Like when Trump published the minutes from his “perfect phone call”.

Obama could have pardoned the prisoners and apologized for holding them for many years without trial, in blatant violation of the plain text in the US Constitution.

It is much more common for people who have only worked at 1 or 2 places, and who have not seen the impacts of changing economic cycles, to have less context and understanding of what is normal and acceptable.

In the eternal words of Jimi Hendrix, “tire tracks all across your back… I can see you’ve had your fun”. 😉

You have to decide for yourself. Some people find the extra preparation too much of a hassle. Some have a sore butt for the next day… which can be a turn off, or a spicy reminder of the session.

Amazing photograph!

Love the garter style stockings.

Am I the only one who was reminded of the opening video in Fallout 2?

https://youtu.be/0_BYycHO_6A

Yeah during Trudeau’s speech the only thing I was thinking when he was listing all of Canada’s resources is, “are you trying to encourage a US invasion?!”

I guess we’ll never know if the system you describe here would work, since it has never existed. Companies have been using induced demand, loss leaders, cross subsidies, bundling, marketing, and a million other similar tricks to limit consumers access to knowledge and confuse them since long before Adam Smith fantasized about capital as the best of all possible worlds.

In Europe each stall has actual walls and the doors are actually doors. So mixing is fine, because everyone has actual privacy.

Fixed that for you:

Capitalization Breeds Innovation

I was in favor of unisex bathrooms, but someone pointed out that women are constantly harassed by men and the only safe way to escape unwanted attention is to retreat to a place that men basically cannot enter.

That is, it can be unsafe for a woman to tell a man to leave her alone, or that she’s not interested, or similar. She can go to the bathroom though.

Firstly, I challenge the assumption that efficiency is the most important goal. This was addressed very convincingly almost 70 years ago in The Affluent Society:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society

This book explains that we should not use the same policies for a society which is constantly struggling on a knife edge between starvation and death. That was not the reality 70 years ago and is much less tha case today.

Even if we assume that efficiency is the most important goal, what you are actually arguing for is well-designed markets as the tool to achieve that. I question even this, since a profitable company is by definition less efficient than one that makes little or no profit, since profit is the extra wealth that the company extracts after paying all bills.

Even if we assume that a for profit market is the best way to manage resources and achieve efficiency, capitalism is fundamentally a bad model for that, since practices like hiding information from consumers or capturing regulators are great ways to increase profits without improving efficiency or managing resources effectively.

tl;dr fuck capitalism. 😉

I thought that it was BRICS? Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

I think this is not really true. Capitalism means that even if you are not greedy you are forced to destroy all rivals and collect all capital for yourself… otherwise you will be destroyed.

Marx identified that capitalism by necessity leads to an endless cycle of collapses. There is no way to avoid suffering under capitalism.

If the don’t plan on seizing nukes then they’ll end up like Ukraine…

Nice video!

This feels so weird to me. I don’t know anyone who has used SMS for communication in many years.