They don’t. Piercing jewelry is usually made from robust materials that are inert in normal conditions, like stainless steel, gold, plastics, and sometimes glass or gemstones. So, no, you don’t taste anything, just as you don’t taste a plastic cup, ceramic mug, or stainless steel pot.

The question was “Why do you not believe in universal healthcare?” not “Why don’t you like the libertarian movement?” Jeez, guys.

Isn’t it kinda funny that the “most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet,” yet this article is locked behind a paywall?

Now I want this set! What is a wooden palette for? Can you explain?

Absolutely, I’m totally with you on this! And obviously, they’re not mutually exclusive. Right now, though, it seems like there’s zero effort being put into the latter option. I’m just feeling a bit frustrated, hence the stronger words and arguments than I probably should be using. My bad if it came off like I was saying these choices can’t coexist.

All of these are examples of the free market colluding under capitalism exactly how you describe that it should be and creating a wealth inequality that ultimately screws workers with no recourse.

All of these are examples of attempts to control billionaires in their field through bureaucracy and law. I’m advocating for a change in strategy. You’re attempting to enforce more rules because it seems like a good idea, and it is… in the short term. But we’ve seen countless times that controlling, forcing, and policing never work! After all, corporations will prevail again if we don’t redirect our energy elsewhere. Instead of focusing on controlling the rich, we should educate the poor. We should offer them choices and options rather than attempting to seize control from the wealthy. All you (and almost everyone else) are doing is repeating, like a mantra, “tax the rich” and providing examples of corporations utilizing options WE provided. I believe that you genuinely want better for all people, but from my perspective, it’s you who advocates for strategies that haven’t worked and will not work, without realizing it. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope that you (and everyone else here) are right and I’m wrong because it appears that your agenda is gaining popularity, while my opinion is very unpopular. Your “plan” simply has a greater likelihood of being implemented and finding supporters. Because if you’re all wrong… we’re doomed, guys.

Why do we keep focusing on stopping scammers instead of teaching people about scams? I think it’s important for everyone to know their true worth, but just banning scams doesn’t solve much. On the other hand, if people can recognize scams, they won’t fall for them.

I’m reading the answers, and it seems like no one understood the question. 😔

Now you can take that offer to the market and see if there’s anyone willing to work for you at $100 an hour. It’d be great if there’s someone interested! If not, you could think about raising the pay or improving working conditions. If that’s not possible, maybe your business isn’t sustainable, and you might need to consider other options. Whatever you decide, I believe you have choices and can determine what’s best for you on your own. You’re smart enough to make your own decisions without needing someone else to do it for you!

market under capitalism is also more than capable of conspiring to make sure that wages are lower across the board

So, you’re saying the job market tends to favor employers over employees? I’m not entirely sold on that idea. The market works both ways! Workers do have options, like forming unions (as legal entities or just as formal agreements) or negotiating for better wages and conditions. If a job doesn’t pay enough or isn’t fair, you can always look elsewhere or demand more. Plus, if there are people willing to work for less, isn’t it their choice? I’m completely okay with the idea of educating them, trying to persuade them that working for scraps is not okay, but why stop them if they’re okay with it? Why exactly are we stopping employers who can only afford that much, and workers who are willing to work for it, from meeting each other?

Both sides have valid points. If nobody is willing to pay a minimum wage for a job, then that wage isn’t right for that job. Take, for instance, the task of answering phone calls and jotting down information. Let’s say I get 5 to 10 calls daily, spanning from 9 am to 9 pm. I’m not prepared to fork over minimum wage multiplied by 12 for this work, and I doubt you are either. It just doesn’t seem fair compensation. However, if folks are offering to do the job for $20 a day and I can’t match that, then maybe my business isn’t sustainable and I should bow out. The point is, each job is unique and should be compensated accordingly. There’s no one-size-fits-all wage. The market and the law of supply and demand are the closest thing we have to a fair system. Let people determine what they’re willing to work for and what they’re willing to pay for that work. People aren’t dumb; they can decide if a dollar an hour or a hundred works for them.

Personally, I’m a proponent of Universal Basic Income. Instead of fussing over minimum wages and social benefits, let’s switch to UBI and support each other as a society. Sure, we should tax the wealthy, but relying on minimum wage as a fix? That’s a misguided notion. Minimum wage was a band-aid solution for inequality that’s stuck around longer than it should have. If you’re in favor of it, you’re essentially backing the status quo. We need fresh solutions for inequality, ones that break free from the usual narratives pushed by the media and society. It’s not easy, I get that. But let’s dare to think beyond the confines of convention and consider the future generations. Society seems stuck in a loop, and frankly, I’m fed up. Aren’t you?

