you can’t really compare it

My point is that ridiculous difference. 10m is a lot of money, yet these people wouldn’t actually lose much because what they have left is still so obscenely much more.

Oh no, I mean based on my current income. If I made 10m less than I make now, I’d make about -10m. My yearly income is about 54k, or 0.054m, so subtracting 10m would get me to -9.946m.

I was trying to make a joke about how much 10m is for the average person, yet it’s rather minor when you’re already making 200m.

In fact, I’d be very much happy to make just those 10m, I don’t even need the 200m, nor would I need it more than once. A one-off sum of 10m would be more than enough to solve a lot of my problems and still have plenty left to be ready for future preparations.

Actually, losing 10m income would be bad. For me, at least, it would put me about 10m in debt.

pay off the national debt

As if

Apparently it’s an Israeli news outlet, which will color the way they put it

Garfield would be Slaaneshi - excessive amounts of lasagna

No, but their owners don’t have the bulk buying power to negotiate for better prices with suppliers, the centralised management making the per-store-overhead more efficient, the employment power to push wages, the capital backing to run low prices without risking a bad month leaving a noticeable dent in their liquid assets or even run at a loss for as long as it takes for “lowest price” customers to flock to their stores and drive the local stores out of business.

When commenting on US politics, they should be aware of US political realities though. When taking position relative to US politics, they should be aware of that. At the very least, they should comment that they’re progressive or something along the lines of “Our political orientation isn’t represented in US politics” to acknowledge that, like you did.

But when your CEO endorses Republicans, pretending you’re neutral isn’t a good look.

I don’t think local drug stores can afford to be cheaper than a big corporate chain. But the pricing isn’t the point, it’s fostering competition against corporate monopolies.

Remember that the single purpose of corporations is to make more and more money. By their mandate to their shareholders, all measure of humanity is pushed into the background in favour of growth. The ultimate goal in that pursuit is monopoly: Being the sole supplier for their customers would allow them to dictate sales prices while being the biggest or even sole customer for their suppliers would give them leverage to shift prices in their favour. Their capital backing allows them to cushion out fluctuations in revenue and take losses, so they can afford to underprice and drive out competition, then crank up the enshittification to extort more money from their customers.

A (comparatively smaller) local store has less leverage to enshittify and exploit. Investing in their higher prices is an investment against that enshittification.

Right thing for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. We’ve got bigger fish to fry than him.

For now.

I think spoilers on Lemmy use triple colons:

::: spoiler Spoiler title
hidden content
:::

Glad to make you laugh :)

Even if I knew what that is, I doubt I could do it on my phone, but I appreciate your contribution to the shitpost request chain.

Territorialism. He thinks he can just demand Denmark to sell Greenland to him, but neither Denmark nor Greenland are having any of it. Big Baby didn’t think he’d get pushback and does what he does best: get pissed.

Threads and twitter are both worse than bsky. I like Mastodon even more but bsky is at least a departure from open right extremist rhetorics.

I could debate the braindead assertion, but I don’t feel like it, and in any case a braindead not-Nazi is a net improvement over a Nazi (which are braindead anyway) or a Neo-Nazi (who do a damn good job at imitating that).

a lot more tutorials are now in video form than written (which I don’t love but whatever)

You’re not alone in that, and it seems neither am I

In this case it does.

In this case we’re talking about Elmo displaying what is, in the context of his whole public presentation, clearly intended as a Nazi salute. So no, truthfully stating that other groups have used that salute too isn’t the whole truth because it ignores the context of conversation.

Yes, only that’s not what I am answering.

Yeah, but that wasn’t originally the conversation you tacked on to.

Just that the gesture’s meaning is not definitively only Nazi.

Sure, but why point that out, when it’s not relevant to the conversation of Elmo being a Neo-Nazi? Maybe this helps to consider the optics of your comment:

Media: “Controversial” salute
Comment: Not controversial, just Nazi
You: Well, there are other meanings for the gesture

That sounds a whole lot like the apologism going around trying to paint Elmo as misunderstood.

catch and guess what others think from fundamentally insufficient amount of information.

That’s communication in general. We use shorthands so we don’t always have to elaborate, but a lot of things pick up different meanings in different contexts.

And in the specific context - because, again, the initial comment you responded to was specific to this specific display of this specific gesture - Elon has displayed a lot of Neo-Nazi behaviour. That doesn’t mean he has to be a Neo-Nazi (you’re right, see can’t know for sure what he thinks) but that he’s courting their favour (because we can see what he does). That makes it rather reasonable to assume that a known Neo-Nazi-courter producing something looking like an edgy teenager’s imitation of Hitler’s salute is indeed performing a Nazi salute.

No matter what else the gesture can mean, it’s clear what this instance is intended to signal.

I said justification, not purpose. They claim they want to track usage to tailor your experience to you.

They don’t actually believe that, of course, but respecting your explicit expression of interest ought to be the minimum perfunctory concession to that pretense. By this we can see just how thin a pretense it is.