You're not supposed to hurt your friends.

But it does describe the control of resources and to an extent force, which is "political" in addition to economic.

That's a valid point, though I still wouldn't call it a pyramid scheme.

You're not forced to take on that debt though, nor is the debt unpayable unless you take on more debt. Some people put themselves into a ponzi-like situation either through poor financial decision making or circumstances so shit that they can't do any better, but the average person doesn't need to take out a loan on a freaking pair of nikes or even a car or house. It's a cultural norm to get a mortgage, but if you do the math it often doesn't make sense to and isn't anywhere close to mandatory. At most you could argue that the US government debt works that way, but even that's iffy and depends on your geopolitical outlook.

How so though? This sounds like a statement that's meant to be flashy but doesn't actually hold up. Pyramid schemes are characterized by a) an eventual lack of ability to recruit more people, b) recruitment rather than a product or a service being the driver, and c) a person at the bottom left with nothing, including recourse. Capitalism, even completely free capitalism, doesn't work like that unless you specifically rig it to do so. That's called "corruption".

There's probably also a difference in the variety within each dish and the effect it has. "Eating the same thing" is probably better if you eat granola with dark chocolate, cashews, blueberries, and spinach topped with almond milk and banana for breakfast versus a banana for breakfast. The nutrient profile is still always the same and that's not great, but at least the former has different nutrient profiles within it.

Everything about Loblaws just screams "lol fuck you", because they're everywhere and there's nothing you can do about it and they know it. They're a bit like Putin - he knows he's lying, and he knows you know, but he does it anyway with a huge grin on his face as if to mock you. They're even worse than telecom.

I've actually gotten into niche stores like bakeries. I'm not the stop and smell the roses type, but there's nothing like a good loaf of bread. I'm also streamlining my diet, so that helps a lot because you can get the same "whole foods" virtually anywhere and you don't need a thousand fancy packaged branded foods.

K guys, I decided on a one week cycle with only a few perishables. Will update in a while on how it goes.

I'm not a dietitian either, but I am followed by one, and their recommendation for me specifically was to try it and report back with a list of what I ate and whether the Master Plan (TM) stuck. The lack of variation isn't ideal, but in my case, as per their rationale, the potential benefits outweigh the downsides because I tend to default to junk food when my culinary life gets too complicated (she isn't wrong). Granted though, I don't plan to eat the same thing daily, so for someone who's literally on repeat every single day or who already has a very healthy diet, I imagine the recommendation would likely change.

How on earth is TFA too female led? Han Solo, Kylo Ren, Poe... it's not even "female led" let alone "dominantly female", and even if it was that wouldn't make it inherently sexist.

I think there's two subsets of these people.

One subset is actually really smart, book smart even, but just doesn't have a personality that aligns with the format of the education system. Those people tend to do really well in a different environment where they have more intrinsic motivation to succeed. For example, I know someone who didn't do well in school even though he had the ability to because he just didn't really see any reward, so he had no motivation. He went into finance and got through uni and his first few job with flying colors, because there was a reward at the end of the tunnel to pursue.

The other subset just doesn't do well with any sort of "bookish" stuff - math, sciences, finance, engineering, etc. just don't really fly. A lot of them I find feel a bit lost because they feel pressure to find a passion or orient themselves around a career when they just don't have anything that sparks an interest. I find that those people tend to do well when they pursue "active" jobs that don't feel like school. A person I know in this category struggled with school throughout his life, but was really good at working with people and interacting on that emotional plane. He went into social services and now works as a crisis counsellor. Most of the "schooling" was basically just situational training, and the job itself is so intuitive to him. Honestly if he didn't have bills to pay I swear he'd do that job for free. Other people in this category are ok with a job just feeling like work, so any high paying trade tends to work well because they can go to work, do their hours, and then enjoy life.

