It’s especially entertaining with a Dutch accent rather than a Flemish one, as that “g” in “wagen” is said in a very unusual way compared to pretty much all other European languages and accents.

Mind you, it’s strangely pleasant to say it that way for me as a non-native, and having picked up the local version of “God damn it” (which has a similar sounding “g”) as an expletive when I lived there, now - almost 2 decades later - it still just comes out in its own when I’m pissed at something.

“We’ve stopped selling paper due to the danger of paper-cuts for people. We will continue selling firearms and ammo.”

The calming down and stress relief all happens once the petting session ends.

Correlation and Causation are just fancy-pantsy words used by experts to lie to us common folk!

Damn magnets just kept slowing the rotation of the blades, so good thing you took them out!

The ultimate shitpost is the post which is posted on a shitpost community and turns out to be entirelly wholesome after reading it (ideally getting people to read it twice or thrice to make sure), hence shitting on everybody on that community who expected it to be a shitpost.

Does knowing that the name comes from one of the join elements (left side) looking like the tail of a dove, improve that?

I use “New” or even “Neue” to distinguish the Nazis that claim to represent Jews and are genocidal towards Arabs, from the Nazis who claimed to represent Arians and were genocidal towards Jews (and Roma, though “curiously” here in the West almost nobody mentions those).

Because the etnicity targetted by one group of Nazis is the “dominant” etnicity of the other, if I don’t do this some people confuse my anti-Zionist point with being pro-Zionist, especially given that the Zionists themselves will use Nazi as a form of slander against people who criticize them.

For every random genetic change that did something that turned out to be useful, there were countless ones that did nothing useful at all or were even counter-productive (to get a sense of how many “tries” there were, consider every time every beetle in the World tries to reproduce times how many eggs they lay times several random genetic changes per egg times millions or billions of years - we’re talking grains of sand in a beach level or even more, and this is just for one kind of creature that doesn’t even reproduce all that frequently - in things like bacteria there are so many reproducing so many times that we actually see evolution in action in a short time frame, for example with the growth of antibiotic resistance).

Then for all those random genetic changes that did something that turned out useful, there are only going to be some were that make enough of a difference in terms of increasing the survival of a beetle till reproduction and way more that didn’t make a difference.

You know what happen to all those quadrillions or whatever of tries that went nowhere? We’ll never know about them because the creatures in question are long dead (if their eggs were viable to begin with). We’ll only ever know about the random genetic changes which did work well enough to give reproductive advantages.

[There are actually a lot of cognitive falacies around how we perceive success because we only really get to know about what worked, not about the countless things that didn’t work. A good example is how most people pretty much only hear about Startups that made it big, yet for every Startup that does succeed enough to become widelly known there are tends or even hundreds of thousands that fail and we never hear about, so it might seem that Startups are generally successful when the reality is, in average, the very opposite]

Continuing on the Evolution story, if the previous part of the process worked based on the Maths of “trully insane large numbers”, at this point we add an effect akin to compounding interest: even if a genetic change adds a very small increase in reproduction for an animal - say, a beetle with a given random genetic change that did do something useful and gives it a 1% higher chance of successfully reproduce - as long as that trait gets passed down to the next generation, it means (rought) that all else be the same there will be 101 beetles born with that change for every 100 beetles born without it, for every reproductive cycle. This might seems little but as I said it compounds, so for example after 71 generations that will have grown to 200 for every 100 and it will keep growing.

This is how even a random genetic change that gives even just a tiny increase in success of living till reproduction and reproduction itself will, given enough time, come to dominate a population.

And then all those slightly different beetles keep on having the random genetic changes happen (the first part of the process) and those additional changes that did work and gave a tiny bit more success over that ones with just the original change will get the compounding part of the process, so those are the ones for whom there are more and more individuals, to which in turn the same process applies.

TL;DR (but you should)

A beetle with a random genetic change that affected its shell that makes it every so slightly harder to spot for predators in a place that has lots of water droplets on leaves will have more descendants than the rest. Some of those will randomly get additional changes that make that effect even more successful at making the beetle harder to detect for predators thus having even more descendants than the rest. Amongst those, the ones with random changes that make it even better will have more descendants and so on: changes towards looking more and more like a water-dropplet make the beetles with them more successful at reproducing that those without the changes.

Given enough time and enough beetles this is how you go from beetles with a “normal” carapace to beetles with a mirror-like carapace.

Evolution doens’t chose anything, it’s just one big statistical N-dimensional field of probabilites with local stable minima (points of maximum success at reproducing) and then some random genetic changes might just happen to matematically nudge a subset of the beetle population towards a specific stable minima on some characteristic (i.e. on one of dimension of those N dimensions) but it could’ve just as easilly and by chance have been a different one, but that didn’t happen so we’ll never hear about it (it’s a bit like the answer to the “Why has evolution made humans that think?” question - "Because if it didn’t made us think we wouldn’t be thinking about it, and if it made humans look different that different being would be what we think is “human”).

Pour encourager les autres

It’s not as if Israel or its leaders have to fear suffering any kind of consequences from France on this, whose posture has been nothing more than mild talkie-talkie and who even refuse to abide by an Arrest Warrant from the ICC on Netanyahu (a very obvious wink-and-nod from Macron to the New Nazis in Israel).

