Consumers are not weak-willed; Consumers are ignorant and stupid.
Mostly consumers are not able to even able to understand points of difference between products, let alone map and apply a case-by-case comparative value.
Many years ago, in the dim and distant past, I used to sell things for a big box store. This included TVs and Laptops. In this role I set a few sales records. Never once did I sell a product insurance policy.
The way an above average consumer shops for a complex product is that they do a (very) little research and decide on a list of five or six features that are important. Then they see how little money they can pay for those features.
The way a below average consumer shops is that they pick a brand that speaks to their values, then pick a price point within that brand.
As a result, a (say laptop) company does some market research and figures out the buzz-word features that consumers are looking for this month. They then produce a product with those buzz-word features, and cut the costs of everything else to get the price as low as they can. Winning!
Never mind that most laptops die because of dust issues and cooling failure; that replacement lithium batteries can cost as much as the replacement cost of a (refurbished or whatever) computer. Consumers don't understand, they don't care and they won't start.
Want a case study? Look at the way Apple does business. They spend a lot to have a high value brand. They build a walled-garden and aim for maximum data lock-in. Phones, tablets and laptops last the life of their batteries.
With other brands, the models are mostly commodities. The exceptions are Gamers, who are deeply involved in the hobby of gaming, and often hand-build their own computers so they can pick every component. Joe Sixpack will never give a shit about how much an all-in-one water-cooler will extend the life of his box.
I do not know of any method by which the population in general and women in specific can be caused to care about the tech on which they depend for their quality of life. Take away a person's electronics and offer them a notebook and pen and some snail mail stamps; Watch their head explode.
He remarked that about the US election. I am paraphrasing:
"The only way that the election could have been stolen is for every major institution in the USA to be captured. That is extraordinarily unlikely, therefore it is extraordinarily unlikely that the US election was dishonest."
From memory He was said it on a podcast with that tool Bret Weinstein directly after the election.
Well, as it turns out ... according to the TIME article, there was a literal conspiracy to 'fortify' the election, and it had been happening since almost the day Trump won the first time.
I love JP, but sometimes he just has no idea.
There is a bit more to it than that. If a female doesn't receive consistent nutrition for a critical few years of her puberty, her boobs don't grow. Anorexic girls who starve themselves during puberty (about 12 to 15 or something?) don't resume growing where they left off. They just miss out.
So while small boobs are not necessarily a sign of poor childhood nutrition, large boobs are always a sign of good childhood nutrition. Maternal childhood nutrition is expressed in epigenetics in the next generation. Poorly nourished mother = small, less healthy babies.
Want to see examples of this in the wild? Look at the sizes of Japanese women following WWII. After the USA took over, the Japanese people got decent access to protean for almost the first time ever. The USA made sure that the Japanese nation bought a lot of US Produce, including meat. Japanese women went from being short and skinny with little boobs to being all different shapes and sizes, including some very gifted ladies.
So you are right. Big tits = strong hardy babies with well formed organs and many other benefits.
Reminder that an IUD has no side effects. They last for years.
Historically, the Ukrainian company has been caught stealing billions of dollars worth of gas. This is historical record.
I mean, perhaps they are honest now? But probably not?
In 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Oleh Dubyna acknowledged that in 2000 alone 8–7 billion cubic metres (280–250 billion cubic feet) of Russian natural gas had been diverted from export pipelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes
You're not going to get raped.
Only because rape usually happens within the context of relationships with people you already know. Burning down all potential of sexual relationships will also fix the chances that you get sexually abused by a partner or acquaintance.
Guy, heavy Crystal Meth use can cause early onset, aggressive dementia (and worse) at 50. At which point the state has to care for them for thirty years. You can't fix that.
Sniffing solvents (glue, chroming paint, etc) is worse.
For you to not have a massive social cost of self-destructive behavior, you either need medical execution of these cases, or you need to end public funding for the old and venerable.
I don't want either of those things. Do you?
"Sorry kids. Grandpa has to get put down because he was a pack a day smoker, and he is going to take five years to die of very expensive lung cancer. It is his own fault."
George: " And the mastermind behind the whole crack cocaine operation is ..."
