If the amount of money massively outweighs your bills, then I would say yes. Also if your “bills” are extreme luxury, then even without that. We really need to stop with this massive wealth inequality. Our economy works on transactions. If the profit margin on any transaction (including labor) is exorbitantly high, then something is going wrong. An investment banker is not more valuable than a teacher. A CEO is not more valuable than a janitor.

Exactly. The question is how much is really necessary to operate that service. We as a species really need to stop thinking about constant growth and more and more wealth, and that includes growth and wealth that is “reasonable” compared to other extremely greedy people. Right now it looks like Steam is growing to infinity and making more and more money. They’re the same like everyone else trying to make more and more money. Of course they’re more ethical and they return value for that money, but they’re still part of the same system of infinite growth that is not sustainable.

This infinite growth is happening because they extract more value than they require. If they extracted as much value as they require to sustain their business, they wouldn’t grow. But of course constant growth is what everyone expects and thus no one sees a problem with it.

I see it as stealing.

Who said anything about costs/bills? I’m talking about excessive wealth extraction. If a group of people gets massively wealthy by taking lots of money from other people, one should wonder if they really need all that money.

It’s still stealing if the profit is this extremely high. Of course a successful business includes providing a useful product. But if you make so much more money per employee than any other company, that means the amount you’re charging is disproportional. They could change Steam fees to 5% and still be extremely profitable. They choose not to because of greed.

This is not me condemning them by the way, I think their greed and what they do with the money available to them is still mostly better than what other people do, but it’s still greed.

I define all excessive profit as stealing. In an ideal world everyone would be earning roughly the same. (Or no earning being necessary at all, but I don’t want to go into every detail)

Do you really think that Trump wouldn’t be replaced by a more evil and intelligent republican, and then win because of Trump being a martyr?

The republicans have Trump as a runner because he’s the only one who has any chance or winning. As soon as he’s politically-motivated murdered, that changes completely. It’d be even scarier to have an actual smart fascist at the helm.

You’re delusional if you think a killed Trump would have been good. He’d get replaced by a more evil and intelligent republican which would then definitely win the election.

I think he may have been right.

Looks like you had plenty of time to complete it since you’ve managed to hit the “Send reply” button and the request thus sent to the Lemmy server actually completed, allowing us to now view your intentionally unfinished comment. I think this is

You’re absolutely right. I live in a country of socialized healthcare so it’s easy to forget how important it is.

Which is easily possible, just eat no fiber. Astronauts do it to create no waste.

Don’t know what it has to do with my comment though, yours should be a standalone reply to this topic?

I think “enough” is when you don’t have to worry about water, food and shelter.

I have roughly enough to pay for these things, a little more, can get internet and a few euros each month for random luxury stuff.

I earned more before, but I reduced the hours in my job severely so I get to this money state. I like the reduced hours more than having more money.

So yeah for me, idk what everyone’s talking about, there’s definitely an “enough”. Of course, more is also “nice” but “enough” is when you survive with a little bit over.

Of course, like others say, for most people there is not an “enough”, they keep wanting more. It depends on the individuals. I have a bunch of friends who are friends because they think like me. But I can’t be friends with most of the population because they can’t get enough.

Famous people are mostly famous exactly because they can’t get enough. No one works that much, tries to acquire status that much, if they are satisfied eventually. Because when you would be satisfied, you stop chasing more fame, not getting to a level that we would call “famous”.

https://lemm.ee/post/36080599/12990706

It’s actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)… You start actually believing that other people can’t hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).

You simply don’t give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal… But why? What is the benefit for me? I don’t need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.

If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it’s their problem. They’re evil/unaware/selfish. It’s no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it’s honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.

As I said at the beginning, “not quite”, there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don’t expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I’m fine with whatever happens.

(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can’t experience anything “normally” anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I’m not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)

Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess that’s why it’s a hot take. I think it’s possible without becoming a recluse

Other people shouldn’t be able to hurt you, non-physically.

Most important here is the dabbing.

Also what no one has said yet, if you put two identical people next to each other, same mindset, same character, same visuals etc etc, but the one is wealthy and the other is poor, for 99% of people the wealthier one is more sexually attractive. Our brains view access to resources as a desirable quality.

And so, why would a rom com that is literally supposed to be about attractive people, make them purposefully less attractive? There’s basically no reason.

For example.

But honestly I was more joking. The thing that makes most projects useful is the developers developing it, and they can’t clone that

They’re not supposed to, it’s just about blocking them from using the software :)

The real solution is to include a few tiananmenSquare variables in all the repositories. Either they exclude the entire repository or just the specific file, in either case the entire project may be unusable.