With mainly Collaborator politicians in the various governments in Europe (notable exceptions being those in Spain and the Republic Of Ireland), it’s open season for Mossad to murder Europeans in Europe at will.

That’s an absolutelly natural consequence from in practice condoning and even protecting Nazis going full-on Genocidal and they lose all fear of consequences.

As other have mentioned, we operate with Fractional Reserve Lending, so most Money is not created by governments but by banks when the lend money.

Here is an article from the Bank Of England on it in case you think this is bullshit.

Government control over money creation is, nowadays, mostly indirect via reserve criteria which is a lot softer that the direct control over money printing in the old days.

Your idea of how money is created is at least 30 years out of date.

That “solution” suffers from the problem that requiring hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to get informed about and agree to do something all in the same time period (it won’t work if some do it now and others only later) is incredibly more hard than it is for a few tens of people or maybe a couple hundred to as individuals swarm the sales venues and take all the tickets to resell them for more money.

Or putting things another way, it’s a mountain to climb for large numbers of people to organise and stop scalpers (and that, only for a while, since if people stop doing it the scalpers will return), whilst in the current commercial environment scalpers appearing is a natural outcome.

This kind of thing usually requires changing the structures that make scalping so easy, rather than hoping that somehow (magic?) hundreds of thousands or miliions of people agree to do something.

PS: Yeah, a cultural change would be it, but expecting it to just happen and all at the same time (given that early adopters of that practice won’t actually see any upside until a large enough mass of people have adopted it and they’ll start giving up if too much time goes by whilst they’re refraining from buying from scalpers and yet scalpers keep going because so many others are still doing it) is highly unrealistic.

The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it’s many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.

A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).

Guy justifying White Colonialism with some fable about his race having a right to the land.

Every single colonialist movement that steals land fmro the natives and mass murders them has bullshit like this, all the way back to when the English stole the land from the natives and started calling themselves Americans.

The places I know were they do cook stuff using volcanic heat (in Peru and the Azores islands which are part of Portugal) they do it by digging a hole in an area were the ground is hot from volcanic heat and putting a pan cooking in it (they cover it all to keep the heat).

So it’s more a local technique for cooking for free that then evolved into a couple of traditional dishes.

Never heard of trying to roast stuff on the output of a geyser.

The amount of effort to obtain the female-impressing rock by the crow is far less than by the human, thus indicating that the crow is the wisest of the two.

You fight the Discrimination by going after every situation of discrimination, punishing the individual offenders and compensating the individual victims.

What you don’t do is to carry on Discriminating on the very same visible human characteristics but change the beneficiary groups and call it “positive”.

By defending differentiated treatment based on people’s genetics (the very same genetic traits that Racists use, no less) you’re supporting the very foundation of Racism and every far-right ideology in existence including Nazism.

You’re parroting shit you haven’t really pondered over and doing so with maximum emotionality and minimal rationaly, in practice defending methods which de facto prolong the very thing you claim to want to stop.

Also, why exactly are you avoiding the point I made about the greatest Discrimination being Wealth Discrimination and fighting that will do a lot more to correct the baked in problems of other kinds of discrimination - what you in perfect political-parrot way mention using the 100% parroted expression “brutal oppression” - than your Descrimination-preserving method?

I’m in a leftwing political party were I live and you sound exactly like the stupid kids who swallowed the neoliberal bullshit and think they’re being lefties whilst promoting the far-right way of seeing people, up to and including the raging slogan spewing when confronted with rational analysis of the very neoliberal-think-tank-invented “equality” methods they’ve learned without questioning.

Funny how the new age racists trying to pass themselves as leftwing can’t stop themselves from grouping people based on the genetics they were born with, just like the far-right.

No, “they” are not “all the same” and shouldn’t be treated as if they were.

The way you solve baked poverty from past discrimination is by solving the problems of Poverty, baked or otherwise, which is how a true leftwinger would go after it: you go after the greatest pain and removed it, guided only in the choice of which to go after first by its intensity (as that’s how you maximize the good you do) you don’t go around deeming every individual with the “right” genetics worthy of support no matter how little pain that specific individual is under and every individual with the “wrong” genetics not worthy of support no matter how much pain that specific individual is under.

For example, make sure the best schools are in the poorest neighborhoods and all of the sudden all the poor kids there have the best chances, and that includes the ones whose poverty is the product of past racial discrimination - breaking the cycle of poverty for all those kids will do a lot more good than a few quotas for only people with the right genetics in places that only help the middle-class.

(By the way, this is actually one of the strongest arguments for there not to be Private Education: so that money can’t buy greater life chances for the scions of those who are already better of and the State can channel more educational resources to were it’s needed the most)

The only reason to not go after wealth discrimination in general in Capitalism and instead doing very limited measures for only those with the right genetics, is to protect the Wealthy and Capitalism, which is the very opposite of being a Leftie, which is why you Neoliberals love this “lets not go after wealth discrimination which is the main method to transform other kinds of discrimination into lifelong pain and instead let’s do symbolic middle-class helping measures based on the genetics people are born with” shit.

You see, you’re the one doing the mindless parroting of neoliberal “solutions” fashionable in middle class circles and I’m the one who has been thinking about and guided by, for decades, the core leftwing principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” rather than adopting unquestioningly some prepackaged ideological tidbits that are popular in my social circle.

Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.

By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.