Haven’t touched Factorio in ages. Really looking forward to diving back in with the Space Age expansion!

Games really have to strike a chord with me to stick around in my memory. The last ones that truly left an impression were from when I first got into gaming. I can still vividly remember the impact of Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, GTA 3, and Vice City and San Andreas—they consumed my thoughts entirely. The allure of uncovering hidden secrets, areas left unexplored, that’s what really drew me in. Half-life 2 was a mind-blowing breakthrough with its physics and storytelling. But nowadays, that spark just seems to be missing. The closest I’ve come recently was with Blizzard’s Heroes of the Storm. The thrill of snatching a victory against the odds, the sense of connection with total strangers—it was something special. It’s the only game that still gets my heart racing these days. However, I’ve found myself drifting away from HotS more and more; it feels like the game is losing its luster (or maybe it’s Blizzard who’s letting it fade… or perhaps MOBAs in general are falling out of favor). As for recent gems that really struck a chord with me, I’d have to mention Hollow Knight, Control (seriously underrated in my opinion—easily one of the best metroidvanias out there, if not the best), and Baldur’s Gate 3, which was unexpectedly captivating.

I spent about 30 seconds staring at this question, followed by 3 minutes pondering how to explain the phenomenon of electricity to someone unfamiliar with it, but nothing came to mind. Then, I went online and found that, while we have some understanding of how to detect and manipulate electricity, fundamentally, it’s just how our universe works and we don’t know exactly what it is.

This comment was the most wholesome thing I saw all week. Even though it wasn’t aimed at me, I deeply appreciate it! ☺️

2% for the reliable independent monetary system seems like a good deal. How much does our current one consume with all its flaws?

I’m going to be heavily downvoted again, but can y’all please stop posting Al Jazeera links? Al Jazeera is propagandistic media. They lie too often to be trusted. Every word that they say should be heavily fact-checked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism

But why though? I’m serious. People willingly want to be customers of this. They know that *polies are going to have leverage on them and still buy their product. Why should we say, ‘No, we’re not going to let you do that’? Or maybe you think that people are just not informed enough and don’t understand the consequences of their actions? Then maybe we should educate them instead of trying to control?

But that’s the thing - they aren’t. Not once they’re bought. At that point, they’re my device, or your device.

Well, you may want it to be completely yours, but in fact, there are many things that you can’t and sometimes don’t want to control on your phone. But Apple never claimed that you can control everything. Apple never advertised their phones as having many application stores; quite the opposite, actually. You don’t expect a satellite connection from a phone that doesn’t have it; you don’t expect a phone without water resistance to work underwater. I understand if some product does not meet your expectations, you’re frustrated, but in this case, you received exactly what you asked for. Want something else? Buy from another company. Why force this company to do things your way?

Surely you can see how having a single supplier can be a bad thing, right? That supplier has no incentive to deliver quality. Why would they?

Of course, I can see that having a single supplier can and will cause many issues. The problem for me is that I don’t believe in monopolies. Monopolies are very unstable. Firstly, for a monopoly to form, a few things with low probability should happen: in your analogy, there should be no other cookie provider (neither now nor in the foreseeable future), and customers should be willing to buy cookies that I produce at any cost. In reality, there’s always someone else who’s willing to (or at least can) produce more cookies, and customers are not complete idiots. If I increase the price or lower the quality beyond their limit, very quickly I will be left with full warehouses and a bad reputation and go bankrupt. Secondly, you always have a choice. Present me with a situation, and I will tell you which choices you have (they all may be bad, but whatever they are, they are options). In the case of Apple, there are obviously plenty of choices. They’re not the only company producing smartphones. And even on their phones, there’s Cydia. So, what monopoly does Apple have? Well, they’re the only corporation that can produce iPhones. Should we allow other companies to produce iPhones in this case?

I’m an anti-Apple advocate and an Android user. And I’m against this law. What good does it bring? These are Apple’s devices; let them do whatever they want with them. Don’t like how Apple does business? Buy another brand. Advocate against Apple. Suggest alternatives. But do not force them to do things how you like. It’s just toxic. I believe that the most anti-consumer thing is when governments try to decide what customers want or need. I hate it when they take me for an idiot (I might often be, but let me make my mistakes and learn from them).