That is also my point. Don’t worry though, you keep impeaching him until he dissolves congress.

You’re response being ‘yeah but you can be impeached multiple times’ exactly demonstrates the weakness of that action.

Yep that’s my point

I disagree, I think the removal of ads is often painted as a benefit that had inherent value. Look at YouTube premium or Prime video. Both haven’t actually improved their offering, just made it worse by introducing ads and insisting users that don’t want to see ads have to pay for the privilege of not being advertised to.

This means the total price adds up to higher than 100% of the product value, because it’s a ‘premium’ version that comes without advertisement inconvenience.

If his actions benefit Russia is he not an asset to them? The question should be is he a Russian actor or just a useful idiot to them.

Didn’t you guys try that before?

Paying for the product and paying to not be inconvenienced by ads have become separate things. The first is standard business, the second is extortion.

I think what you’re trying to say is that the social commentary has lost a lot of nuance, as well as the general quality of the writing going down, in which case I agree. Kinda toeing the line of the ‘everything is woke now’ crowd though, to which I would say you haven’t seen/understood much Doctor Who if you think social issues are only recently a part of the stories.

For the record the Rosa Parks ep was one of my favourites for Jodie, but it’s a low bar.

Feel free to contribute any features you feel it is missing

Why disappointing? I think it looks promising,lalthough the chances of it reaching the heights of S1 are low.

Do you think the ruling class wants to see its own children fight in the coliseum for sport?

That’s why showing the expected outcome is also very important. It can feel very verbose, but the number of times I’ve been unclear as to if something worked because the documentation goes on immediately to the next step without demonstrating the success/failure states is extremely frustrating.

Can you explain what this is, so that I don’t have to google it and end up on a list?

This 100%, too many musk fanboys don’t understand how much he is actually hindering innovation.

Even at SpaceX they make more progress when he isn’t involved.

Owning that much of a company that is valued that highly is still damaging to society, even if it isn’t liquid cash. Even putting aside their ability to take out loans with the shares as collateral, if the company is really worth that much it should be owned by a larger number of people with each taking a reasonably sized share to ensure that decisions are not made selfishly.

Taxing unrealised gains also hurt working class people dabbling in the stock market to try and improve their circumstance. IMO once you reach a net worth of $1B you get a pat on the back that you won captalism, and a 200% tax rate on anything beyond that to force you to give it up. No one person should own and control so much of a company if it truely has so much value, divide it among those that created the value i.e. the employees.

At least an expensive car is usually a better product though, so many of these t-shirts are simply cheap cotton but the price is $$$$ because the logo of a company that also makes actually expensive products is on it.

One of Harris and Trump is going to be the president. Sorry but that is the reality, the time for getting a better candidate has passed.

It is time to pick which one you want. If you don’t vote you don’t care so you accept either outcome.

Voting is not and should not be wholly endorsing the person, but securing the best outcome from the options. You want better options then go into politics yourself.

I agree with every point you made, and obviously this is better than having no cap at all, but this is exactly what makes the argument a false dichotomy, which the government is doing more than you were. Any positives are only relative to the single invented alternative, not any of the better solutions.

The simple fact is that public services like public transport, the NHS, postal service etc should not need to be profitable. They should never be expected to support themselves financially and should be funded by taxation on those who can most afford, not increasing the cost for use by those that most require its services.

Public services will continue to crack and fail until we have a government that understands this.

Thanks mate, edited

I get your frustration, but it is really important to keep spelling it out. I find it very frustrating to be on the receiving and of lines like I'm tired of explaining it to you people when I am earnestly engaging in a conversation for the first time, so I think it’s best to give people the benefit of the doubt that maybe they really don’t know, especially on forums where people other than those commenting will read it also.

Because Harris is open to ceasefire pressure and Trump want’s Israel to ‘Finish the job’.

One’s hands aren’t morally clean if you don’t vote and Trump wins. Not voting is functionally equivalent to voting for whoever wins, and if he does win with a low turnout then those who didn’t vote are responsible for whatever happens.