TIL we have it. That is very useful, thank you!

That’s also my perspective, speaking as someone who also remembers the early days of the Net.

How the hell is it gross though to use toilet paper when your hand would be even dirtier with poo if you use it plainly?? That’s a recipe for illness…

That strike authorisation is very interesting, I don’t even know if we have that here. Great idea!

Thing is that those billionnaires do exactly that, just the wrong way. No one needs to be a billionnaire or multimillionnaire.

Outsider but I’d say TMI is simple:

when you can reasonably narrow it down to a handful, say a group smaller than say, 25 people. At least, EU laws state that in such circumstances, you shouldn’t share. This is because then any random person could be able to go off addresses or such, and find them.

For example, with naming sites, putting up the most common names - fine. Really rare names? Nope.

But then also, what if you have one thing that’s common, and another that’s also common, and together, you can narrow it down to a small group?

Then I’d also say: don’t tell the common thing you wanted to share.

Furthermore: there should be consent. The right to be forgotten or at least stay anonymous should be important.

So:

i) do not share specific information that could narrow them down to a group smaller than 25 people,

ii) if sharing common information, combined with earlier known common-ish information, will narrow them down, don’t share.

iii) if the person themselves (and verifies such) shares identifying info within a specific group, information should stay within that group, and only be shared upon agreement with the person.

The only exception imo would be for suspects fleeing a life-threatening/socio-economically extremely ruining crime scene they created. Think stab murders, million-fraudsters, and people harassing minorities. But even then: no name-leaking, address leaking, or photos. Only appearance and behavioral characteristics - only things that will help arrest them, while also giving them a chance to better their life later after. Only when this fails to find the suspect, should that information also be shared, against the person’s consent.

These rules should apply to everyone, regardless of whether they are celebrities or not.

Difference is that my saying is based on a historically vested principle, simple as: one man, one vote. Instead of: your vote doesn’t count, only the oligarch’s does.

That’s surprising. I own a bicycle too, as does practically everyone here. Never got it stolen.

A tip is to not have an expensive looking bicycle, but one that looks shoddy. Locking can also happen in multiple ways, and at different places. You might need to bind it to a street light for example, through the wheel and the frame.

A foldable bicycle is also an option.

The ‘funny’ thing is that Trump never had won. He gained fewer votes than Hillary in 2016…

Similarly, Bush imo is an illegitimate president, as he didn’t gain more votes than Al Gore.

Yeah, you’re right. I find it strange that people here literally would prefer to save a cat over a human. Would they really let their friend burn over a cat? A stranger who likely has done nothing except work and be generally kind to others? I think that they who let the stranger burn, then have worse morality.

The question is bad because it features an animal the person is assumed to have a band with, and a stranger. I think a better example would be:

Who would you save in these scenarios:

1. a bad (eg aggressive) cat, or your worst enemy,
2. a cat, or a stranger,
3. your cat, or your best friend

Neither because I don’t have a cat, and a stranger first, because they are human too. Saving both is the goal, but first I’d save the stranger, then the cat, and depending on how bad they are, the worst enemy. If that enemy did only a bit of bullying, save. If that enemy is likely to not do anything good back, and has caused suffering, no saving.

There’s also HER, or Hinge, or Bumble (latter’s not necessarily queer focused though, using queer here as a shortterm for lgbtq+. But it’s friendly).

Huh, interesting. Voyager’s one of the Lemmy apps? Is it for iOS too?

That is a virtue. Sure, it’s good to speak up, but it’d be worse to speak without considering your words.

Only if sped up, and I can pause, go back, or forth. I can’t speed up to instantly go to today though, obviously.

But like, 100,000 years per second? Sure.

Not all of that money goes to the developer, but also to the seller places and other places. You’d also still have to pay income tax.

Ideally, there’d just be a 100% income and wealth tax after having say, 1/10,000,000th of the world’s total GDP. Without any loopholes.

With a world GDP of approx. $ 102 trillion, or 102 billion if you use the long scale, that is about $ 10.2 million you would have at max.

I think it fair up until then, exploited after that. With that money, you can practically buy anything to your heart’s content anyways.

How about more brackets?

– Practical scenario –

Suppose you had a wealth of 10 billion. The lowest bracket is a 3 billionth of the world’s income, so say 34k. That’s taxed 0%.

The lower middle is from there til 1.6 billionth of that income, around 64k. Taxed 35%.

Upper middle, around 1.6 billionth til 1 billionth (around 100k), taxed 65%.

Upper, around 1 billionth til 1 millionth (10 million) of world’s GDP, has about 99%.

Highest has 1 millionth and beyond. Let’s assume the world’s GDP is 100 trillion for ease of calculation.

So, you have 10 billion. 10 bil - 10 mil. 9.99 bil, all removed, used for public works.

10 mil - 100k, 9.9 mil. Taxing 99% of that 9.9 mil gets 99k.

And so on, until you have a smaller but respectable amount to play with.

Not wanting to learn a language of the country you live in, is kinda asocial tbh

Only downside is that it doesn’t have different icons, which Memmy and Mlem do. But eh.