George pulls the pillowcase off the man in handcuffs.
Daphne: " CIA Deputy Director Smith!"
Velma: "Jinkies!"
Scooby: "Rut Roh!"
Shaggy: "I got a bad feeling about this Scoob."
The US marines have done extensive testing on the kind of injuries incurred during basic training.
Women are more than 30 times more likely to blow out a hip ligament under strain. That is, marching with a pack or similar. Over all women are much, much more likely to develop injuries during the physically challenging situations of training and then battle.
Even if you did find a woman who could pass the same tests as a man (there is probably one or two) then she would still be very likely to end her career with a serious, permanent injury, wasting her training and depriving the nation of her abilities.
Look, a very good friend was a loadmaster for C130 transport aircraft for the air force. She must weigh a hundred pounds wringing wet. She was great at her job and an asset to the country.
Then she left to have a baby and never came back. Do the fucking math.
She didn't just tank the stock. She shuttered the search engine (ie the core competency of Yahoo) and then spent the multi-billion dollar cash reserve on long-shot start-ups, hoping to find the next new Facebook.
She would have done better by buying scratch lottery tickets.
I loved my wife too; until she gutted me like a fish.
Now perhaps in a month or two I might get to see my daughter for an hour, under supervision of the authorities, while I fight the bullshit made-up accusations of child abuse. For the second time.
I am sure your wife will never use that gun she has held to your head. Never! She is Not A Woman Like That.
But she could. Any moment.
And if she does she'll get massive and far reaching social support for doing the right thing.
Computing Forever did a great series on this very issue. He referenced EU documents, Gates Foundation documents and Rockefeller Foundation documents, all written before the pandemic.
He did a good job of running down the initial predictions of death rates and identifying who funded them.
I used to have a playlist of his examination of the subject including some really insightful interviews with world respected scientists;
But he has been banned from YouTube for spreading Covid misinformation. Woo.
To sum up, I think it is a lot easier to take advantage of a crisis if you already have your pieces in place and an effective media machine to control the messaging and public perception. Everyone knew that a pandemic would be coming eventually; they come every few years. The one before this was the H1N1 swine flu.
Generalizations and stereotypes have value. Your brain must start from somewhere. It persists because it is useful. Germans have things in common with each other. Arabs have a cultural consensus on some values.
Racism isn't making generalizations about groups of people; it is failing to adjust from that position when you encounter from an individual.
These are generalizations:
- All blacks are good people
- All white people are racist
- All Arabs are friendly
Not only are all of them wrong, none of them are helpful as a place to start to form a judgement, being a gross oversimplification of something that is as complex as a thumbnail sketch of the common values of a culture.
You seem to be bent out of shape that watching PublicFreakouts would adjust the view of certain groups to being significantly more negative. Perhaps you are right, but that isn't "choosing to be racist".
Admittedly, it might start your perceptions of certain individuals from a cynical and jaundiced place; but that is different from it being factually wrong; or as you seem to think, immoral.
Personally, I think that putting all people with dark skin in a single bucket marked "black" is fucking stupid. A person (black or white) raised in an inner city ghetto isn't the same as a person (black or white) raised in a rural country town, or even a decent suburb.
And I don't know if you are aware but in other nations, broad cultural groups are not color coded for your convenience. Europe basically doesn't have black people, and if you meet one the color of their skin won't much help you to make a judgement on their cultural origin. A Berber has almost nothing in common with a British born person with a dark skin or a swarthy Spaniard.
Didn't she brag about using date rape drugs as a stripper?
Women are predisposed to empathy with other women.
They can learn empathy with men, but it usually takes something affecting a man they care about (like their brother or son) before they can apply that empathy to men they don't know personally.
Women stick together, and they stick together against men.
This explains almost everything about feminism.
So instead of a relaxing aerial tour, perhaps a community service program? Digging holes, perhaps.
Or fertilizer application in the fields? Perhaps either or both might give some perspective?
You should look up the definition of a "Natural Monopoly".
By definition, the market can not find an efficient solution for a "Natural Monopoly". The choice is to either regulate the market or to have the people (the government) own the Natural Monopoly and run it as a service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Examples of Natural Monopolies include: