirements for capital, risk, so less likely to collapse
• bank rescues - Lemmy likes to complain about rescuing banks instead of people, but bank collapses during a crisis are what can push the crash off the deep end

Also the overall size and complexity of the modern investment industry should make it much less likely for any one type of investment to drive a general crash.

Why should they be stopped by the government? That assumes the stock market should be logical and predictable but why should that be true? It’s all speculation, just a step above gambling, and people should be allowed to.

Tesla is a great example. Its stock has never been at an expected level for their revenue or profit. It’s all speculation about their potential to disrupt the car market (which they have), and predictions like 50% growth per year. Even now, self-driving and artificial intelligence seem a bit far fetched to most of us, but if they happen will be very disruptive.

But yes , politicians should have required ethics standards, including banning insider training. The rest of us have to: how does it make sense for our leaders to have lower ethical standards than everyone else?

It’s so unfortunate - teslas are really nice cars now that theyve dialed in the quality. Its a perfect size for my needs, has great range for road trips, has features not available elsewhere at any price, and it’s a gadget lovers dream. I really don’t see anything comparable to my Model Y, and so many less capable cars are so much more expensive. Maybe that will start to change this year as other brands start being able to use Tesla Superchargers, but they all really seem a couple years behind in technology, or way too expensive

Ever since musk doubled down on a submarine for rescuing those kids from a cave and clearly couldn’t accept criticism, what has this guy been thinking. I’ll always appreciate his middle career when he helped establish some visionary, inspirational companies like Tesla , SpaceX, StarLink, but he really lost touch with reality. I guess when you have ungodly amounts of money, it’s too easy to see yourself as a god, or something.