Mk23simp

Well, there's a few aspects of it. If they push it, it could make my experience worse (This tends to happen with any service that's pushing AI). I also consider it to be highly unethical, so it lowers my opinion of their ethics (not that it's high to begin with) and makes me more likely to protest them on ethical grounds. After all, I'm here now instead of Reddit for similar reasons.

That seems like a quick way to get me to cancel my Spotify subscription.

I would go further, especially considering the context:

Give people a survivable wage.

Regardless of whether they can work or not. People's survival should not be contingent on working. Give people what they need to survive as a baseline, and then if they want to work for more, they can negotiate for employment on equal terms.

The back of the tank's main body has some vents that are weak points autocannon can destroy. Although sometimes when you do that the turret survives the death of the main body and still keeps shooting. As far as I know the barrager turret itself has no weak points, so it takes anti-tank damage to kill it. They should fix both of those things IMO (the turret surviving the body's death and having no weak points).

Their worst sin in my opinion is actually how they split off the end of the Smaug storyline to be resolved in, like, the first five minutes of the third movie (literally before the title) rather than resolving it in the second movie. Huge pacing mistake.

I agree that both genocides are bad, but I disagree on a few points:

1. The genocide of Palestinians has been going on since long before October 7. Hamas didn't initiate it, they just performed a relatively minor act of retaliation which Israel used as an excuse to escalate the genocide.

2. For those of us in the west, our own governments are supporting the latter genocide. So of course we're more outraged about the blood that's on our own hands (in some sense). I think that Russia should be stopped as well, but not sending weapons in support of a genocide seems like a pretty clear first step we should be taking.

I guess it depends on your definition of religion. To me, it sounds like a personal religion, even if just one person believes in it. There are any number of religions too small to be included in their list, probably, so they should have an "Other" option, and that seems like the best fit for someone who has a personal set of religious beliefs that do not align with a listed religion.

That sounds more like "Other" than "None".

Under plurality voting, third parties are objectively bad for the winning chances of whatever party they pull more voters from (and/or bad for whatever major party you personally would vote for, if you personally vote third party). That might be what some people meant by them being "bad", even though they prefer one of those major parties to win (and cheer on anything that makes the other party less likely to win). Although it's certainly possible that some people just think they are bad in general. People do have different opinions, after all.

It's only hypocrisy if they do things that disagree with their own views, and their own views are internally conistent in this case. Their view is not that all third parties are bad, their view is that third parties that have a negative impact are bad. So it doesn't make it hypocrisy just because it disagrees with your straw man of their views.

There definitely are better taxes than property taxes. But, since it's a red state, they would probably replace it with a worse one. Or just debt.

If the democrats lose the election, I fully expect them to roll over and let Trump take power. In that case, Trump would have the institutions on his side, even as he seeks to dismantle those same institutions going forward. Democrats constantly show themselves to be willing to play by the rules, even as Republicans show themselves to be willing to bend those rules.

If he loses the election, I expect there will be an attempt to take power anyways (again), but I think that attempt is likely to fail (again) when he doesn't have the institutions on his side.

The degree of difference between the two potential outcomes is quite pronounced. You can say "Both sides bad" and you'd be right, but bad vs good is not a binary, it's a spectrum, and there's a huge degree of difference in how bad the two sides are.