I'm sure this isn't the biggest thing, but I used to work at a big chain grocery store and "accidentally forget" to scan certain items. Old woman with a food stamp in her hand vs. u/spez-level arrogant billionaire CEO? You pay me $10/hr you fuckers, if you want me to notice the toilet paper in the bottom of the cart you'd better up my pay or help that chick out. I was far from the only one.

The doc "Ivory Tower" really got me interested in alternatives to traditional higher education, i.e. the kind that will get you the same income without $100000000000000000000000000000 in debt compounding at a rate of 100% daily. Fuck colleges man, honestly.

I'm sure everyone has had at least a couple of cases. For me it was when a bank employee performed a cash advance, which I have never, ever consented to in my life, and then claimed I had given her permission to do it. Read: she fucked up and blamed it on me. I requested the contact info of her supervisor, who had the audacity to suggest that it wasn't a large sum of money and I should essentially suck it up. That branch manager got an earful and a half and a phone call from the competition bureau (which was great, because it usually takes multiple complaints for them to take action).

Now this is the Karen-y part. Whenever a company that I'm a regular customer of does something morally wrong (as opposed to a mistake or a less than competent employee), I boycott them until, in my estimation, I've cost them 100x the sum of the initial disputed amount (I have substitute actions for cases that don't have a clear dollar value). In this case I cancelled my credit products with them. My boycott is set to expire (i.e. reach the 100x mark) in February of 2024. The rationale behind this is that if 1% of consumers do it, it'll no longer be worth it for them to continue the practice, and it gives you a satisfying end goal. You can't boycott every company that wrongs you indefinitely - I only have a handful on my permanent blacklist - but I can make my peace with it if I know I've comfortably done my part.

But then everything's all wet. What do I do then?

We have a huge amount of resources for very little effort though. Back in the day you could work your ass off in the field all day, but there was no medical technology to cure illness, no vast swaths of entertainment options, no heating to keep you warm (unless you made a fire), and no hamburger that could be delivered to your door with the touch of a button. If you could not starve, lose a toe to frostbite, or die during childbirth, you were doing pretty well.

Right now you've probably never had to deal with hunger - even those under the poverty line can sustain a nutritionally decent diet (albeit an insanely boring one) in the developed world, your life expectancy is somewhere between 75 and 90, the water you drink is clean, there are no soldiers looking to skin you to death, and you're lying on a fluffy mattress stuffing popcorn into your face. If you're an average person, you probably have access to luxuries that were completely inaccessible just a few generations ago, and your working conditions are far better even if you find them boring.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the suffering you might argue exists is preventable. You're not obligated to eat unhealthy foods, watch crummy netflix movies all day, have children (well, unless an old white dude decided otherwise), smoke, etc. The balance of individual choice vs. external influence is debatable, but certainly preferable to having no choice at all.

Why could "getting you" not be a person's most important to-do item? Would Putin not benefit greatly from getting Zelensky? Would the person up for a promotion not benefit from sabotaging their competition? Would a drug lord not benefit if his competition accidentally slipped and fell and died? There are so many instances in which a person would very logically (not to mention emotionally) benefit from targeting you personally - that's basically the foundation of politics and resource distribution.

You can also ask an adjacent question, which is whether we should attempt to continue to exist as a species. My personal take would be a hard no - I think it would be preferable to seek to end our species within the next few generations - but some would argue that we should attempt to colonize space and maximize our presence.

The maximum level is the level at which a) the average sentient being of that generation can be expected to live a net positive life, b) the addition of another does not reduce the positivity of other lives, and c) the individual being itself would live a net positive life. What is considered a net positive is its own question since pleasure exceeding suffering is subjective, but there's a strong argument to be made that there is an increasing net negative, and that's not nearly limited to the climate change argument (in fact that's probably one of the weaker angles one can take).

You can also go sliding scale, though you'd have to compete with the eugenics argument (which is possible), and say that some children are worth bringing into the world and others are not. For example, huge net negatives would be someone who sucks up so many resources that they make the average human life worse or someone whose circumstances make them far more likely to live a qualitatively poor life.