I think if you are a part of those three then you are automatically part of GB

It's about the latter but it doesn't have to work, just looks like you took action to solve a Daily Mail agenda..

Is that not just oatmeal and water?

Difficult but legally required by them, including establishing your bona fides.

Really? Like where are you thinking about?

Boomers have been in power for a long long time and the technology we are debating is as a result of their investment and prioritisation. So am not sure they are very afraid of it.

They would rise but not uniformly esp if we could charge accurately. So we would start to penalise the more destructive models and encourage lower transport choices.

We can condemn Hamas and Israel in the same breath. We don't have to support Israel as the agency to "remove" Hamas.

Could be that that is employee headcount and not including contractors.

Depends if they also evaporate.

You would have to show how you made sufficient surplus from sales minus the cost of labour to pay off the loan. The business case usually has a solid section on this.

Obviously there is a future made of automation and ai but that is also the end of capitalism as the workers have not been paid to buy the product you just made.

Seems sensible but if we imagine that by some measure, like PISA, our children seemed to be stagnating or going backwards, who will be accountable? Then a PM will say, elect me and i will take responsibility.

It's annoying but also inevitable for as long as we demand that our PMs fix things and be accountable.

Not disagreeing with the thrust that atheists can tend to push their views a bit but technically everyone is a bit of an atheist.

There are maybe 5000 gods currently being believed-in across the globe. A Christian doesn't believe in 4999 of them, an atheist doesn't believe in just one more.

Not actually true if we mean left as in ownership by the people and the right means ownership by capital.

Authoritarian or totalitarian are not the same as right.

Well, not to diss on giving to charity but two technical arguments against. One is, you are acting as an additional tax on the worker (the source of the surplus) and then redirecting that tax to charity. It's fine but the elected government has democratically selected priorities that they can rarely fund so it is better to just give it to the treasury. And 2, just don't collect this tax in the first place, allowing the worker to spend it on the local economy.

The if is JC running?

But don't brigadiers outrank sergeant majors?

Yes, we can still go in but now we have measured the difference and can judge what it would take to make it worthwhile.

This is the key, and it cuts in different ways and needs planning strategy.

If we don't go into town, then the businesses associated with going to work in town are in trouble, so coffee, lunch, snack, may as well get a book, after work drinks and then late food. All have less customers. Some of whom are themselves!

So a spiral of decline, less retail jobs in town, less secondary and tertiary employment "in town".

Theoretically we can now spend some of that money locally IF the local has the supply and this is where political strategy is needed to replan where we sleep as always where we spend our casual cash. And in many cases these dormitories are not well planned for that.

So unfortunately we need to wait out this next phase of resistance in order to build political consensus for zoning and planning for more sustainable local hubs.

Agreed on the thrust of your comment but i also saw that a few changes to the nature of earth and everything changes. For example, a bit bigger and we could not use a rocket to leave orbit as it would exceed the power ratios. A bit closer to the sun etc.

And the fact that it took 4bn years.

The raw maths produces alot of planets but they still have to be Goldilocks